|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 07/22/07 09:39
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 04:15:02
GMT El Kabong scribed:
>
> "Neredbojias" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9974AD1D14682nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 21 Jul 2007
>> 19:35:22 GMT nice.guy.nige scribed:
>>
>>> While the city slept, El Kabong (davelong40@verizon.net) feverishly
>>> typed...
>>>
>>>> In fact, why waste time designing for browsers that stats show
>>>> are used by less than 5% of Web visitors?
>>>
>>> What great reasoning! Excuse me while I phone my boss and explain
>>> that I'm going to just ignore approximately 250 - 300 unique
>>> visitors (otherwise known as potential customers) to his site every
>>> day. I'm sure he'll understand.
>>
>> Wow, and here I thought you were going to miss the point.
>>
>> (I believe he was being sarcastic, as you were.)
>>
> I dunno, N. maybe I should have been but, to be honest, I wasn't...
Whaaaa?!! I'm flabbergasted! Guess I owe Nigel an apology. Might ruin
my image, though...
> probably because I've never had a site successful enough to attract
> 6,000 unique visitors per day (300/.05) (I'm small potatoes.)
Hah! I'm smaller than that, bub! -And in spite of my magnetic
personality.
> However, after checking stats for most of my 82 sites, I could only
> come up with 10 visitors using browsers other than IE6 or 7, FF, or
> Safari. Add that to the fact that, realistically, only about 1 out of
> 50 visitors ever becomes a cash customer, (which isn't too bad a close
> rate,)
No,I'd say not at all a bad rate, 1 out of 50 (even if it sounds like it
came from Star Trek) could make you a rich man someday should you hit on
the right product in that venue.
it's doubtful that any of the 10 "brand Xers" were lost sales
> anyway.
>
> That's not to say that those 10 visitors were *unable* to view the
> pages as presented, just that the sites weren't *optimized* for their
> brand X browsers. But guess what! They're most likely used to that
> because the majority of the sites they visit are not going to be
> optimized for their off-the-wall software either.
>
> No, when my client is looking at doubled or tripled costs for his
> site's design in order to appeal to a handful of nerds who are more
> interested in research (or just being weird) than actually shopping,
> he'll usually opt to ignore those visitors using the geekware. It just
> boils down to a combination of diminished return on investment and
> good business sense.
>
> We'll leave the experimental stuff to the folks who don't have
> anything else to do with their time or money. After they get it
> debugged and standardized, we'll jump all over it. I realize that,
> being concerned with the absolute correctness of design as this group
> is, (appropriately,) it isn't likely anyone here will agree with my
> POV, but C'est la vie! I will survive.
>
> But thanks, N, for the vote of confidence... even if it was misplaced.
Well don't unsaddle the burro yet, gringo. I very much agree with your
sentiments on diminished return and good business sense. Yes, an author
_should_ do everything he reasonably can to make a good, standards-
compliant, and even accessibility-cognizant page. However, the keyword
is "reasonably" and what's reasonable to a sub-par author is probably not
reasonable to an adept author. Furthermore, given the sad state of the
standards themselves and of the browsers compliance to said standards, I
think we're a long way from _reasonably_ expecting a universally near-
perfect page from anyone.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|