Firefox numbers les then 10%

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by NetX, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. NetX

    NetX Guest

    NetX, Feb 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NetX

    RichCI Guest

    On Feb 6, 10:06 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    > Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.
    >
    > seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
    >
    > http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/browser-wars-redux--micros...



    The way I see it, if you're writing valid, well structured HTML, it
    doesn't matter which browser your visitors are using. Your pages
    should display well in both or, if you really feel you need you have
    to use something specific to IE, then your pages should fail
    gracefully in other browsers.

    Finally, if you decide to code for only IE and let the chips fall
    where they may for other browsers, you need to decide how many users
    5% includes depending on your site traffic. If your site gets
    1,000,000 hits per month, are you willing to turn away 50,000
    potential visitors or customers?
    RichCI, Feb 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2007-02-06, NetX <no@one> wrote:

    > Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.
    >
    > seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
    >
    >
    > http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/a...edux--microsoft-ie7-and-mozilla-fir.asp/3457/


    I've gotta laugh, NetX. The article you cited above really doesn't
    support your case at all. After going through all the browser statistics
    and showing that FireFox is the only browser showing any degree of
    voluntary uptake by users, it concludes with this paragraph:

    Most pressingly: will Firefox ever overtake Internet Explorer after
    starting the chase on April 3rd 2003? Well, ask us in another three
    years time and it's not inconceivable that you would get an
    affirmative.

    Did you actually read the article, or just look at the pretty graphs?

    --

    John ()
    John Thompson, Feb 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Once Upon A Time NetX wrote:

    >Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.
    >
    >seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
    >
    >
    >http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/a...edux--microsoft-ie7-and-mozilla-fir.asp/3457/


    "Perhaps this is a true example of Christmas cheer, as bubbly frothing
    tech-geeks over the world open their new iMacs with joy and play with
    them for the first time?"

    Bubbly frothing tech-geeks? Who does this writer think his audience is?


    **
    Captain Infinity
    Captain Infinity, Feb 6, 2007
    #4
  5. NetX

    NetX Guest

    "RichCI" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 6, 10:06 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    >> Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.
    >>
    >> seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
    >>
    >> http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/browser-wars-redux--micros...

    >
    >
    > The way I see it, if you're writing valid, well structured HTML, it
    > doesn't matter which browser your visitors are using. Your pages
    > should display well in both or, if you really feel you need you have
    > to use something specific to IE, then your pages should fail
    > gracefully in other browsers.



    yes correct, but there is a lot more you can do with IE than FF



    >
    > Finally, if you decide to code for only IE and let the chips fall
    > where they may for other browsers, you need to decide how many users
    > 5% includes depending on your site traffic.



    where did you get the idea someone had codded only for IE?


    If your site gets
    > 1,000,000 hits per month, are you willing to turn away 50,000
    > potential visitors or customers?
    >


    I don't think you read the post correctly
    NetX, Feb 7, 2007
    #5
  6. NetX

    NetX Guest

    "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    news:2.dhs.org...
    > On 2007-02-06, NetX <no@one> wrote:
    >
    >> Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.
    >>
    >> seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/a...edux--microsoft-ie7-and-mozilla-fir.asp/3457/

    >
    > I've gotta laugh, NetX. The article you cited above really doesn't
    > support your case at all. After going through all the browser statistics
    > and showing that FireFox is the only browser showing any degree of
    > voluntary uptake by users, it concludes with this paragraph:
    >
    > Most pressingly: will Firefox ever overtake Internet Explorer after
    > starting the chase on April 3rd 2003? Well, ask us in another three
    > years time and it's not inconceivable that you would get an
    > affirmative.
    >
    > Did you actually read the article, or just look at the pretty graphs?
    >



    you seem to be getting upset


    > John ()
    NetX, Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. NetX

    RichCI Guest

    On Feb 7, 5:36 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    > "RichCI" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Feb 6, 10:06 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    > >> Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.

