My site gets 93% MSIE and 7% of "other."

This leads to my question:

Making your web pages "cross platform" for MSIE and Netscape (even 4xx) is not really all that important, is it?

Thanks for your input!

Edward

This is a joke, right?

Here's an anology I use often when I hear nonsense like this. Imagine you own a store, and you decided, for no particular reason, that you were going to enact a policy that one out of every ten potential customers would be turned away at the door, do you think your business might be negatively affected by this?

Well, there's no particular reason to make a site that can't be used universally, as Web technology is inherently universal (with a few minor quirks). What if Microsoft got sued tomorrow for anti-trust violations, and was forced to disable IE in its next service pack? Yeah, it's pretty unlikely, but when you create one-browser sites, you are at the mercy of the browser. I can't wait for IE7 to come out. It's possible people who rely on their one-browser optimization will find their site now works poorly in every browser, and the rest of us who understand how the Web works will happily soak up the disgruntled traffic.

How important is it that your site be cross-browser compatible? Well, how badly do you want me to visit your site? How badly do you want a substantial portion of the people on this forum to visit your site? Given the nature of the technology and the wealth of resources available to help you learn it, what possible justification is there to purposely create a site that excludes people or inconveniences then when they try to view it? Doesn't make sense.

Thank you for your honest input.

Of course I want to have a web site that would be flawless on all browsers, but that's difficult to accomplish without spending more time and money.

Is making your website Netscape 4.79 compliant a necessity, or can you say.... "ooooh, that would cost me another $xxxx, so I will skip that little percentage of visitors."

I obviously do not want to turn off visitors, but I have come across a lot of websites with fancy java scripts that I KNOW doesn't work on older versions of Netscape. Do they just not know, or do they knowingly give up that small percentage of visitors?

Maybe I should have worded the suvey a little differently...

Thanks again for your input.

off topic: who is Paul in "Vote for Paul in Nov.!!!"

The best solution is to design your site to the W3 spec. Validate it there. If it validates, you're pretty well covered.

While Javascript, Flash, etc. can add cool things to your website, you've really got to look at the value that adds versus the potential shutting out of a percentage of your visitors.

I try to avoid Flash, and use as little Javascript as I can. I always validate and preview my sites in as many browsers as I can get my hands on. You can eliminate thinking about how much money it would cost to support X browser if you design with standards in mind to begin with.

It's true that the majority of the world uses IE, and that will likely be the case for a long time. This is fact, and should not be ignored. However, it should not be used as an excuse to forget about the other browsers. With just a few simple changes, you can design your site to work and look the way you want across most all the platforms (except maybe the very old versions of Netscape).

We should all be designing to meet (at least) the most basic code compliancy, however it's important to note that you can pass the W3 standards and still have a site that does not display properly in other browsers. Being code compliant does not guarantee your site will look or behave properly. It's a good start though.

As for Netscape traffic: very small, well under 10%.

I am an avid NetScape 4.x supporter, however, I have finally decided to stop designing with NS4x in mind.

I have two reasons:
1. Even if you make your webpage for NetScape 4.x, you are still forgetting the people that are using the third generation, second generation, first generation, or text-based browser. You just can't win. See #2.

2. As technology improves, it is important for the client to also upgrade. You will notice that an old Television that does not support cable will not, no matter how hard you try, get cable channels. Does the cable company care? Most likely not. They proceed, servicing the majority.

Myself, I have NetScape 4.x, and often times browse the web with it. I also have:
Opera 7.1
NetScape 6.0
NetScape 7.1
Mozilla 1.3
Mozilla 1.6
Mozilla Firebird 0.7
Mozilla Firefox 0.8
Mozilla Firefox 0.9
Mozilla Firefox 0.9.1
Mozilla Firefox 0.9.2
Mozilla Firefox 0.9.3
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0
Lynx
Konquerer

Statistics are misleading. Perhaps I visited your site with NS4x, and you logged that. That gave you a false result. I'm more than able to be a customer, so long that I change my browser.


For general edification, take a look at http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp for the W3C collected statistics. They predict that only 0.2% of internet users are still running NS4x

The number of NS7/Mozilla users is approaching 10% on our site. Regardless, it's rather easy to create sites that work in both IE and NS7/Mozilla these days- if a site doesn't, there's definitely something wrong. ActiveX not withstanding, of course :)

On my site around, 1.7 % of all traffic. Mind you the bots probably push that lower than it actually is because they are included in my % counts.

My school surprisingly upgraded ALL (100+) computers in it to run Firefox now, there's no hint of IE on them :eek4:

Originally posted by edwardcyh
Thank you for your honest input.

Of course I want to have a web site that would be flawless on all browsers, but that's difficult to accomplish without spending more time and money.

Is making your website Netscape 4.79 compliant a necessity, or can you say.... "ooooh, that would cost me another $xxxx, so I will skip that little percentage of visitors."

