[thelist] Browser Stats

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 29 00:57:00 CDT 2002


> From: Michael Kimsal <michael at tapinternet.com>
[...]
> >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 this may be insignificant given your clarification later on...

> >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.

er, yeah, except that wasn't my reference... my reference was long
the lines of the oft-heard argument "we don't care about blind users,
they can't see our products anyway," or any number of comments like
that i've heard on lists, from clients, and in conversation...

it also applies to forcing people to upgrade (evolve) by removing
their ability to function with their existing set-up... damn nazi's
ruined the neutral tone of eugenics i was going for...

(btw, if you invoke it here, does that mean you lost, or your
attempts to end the thread will fail?  godwin's law is kinda whacky
like that)

[...]
> 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.

that qualifies it a bit more from the argument of "it's only 4%"...
granted, i use two CSS files (one that works in NN4.x, and one that
supercedes it) that both validate with valid and accessible HTML...

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

neither do i... nor is my development time extended to support
multiple browsers -- unless i am forced to hack around bugs...

[...]
> 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.

doing business in SA is, no matter how you frame it, known to have a
political impact on businesses... it's a known entity with known
boycotts and embargoes in place (though not as extensive now) and
commands a lot of political and activist attention (at least moreso
than doing business in, say, Sweden would)...

> 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".

yes it is... i guess i don't know what you're responding to here...
legal compliance isn't the same as having a lesbian CEO who likes
clinton and advertises in the south african edition of Satanism Today
(i think i got all your examples in there)...

[...]
> >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'.

as a businessman, that's a loss... in accounting, that's the swing...

i can't grow a business if i never gain anything... if i project
gains, and gain nothing, i consider that a loss...

> 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).

no, i just think you have a better accountant and we need to talk...

> >>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...

now you're invoking it out of context... which means you don't
understand my argument...

yes, i agree the browsers tend to suck, and are unfortunate hurdles
to development, and cause us all no end of consternation when the
client turns out to be surfing on Navigator 3.2...

but that doesn't mean the user is just as decrepit... they just might
not be technically savvy... and frankly, if i'm selling little yellow
towels online, then i don't care if the user can operate a computer --
 that's not a consideration for whether or not they are a qualified
potential customer... but once they get to the site, no matter their
set-up (whether forced or chosen), i am damn well not going to lose
them due to a site coded to only work in certain browsers... *that's*
where i care about their ability to use a computer, and i want to
make sure it's a non-factor...

coded to standards is a whole different story here... *that's* the
approach i take...

--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg02-20
ISBN: 1904151035





More information about the thelist mailing list