[thelist] Browser Stats

Jack Olson ATT jack.olson at attbi.com
Thu Aug 29 18:22:01 CDT 2002


I work as a project management consultant and don't always have a choice of
who the developers are or what their skill level is, in my experience it
adds about 25% to the development cost to make the site adequately backward
compatible.

If my client is unsure as to whether or not to take on that cost I run them
through the following questionnaire.  If the total score is 10 or more I
urge coding for compatibility.  With the small businesses that I deal with
it comes out to be about 75% of the time I recommend going for the backward
compatibility.

This isn't a guaranteed formula but it really helps guide the customer in
deciding what type of coding / support to undertake.

How important is this site as a marketing / education tool?
	0	Not Important	Very few customers expected to find out about and learn
about
the product/company through this site (ask them why they are 					doing this
site?)
	3	Somewhat Important	25% of customers expected to find out about and learn
about the product/company through this site
	5	Important		50% of customers expected to find out about and learn about
the product/company through this site
	8	Very Important	75% of customers expected to find out about and learn
about 					the product/company through this site.
	10	Critical		Most customers will find out about and learn about the
product/company through this site.

How important is this site as a sales tool?
	0	Not Important	No sales directly through website
	3	Somewhat Important	Some sales through website
	5	Important		50% of Sales through website
	8	Very Important	Most Sales through Website
	10	Critical		All Sales through website

How tech savvy is the target audience?
	0	Extremely Tech Savvy
	3	Tech Savvy
	5	Familiar with Computers
	8	Only use computers when have to
	10	Hate using computers

How luxurious is the product being sold? What is the importance of having a
luxurious site?	0	Critical
	3	Very Important
	5	Important
	8	Somewhat Important
	10	Not Important


-----Original Message-----
From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of aardvark
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:58 PM
To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
Subject: Re: [thelist] Browser Stats


> From: "Daniel Medley" <dm at lgcy.com>
>
> Everyone is talking about the importence of 3 or 4% of those using
> old, outdated, and bad browsers. One thing I'm wondering about: When
> discussing the prospect of telling someone that the site you're making
> for them will not look the same in 3% of the browsers out there, maybe
> also tell them that it will cost more to make a site that will look
> the same. I wonder what the cost ratio would be for, say, one thousand
> sites made to look the same to accomodate those 3% versus just
> ignoring them and going with standards and the $ not spent coding
> hacks? Now, I'm sure that those of you who earn your livelyhood doing
> this html/web design like the idea of convincing people that you have
> to spend a little extra time and money to code hacks and work arounds.
> Right?

not right... at least not for me...

yes, i educate my clients and they do understand that there will be
differences, but we also don't build sites that require some false
notion that they must look *exactly* a certain way... if i wanted
that, i'd move to print... i build within the medium...

this education alone elminates 99% of our issues... if the client
knows that the background in that cell won't show in Navigator 4.x,
and they understand why, they don't mind... if they do mind, then
we talk about solutions and impact...

as for coding to standards vs. coding hacks... we code to
standards... we don't use hacks... in fact, the only "hack" i allow
without having to provide justification still validates -- it's the
perfectly standards-compliant and functionality-checking @import
rule for CSS... that way i can keep styles away from NN4.x that
might hose the page...

our sites don't cost more because of that, either... we code to
standards, we eliminate accessiblity barriers, we avoid bleeding
edge or proprietary code, we get designs that work for all
browsers...

there is a misconception that standards-compliance, accessibility,
and browser support results in bloated code, increased
development time (and cost), and loads of hacks...

that's wrong...

and i appeal to anyone on this list who experiences that bloat --
keep sharpening your tools, because you're doing yourselves and
your clients a disservice...


--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg02-20
ISBN: 1904151035
--
For unsubscribe and other options, including
the Tip Harvester and archive of thelist go to:
http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !




More information about the thelist mailing list