I obviously do not want to turn off visitors, but I have come across a lot of websites with fancy java scripts that I KNOW doesn't work on older versions of Netscape. Do they just not know, or do they knowingly give up that small percentage of visitors?

Maybe I should have worded the suvey a little differently...

Thanks again for your input.
It shouldn't cost you a penny more to make a site that works in a cross-browser environment. You simply make it that way from the very beginning. The cost is the same, and the fact that more people can use it means you won't lose money in the future because you made the site incorrectly. If you have a designer who creates a site for you that only works in IE and then wants to charge you to make it cross-browser compatible, thank the designer for his/her time, don't pay a penny, and run.

Personally, I've pretty much written off 4.xx. It 's highly regarded as the biggest piece of horse feces ever made, though IE is coming close to achieving that status, given it is M$'s current release and it is years behind the times. NS4 was released June, 1997. NS4.5 was released Oct. '98. I'm not sure about 4.79, but it could not have been long after. I'm pretty happy going back five years with browsers.

Statistics are misleading.
Yes they are! Most Opera users spoof an IE UA string (I believe this is Opera's default configuration), which means the browser shows up in server logs as an IE browser. Last year, Opera was downloaded 15 million times - the year before that, 12 million. If your stats show 93% MSIE, you can pretty much only count on that as a maximum. The real number could be significantly lower than that, perhaps as much as 10-15% if you also account for this practice with proxy servers (AOL's a big one that comes to mind).

off topic: who is Paul in "Vote for Paul in Nov.!!!"
That's me. I'm running a WHT-only presidential write-in campaign. I'm not technically eligible for presidency, but I think it sends the nation's capital an important message nonetheless. Right now I have two votes, which puts me slightly behind Nader and a full vote ahead of Kucinich :D

My school surprisingly upgraded ALL (100+) computers in it to run Firefox now, there's no hint of IE on them
I'm shocked! Not that they got rid of IE (good riddance), but that they chose a browser that has not offered a stable release yet! They should be using Mozilla, not FireFox, at least not for a few more months until the Moz team declares it stable and relatively bug-free.

A very large bank, I want to say it's in Switzerland, recently made Mozilla its corporate standard. The pendulum is showing signs of swinging...

Am I the only person who things Firefox, Mozilla and pretty much every skin I can find is darn ugly?

Give me safari on a PC and I'll be happy, other than that I'll stick with IE thanks (and Safari on my mac).

Originally posted by Rich2k
[B]Am I the only person who things Firefox, Mozilla and pretty much every skin I can find is darn ugly?
IIRC, FireFox has a skin that makes it look remarkably like IE. Luckily, it doesn't have a plug-in that makes it work as badly as IE ;)

I'm actually quite happy with Opera's default skin, both for 7.23 (which I'm using right now) and 7.54. I rearranged a few items in it to get it working exactly how I want, and I couldn't be more pleased. You can't do that with IE...

Give me safari on a PC and I'll be happy, other than that I'll stick with IE thanks (and Safari on my mac).
It's a sad day when the look of IE becomes a higher priority than the vastly superior functionality of Opera and FireFox *sigh*

mine are hovering around 7%. but as a active user of all my sites and a firefox user myself, i think the % without myself is less than 7%

I would be more concerned about people using Firefox or mozilla instead of Netscape. Firefox follows the html standards more closely than any other browser.

http://firefoxie.net/ - if the look of a browser really is that important...;)

Originally posted by Zopester
http://firefoxie.net/ - if the look of a browser really is that important...;)
That's one heck of a process. You'd think they would come up with an executable to handle this...

Not that it matters to me. I don't want anything in my browser reminding me of IE if I can help it at all...

To be more precise

Netscape 7 - 6.40%
Netscape 4 - 0.75%
Netscape 3 - 1.00%

Regards
D.

Thank you all for the valuable information.

the_pm: You got my vote. I guess that puts you right about even with Nader now? LOL

Originally posted by edwardcyh
Thank you all for the valuable information.

the_pm: You got my vote. I guess that puts you right about even with Nader now? LOL
Heh heh, I'll take it ;)

One more vote and maybe I'll qualify for those federal matching funds, which in 2008 will help me get to Hawaii for...err...I mean help me run a more effective campaign!

Originally posted by fcolor
To be more precise

Netscape 7 - 6.40%
Netscape 4 - 0.75%
Netscape 3 - 1.00%

Regards
D.

Did you keep track of your visitor's browser version with codes on your html pages, or does the host provide this detailed information for you?

Anyhow, is it just me, or do you all find this amazing. There ARE still close to 2 percent of people out there using Netscape 3 & 4! These must be the same people running PII 266's!

netscape is not quality stuff

Originally posted by fcolor
To be more precise

Netscape 7 - 6.40%
Netscape 4 - 0.75%
Netscape 3 - 1.00%

Regards
D.

that's around what i am getting also. fluctuates by a small margin every week.

i too am surprised that someone still use the old netscape. but then, my father is still trying to get off DOS, go figure... ;)

The main reason, I believe, is that many corporations and educational institutions installed NetScape 4.x when the Internet became readily available.