    >
    > >> seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.

    >
    > >>http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/browser-wars-redux--micros...

    >
    > > The way I see it, if you're writing valid, well structured HTML, it
    > > doesn't matter which browser your visitors are using. Your pages
    > > should display well in both or, if you really feel you need you have
    > > to use something specific to IE, then your pages should fail
    > > gracefully in other browsers.

    >
    > yes correct, but there is a lot more you can do with IE than FF
    >
    >
    >
    > > Finally, if you decide to code for only IE and let the chips fall
    > > where they may for other browsers, you need to decide how many users
    > > 5% includes depending on your site traffic.

    >
    > where did you get the idea someone had codded only for IE?
    >
    > If your site gets
    >
    > > 1,000,000 hits per month, are you willing to turn away 50,000
    > > potential visitors or customers?

    >
    > I don't think you read the post correctly



    I should have been more clear, but the point I was attempting to make
    is that browser stats aren't very useful. Personally, I don't care
    which browser a user has as I code my commercial web sites so that
    they should work equally well no matter what a person is viewing it
    with.

    With commercial sites, I can't get hung up on cool little stylistic
    elements just for the sake of style if it messes up how the page looks
    in other browsers and budget and/or time constraints don't always
    allow for doing browser detection to display the page two different
    ways depending on the agent (for the most part, I think that's a waste
    of time for style elements anyway unless it's Flash where the software
    generates that code for you anyway).

    If it's an corporate intranet site where the company has a standard
    web browser all employees must use then sure, have at it and code
    using browser-specific elements as you know what your audience *will*
    be using. Otherwise, I recommend validating all code using W3C
    standards.
    RichCI, Feb 7, 2007
    #7
  8. NetX

    NetX Guest

    "RichCI" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 7, 5:36 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    >> "RichCI" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > On Feb 6, 10:06 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    >> >> Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.

    >>
    >> >> seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.

    >>
    >> >>http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/browser-wars-redux--micros...

    >>
    >> > The way I see it, if you're writing valid, well structured HTML, it
    >> > doesn't matter which browser your visitors are using. Your pages
    >> > should display well in both or, if you really feel you need you have
    >> > to use something specific to IE, then your pages should fail
    >> > gracefully in other browsers.

    >>
    >> yes correct, but there is a lot more you can do with IE than FF
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Finally, if you decide to code for only IE and let the chips fall
    >> > where they may for other browsers, you need to decide how many users
    >> > 5% includes depending on your site traffic.

    >>
    >> where did you get the idea someone had codded only for IE?
    >>
    >> If your site gets
    >>
    >> > 1,000,000 hits per month, are you willing to turn away 50,000
    >> > potential visitors or customers?

    >>
    >> I don't think you read the post correctly

    >
    >
    > I should have been more clear, but the point I was attempting to make
    > is that browser stats aren't very useful. Personally, I don't care
    > which browser a user has as I code my commercial web sites so that
    > they should work equally well no matter what a person is viewing it
    > with.
    >
    > With commercial sites, I can't get hung up on cool little stylistic
    > elements just for the sake of style if it messes up how the page looks
    > in other browsers and budget and/or time constraints don't always
    > allow for doing browser detection to display the page two different
    > ways depending on the agent (for the most part, I think that's a waste
    > of time for style elements anyway unless it's Flash where the software
    > generates that code for you anyway).
    >
    > If it's an corporate intranet site where the company has a standard
    > web browser all employees must use then sure, have at it and code
    > using browser-specific elements as you know what your audience *will*
    > be using. Otherwise, I recommend validating all code using W3C
    > standards.
    >



    For the most part I agree, but the use of flash I don't agree, as many
    people do not install flash. But many clients want features that may not
    work on all browsers. One such feature that comes to mind is filters, and
    this leads to annoying work arounds. I tend to use object detection rather
    than browser detection, as browsers in the future may employ the object and
    the page can then render the object without having to rewrite the page. I
    don't believe in lowing the feature set to the lowest common denominator.
    NetX, Feb 7, 2007
    #8
  9. NetX

    RichCI Guest

    On Feb 7, 10:12 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    > "RichCI" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Feb 7, 5:36 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    > >> "RichCI" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:...

