[thelist] Browser Stats

[Michael Kimsal]

aardvark wrote:

>>From: Michael Kimsal <michael at tapinternet.com>
>>
>>
>>>>i'm still having trouble considering 1 million people to be an
>>>>insignificant number...
>>>>
>>>>
>>I don't know why.  Everything is relative.  When you are
>>talking about hundreds of millions or billions of something, one
>>million *IS* insignificant.
>>
>>
>
>can i kill you?
>
>

YOU couldn't, because when it comes down to you and me in a room, we're
both
50%.  An asteroid hitting my city and killing 500,000 people - well, I'm
insignificant, yes.

I can accept that and it doesn't hurt my ego or sense of self or
anything else.  I'm quite
comfortable with it, actually.

>seriously... one person is insignificant... out of billions, you are
>nothing... a speck on a speck on a gnat's ass...
>
>now, i suspect you don't much like that concept...
>
See above.

>and i suspect
>anyone coming to a site who is trapped on an old setup, chooses to
>use an alternative setup, or is disabled in some way will feel they
>have been herded to the side... sort of a user-eugenics move...
>
>

Holy cow  - 'eugenics' and 'final solution' in one night.  We're getting
close
to invoking Godwin's law, I believe.

>
>
>>When you're 4 years old, 10 seems ancient.  When you're
>>80 you see that 10 is pretty insignificant.
>>
>>
>
>when you're 4, you feel significant... when you're 80, you still feel
>significant, but you're used to being shoved around...
>
>i don't see how that corollary benefits anyone other than the
>developer... it's a cop-out...
>
>
>
>>>>3% may be an insignificant fraction to you, but i do know many
>>>>clients who consider 3% to be an unacceptable loss of viewership...
>>>>imagine you've been hired to redesign a site and tell the client
>>>>that they will lose 3% of their readers... or better yet, tell them
>>>>that they will block out 1 million people... see how they dig
>>>>that...
>>>>
>>>>
>>Yes, if you walk up to someone and say
>>"you're going to lose 1 million potential customers because of this
>>particular code" and leave it at that, yes, some might freak out.
>>
>>Follow it up with "but by doing this, we're making your business
>>more attractive and accessible to 279 million people" and the
>>discussion would be over.
>>
>>
>
>but you're not making it more accessible to anyone -- you're keeping
>it just as accessible (conceptually) to the 279 million, and now
>permanently shutting out a million that otherwise could get in...
>it's a net loss of bodies -- potential customers...
>
>if you lose current customers, then the swing can be double that...
>
>as for attractive, who's to decide?  you?  i see a *lot* of sites
>that block me out on alternative browsers or older browsers that are
>decidedly *not* more attractive... really, a colored scrollbar
>doesn't do it for me...
>
>



I guess I need to clarify.

The sites we produce don't lock anyone out - we rarely even use frames
for anything.  But
we generally only produce one CSS sheet and it's designed to work well
in the major
browsers of the day.  To the extent that the site degrades gracefully -
fine.  We
*generally* write valid HTML, or HTML that will at least *render* on a
multitude of platforms.

I do not advocate browser detection to shut visitors out.
I do not advocate writing multiple versions of HTML to cater to various
browsers.

The site puts out HTML - your 'browser' can deal with it however it can.
 It's fairly
platform agnostic (we're not MS fans, so we don't cater to IE exclusively).

We've been offering recipesbyemail.com service for 2 years, and some of
the most
frequent users are blind - they love it because it's just data in the
email - no ALT tags, or
IMG tags, or funky tables or anything.  I know about alternative
readers/browsers too.

>
>
>>Take it further:
>>2 million potential customers won't ever do business with you
>>because of some article in 'Christianity Today' which linked
>>your product with Satan.
>>
>>4 million people won't do business with you because your
>>spokeswoman just announced she's got a live-in lesbian lover.
>>
>>1.5 million people won't do business with you because you
>>do business with a company in South Africa
>>
>>3 million people won't do business with you because the CEO
>>was too chummy with Clinton in 2000 and they think
>>your company is a bunch of left-wing nuts.
>>
>>All those numbers seem big, but they're not that big, and they
>>only represent potential, not hard numbers.
>>
>>
>
>no, they can represent true losses if they consisted of any current
>customers... regardless, your examples are incongruent because they
>are decisions of policy and direction... a web site is not a
>statement of policy unless you want it to be, and making it such is
>kind of silly...
>
>
The fact that someone doesn't like that you do business with a company in
South Africa isn't policy.  If you REACT to it WITH policy then that's a
policy matter.
Before then it was just companies doing business with each other.

A website which has an explicit stated goal of being accessible to various
users per compliance with federal regulations is a statement of policy.
 "It's our
policy to follow the law".

>go print newspaper ads in green and red with the exact same
>brightness, because that way you can make a statement about color-
>blind users... go remove the ramps from your building... go repaint
>the lines in the parking lot to limit all space to only SUVs...
>
>*that's* what's going on... decisions are made to block people for no
>reason other than developer ego...
>
>
>
>>If, as I said before, you ran a '1992-era mac hardware' website,
>>yes, requiring IE6 and Flash might be stupid.  But you wouldn't
>>be alienating 3% of your visitors - you'd probably be alienating
>>70-80% of your potential customers.  Even if the total potential
>>customer base was 50,000, 70% is a big portion.
>>
>>
>
>absolutely...
>
>
>
>>Statistically 3% is nothing.  A blip on the radar.  That's why most
>>poll reports say 'margin of error + or - 4 points", cause it's hard to
>>measure things accurately at such small percentages.
>>
>>
>
>most poll reports give a margin of error appropriate for the report,
>not most give +/-4... but your argument of statistics, however
>flawed, still ignores the fact of a million potential or existing
>users shut out for no reason other than 'design'...
>
>
It's all business.  It will come back to bite those businesses in the
end, and the businesses
that are savvy and don't block them out will be rewarded moreso for their
(smart, I should say) decisions.


>sure, if you can guarantee your loss of 1million potential users will
>result in a gain of more than 1million potential users, then you have
>an argument, one that gains weight as that gain climbs well above
>1million... but until then, it's a loss, no matter how small you try
>to make it sound...
>
>
If they didn't buy anything, it's hard to qualify it as a 'loss'.  It's
just 'not a gain'.

You probably also subscribe to the idea that if I pay less in taxes,
I'm somehow 'taking' something from someone else.  (just a hunch).

>
>
>>By all means, keep writing decent HTML which should work OK
>>across older browsers.  But for goodness' sake don't go out of your
>>way to support NS3 or something similarly ancient.  Those browsers
>>deserve to be put to rest.
>>
>>
>
>but their users don't...
>
>
Again, getting close to Godwin's law here...