It costs a fair bit of money to upgrade, so instead, they let it go. Since employees and students should not be "browsing" the web, NetScape 4.x serves the purpose of delivering information.

The highschool I came from was still running Windows 95, and used a Windows 95 machine running Nortel as a server. The elementary school I came from still runs with monochrome monitors.

We average well over 10%, with a few sites around 30%. But we also try and educate our users and suggest firefox for a variety of reasons (our traffic is over 1.5 million per month so my sampling is a decent amount).

Remember one thing, not designing for all browsers is a self fufilling prophecy. If your site looks like crap on firefox, firefox users will not come back, and your firefox % of users will continue to dwindle.

Chet

Originally posted by chet
We average well over 10%, with a few sites around 30%. But we also try and educate our users and suggest firefox for a variety of reasons (our traffic is over 1.5 million per month so my sampling is a decent amount).

Remember one thing, not designing for all browsers is a self fufilling prophecy. If your site looks like crap on firefox, firefox users will not come back, and your firefox % of users will continue to dwindle.

Chet
That was absolutely profound. I've never heard stats explained in this manner. One of my main arguments has always had to do with UA string spoofing, since so many non-IE users do it. I never thought about self-fulfilling prophecy in regards to this topic.

With your blessing, I'll have to remember that for future discussions on the matter.

mine is around 1.7 %, but most of it must be mine.

Originally posted by sellkraft
mine is around 1.7 %, but most of it must be mine.

FireFox has an extension that allows you to edit the User Agent string -- I simply add something that identifies me so that I can easily find my hits. Something like 'poop snack' should do....

Oooopsss!!
that second vote on 30% and plus .. was me .. sorry! actually is less than 5%

Originally posted by Zopester
http://firefoxie.net/ - if the look of a browser really is that important...;)

.. thanks for the link!!

But if you're still running Netscape 3 or 4, for instance, wouldn't pretty much most of the web be looking like crap these days? For those forced to use such browsers, perhaps content matters more than a non-broken display, which surely they're getting more used to?

Part of my reasoning in going with xhtml 1.1 for my new ISP business, is do I really want customers with older browsers?

While I'm tempted to answer, "Yes, please - a customer is a customer" pragmatically, it shakes out a little bit different. Old browser = old hardware = old OS = less bandwidth. If that's your setup, I can't offer quality tech support at a reasonable price.

Why not? Because even a routine support issue (assuming primarily phone support for ISPs - no access = no email, chat or forums) will take longer for customers on obsolete gear, as your support tech sits and waits with them.

I say, "Turn them away at the door."

I only get around 5-7% average. :(

Originally posted by the_pm
Most Opera users spoof an IE UA string (I believe this is Opera's default configuration), which means the browser shows up in server logs as an IE browser.

Opera has a page (http://my.opera.com/community/openweb/idopera/) on how to account for visits by their browser.

Firefox is slowly gaining users. Anyway, I checked 3 of my domains:

First domain: (hosting site)

IE= 81.8%
Mozilla=14.7%
Netscape=2.1%
Opera=1.4%

Second domain: (dmoz listed and a blog)

IE=63.6%
Mozilla=31.8%
Netscape=4.5%

Third domain: (blog domain)

Internet Explorer 82.6 %
Mozilla 12.2 %
Netscape 2.9 %
Opera 2.3 %

So average for netscape is 3.2%

Originally posted by Protagonist
Firefox is slowly gaining users. Anyway, I checked 3 of my domains:

First domain: (hosting site)

IE= 81.8%
Mozilla=14.7%
Netscape=2.1%
Opera=1.4%

Second domain: (dmoz listed and a blog)

IE=63.6%
Mozilla=31.8%
Netscape=4.5%

Third domain: (blog domain)

Internet Explorer 82.6 %
Mozilla 12.2 %
Netscape 2.9 %
Opera 2.3 %

So average for netscape is 3.2%
However, in reference to the driving question behind OP concerning "optimizing for IE," given the fact that NS uses, line-for-line, the entire mozilla build (most recent to NS's most recent build), it is reasonable to combine these two figures. This would give you an average or 22.7% as the number of NS-like visitors for whom your site must function properly.

Opera has a page on how to account for visits by their browser.
Yes, it's not too tough to go through your logs and find the Opera users. But, if I'm not mistaken, many programs that provide summary statistics will read these UAs as IE, and it is incumbent upon the person to go digging further.

The other part of it is that Opera's built-in UA strings are quite poor, and are often only good enough to throw off site stats - not good enough to fool sniffers, etc. I would say Opera users would be most likely to use remote or localhost proxies, which are much more effective than Opera UA strings, and in many cases entirely undetectable.

You'll know if I've been on your site though. Look for a nice little love letter from me to Micro$oft in your UA visitor list ;)

I get about 10 percent using netscape