    >
    > >> > On Feb 6, 10:06 am, "NetX" <no@one> wrote:
    > >> >> Figures from my web sites show firefox about 5% of hits.

    >
    > >> >> seems I'm not the only one that sees it that way.

    >
    > >> >>http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/browser-wars-redux--micros...

    >
    > >> > The way I see it, if you're writing valid, well structured HTML, it
    > >> > doesn't matter which browser your visitors are using. Your pages
    > >> > should display well in both or, if you really feel you need you have
    > >> > to use something specific to IE, then your pages should fail
    > >> > gracefully in other browsers.

    >
    > >> yes correct, but there is a lot more you can do with IE than FF

    >
    > >> > Finally, if you decide to code for only IE and let the chips fall
    > >> > where they may for other browsers, you need to decide how many users
    > >> > 5% includes depending on your site traffic.

    >
    > >> where did you get the idea someone had codded only for IE?

    >
    > >> If your site gets

    >
    > >> > 1,000,000 hits per month, are you willing to turn away 50,000
    > >> > potential visitors or customers?

    >
    > >> I don't think you read the post correctly

    >
    > > I should have been more clear, but the point I was attempting to make
    > > is that browser stats aren't very useful. Personally, I don't care
    > > which browser a user has as I code my commercial web sites so that
    > > they should work equally well no matter what a person is viewing it
    > > with.

    >
    > > With commercial sites, I can't get hung up on cool little stylistic
    > > elements just for the sake of style if it messes up how the page looks
    > > in other browsers and budget and/or time constraints don't always
    > > allow for doing browser detection to display the page two different
    > > ways depending on the agent (for the most part, I think that's a waste
    > > of time for style elements anyway unless it's Flash where the software
    > > generates that code for you anyway).

    >
    > > If it's an corporate intranet site where the company has a standard
    > > web browser all employees must use then sure, have at it and code
    > > using browser-specific elements as you know what your audience *will*
    > > be using. Otherwise, I recommend validating all code using W3C
    > > standards.

    >
    > For the most part I agree, but the use of flash I don't agree, as many
    > people do not install flash. But many clients want features that may not
    > work on all browsers.


    I'm with you there and prefer to use Flash in only noncritical areas.
    Actually, I'm not even a big fan of Flash to begin with unless it
    serves some purpose that can't be accomplished through more standard
    means but at least there's a prompt asking the user if they would like
    to install the plug in.

    > One such feature that comes to mind is filters, and
    > this leads to annoying work arounds. I tend to use object detection rather
    > than browser detection, as browsers in the future may employ the object and
    > the page can then render the object without having to rewrite the page. I
    > don't believe in lowing the feature set to the lowest common denominator.


    Yeah, it's a judgment call. I still try to avoid having to having to
    do any kind of detection in the first place though but you do what you
    have to do as the business areas demand.
    RichCI, Feb 7, 2007
    #9
  10. On 2007-02-07, NetX <no@one> wrote:

    > "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    > news:2.dhs.org...


    >> I've gotta laugh, NetX. The article you cited above really doesn't
    >> support your case at all. After going through all the browser statistics
    >> and showing that FireFox is the only browser showing any degree of
    >> voluntary uptake by users, it concludes with this paragraph:
    >>
    >> Most pressingly: will Firefox ever overtake Internet Explorer after
    >> starting the chase on April 3rd 2003? Well, ask us in another three
    >> years time and it's not inconceivable that you would get an
    >> affirmative.
    >>
    >> Did you actually read the article, or just look at the pretty graphs?


