Prev: AddOn GWK140
Next: Canon Pixma ip1500 printer and SUSE 9.1
From: Chris on 1 Sep 2005 07:34
Peter wrote:
> <me9(a)privacy.net> wrote in news:4DA328EB07%brian13434(a)lycos.co.uk:
>
>
>>And what proportion of the IE are others claiming to be in order to
>>get into the site. Some sites will work with other browswers if you
>>claim it is IE, so theitr figures get skewed.
>
>
> My sites work without browser dependancy and I test them thoroughly to that
> extent, although I have to confess I don't know what happens when they're
> viewed on a Mac - and I'm not going to buy a Mac to find out.
>
> I can't say *exactly* how many visits are made with the browser identity
> disguised, but a quick analysis would suggest that there are more hits from
> browsers with cloaked identity than from browsers with 'false' identities.
>
> That can only make the IE figures I quoted an under-estimate.

I somehow doubt that. Your typical IE user wouldn't even know how to
cloak their identity, even if it were possible (which I'm not sure it can).

>
> I'm not trying to justify Scottish Power's policy here, but until Linux
> becomes an 'Out-of-box experience' the fact is that IE is the predominantly
> used browser statistically.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Linux. There are plenty of non-IE
browsers that work fine on Windows. This is to do with an outsourcing of
web-design to an (probably v. cheap) outfit that only uses an
IE-specific toolkit.

These days it's blind stupid to completely ignore HTML standards as many
people choose to use a more secure browser to surf the net. Especially
sites dealing with personal/financial data.

There are plenty of sites which only recommend usage of IE, but because
their site is well designed it still works flawlessly with Firefox et al.
From: Chris on 1 Sep 2005 07:43
Adrian wrote:
> Peter (me(a)privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying
> :
>
>
>>>>We found that 99.7% of customers used Microsoft's Internet Explorer and
>>>>we took the decision to optimize our website based on this.
>
>
>>>I wonder where Stephanie plucked this figure from?
>
>
>>That figure is probably close to the mark for a Joe Public site.
>
And conveniently ignores modified user agent settings.

>
> It's probably very close to the mark for a "Joe Public" site that's
> notoriously IE-only...
>
> Even people with a non-IE browser will usually swallow their pride and use
> IE for sites that just don't play nicely with IE.

I have not used IE for over 2 years and have never had a serious
problem. I recently encountered a problem with ASDA's online shopping.
So I completed the order over the phone. Then I mailed the problem and
told them that I was going to use Tesco instead. I got a really good
reply saying that they welcomed my feedback and would be forwarding it
to their IT dept.

Clearly ASDA are customer focused, ScottishPower are not.
From: Peter on 1 Sep 2005 08:18
Chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:df6p04$peg$1(a)godfrey.mcc.ac.uk:

> Your typical IE user wouldn't even know how to cloak their identity,
> even if it were possible (which I'm not sure it can).

It's not a native IE function, I agree.

> This has absolutely nothing to do with Linux.

Again, I agree. I only entered this thread in response to another poster's
shock-horror disbelief at the statistics quoted by Scottish Power.
From: Adrian on 1 Sep 2005 10:40
Naich (dws(a)mrao.cam.ac.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

>> >> We found that 99.7% of customers used Microsoft's Internet
>> >> Explorer

>> That figure is probably close to the mark for a Joe Public site.

> It's probably close to the mark for an IE-only site. People with
> other browsers go elsewhere, so don't show up on their stats. Looking
> at the stats for sodwork.com (which is totally Joe Public), I'm
> getting 85-90% IE use.

<checks stats for this month>
I'm getting 85.8% IE, 9.4% Firefox on a "Joe Public" website.

It seems fairly consistent - 84.8% IE for 2005 to date, across about 3
million hits.
From: Joe on 1 Sep 2005 16:46
Chris wrote:
>
> These days it's blind stupid to completely ignore HTML standards as many
> people choose to use a more secure browser to surf the net. Especially
> sites dealing with personal/financial data.
>
> There are plenty of sites which only recommend usage of IE, but because
> their site is well designed it still works flawlessly with Firefox et al.

Today I was asked to login to the McAfee website (anti-virus vendor for
the Windows-free among you), and failed to. The script on the page was
VBScript... drumming up more business?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: AddOn GWK140
Next: Canon Pixma ip1500 printer and SUSE 9.1