    > you seem to be getting upset


    No; as I mentioned above, I was laughing. Now, please answer: did you
    read the article? If so, how did you come to a conclusion diametrically
    opposite to that of the authors?

    --

    John ()
    John Thompson, Feb 8, 2007
    #10
  11. NetX

    NetX Guest

    "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    news:2.dhs.org...
    > On 2007-02-07, NetX <no@one> wrote:
    >
    >> "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    >> news:2.dhs.org...

    >
    >>> I've gotta laugh, NetX. The article you cited above really doesn't
    >>> support your case at all. After going through all the browser statistics
    >>> and showing that FireFox is the only browser showing any degree of
    >>> voluntary uptake by users, it concludes with this paragraph:
    >>>
    >>> Most pressingly: will Firefox ever overtake Internet Explorer after
    >>> starting the chase on April 3rd 2003? Well, ask us in another three
    >>> years time and it's not inconceivable that you would get an
    >>> affirmative.
    >>>
    >>> Did you actually read the article, or just look at the pretty graphs?

    >
    >> you seem to be getting upset

    >
    > No; as I mentioned above, I was laughing. Now, please answer: did you
    > read the article? If so, how did you come to a conclusion diametrically
    > opposite to that of the authors?
    >


    Settle down, your foaming at the mouth



    > --
    >
    > John ()
    NetX, Feb 8, 2007
    #11
  12. On 02/08/2007 10:14 AM, NetX wrote:
    > "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    > news:2.dhs.org...
    >> [...]
    >> No; as I mentioned above, I was laughing. Now, please answer: did you
    >> read the article? If so, how did you come to a conclusion diametrically
    >> opposite to that of the authors?
    >>

    >
    > Settle down, your foaming at the mouth
    >


    I guess it's obvious by now that NetX is a troll.


    --
    Windows Vista and your freedom in conflict:
    http://www.badvista.org/
    Mumia W. (NOSPAM), Feb 8, 2007
    #12
  13. On 2007-02-08, NetX <no@one> wrote:

    > "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    > news:2.dhs.org...


    >> No; as I mentioned above, I was laughing. Now, please answer: did you
    >> read the article? If so, how did you come to a conclusion diametrically
    >> opposite to that of the authors?


    > Settle down, your foaming at the mouth


    Still avoiding the question, eh? "Ad hominem" attacks such as your
    response above are typical of those with no cogent answer to the
    question posed.

    --

    John ()
    John Thompson, Feb 8, 2007
    #13
  14. NetX

    NetX Guest

    "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    news:2.dhs.org...
    > On 2007-02-08, NetX <no@one> wrote:
    >
    >> "John Thompson" <2.dhs.org> wrote in message
    >> news:2.dhs.org...

    >
    >>> No; as I mentioned above, I was laughing. Now, please answer: did you
    >>> read the article? If so, how did you come to a conclusion diametrically
    >>> opposite to that of the authors?

    >
    >> Settle down, your foaming at the mouth

    >
    > Still avoiding the question, eh? "Ad hominem" attacks such as your
    > response above are typical of those with no cogent answer to the
    > question posed.



    And your orginal comment was not Ad hominem?

    read your comments again, and see how foolish you look


    >
    > --
    >
    > John ()
    NetX, Feb 9, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frisbee®
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    552
    Frisbee®
    Aug 1, 2005
  2. /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */

    Re: Acceptez gratuitement les cartes de crédits sur votre site

    /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */, Aug 1, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    665
    /* MCSBNGP+++ #270-290-291-293-294-298-299# */
    Aug 1, 2005
  3. Travis Pupkin
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    516
    Travis Pupkin
    Jan 31, 2004
  4. Hillen120

    Les Bicyclettes De Belsize

    Hillen120, Aug 16, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,183
  5. John

    les for D70 body/EOS 20D

    John, Jul 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    433
    Paul Schilter
    Jul 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page