On Jul 17, 9:50 am, Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> Again, consider the audience. Your audience is overwhelmingly NON
> Corporate. And even in that young, hip audience, FF is garnering only
> 20%. I'm really suprised it isn't higher, given your audience.
Young? Hip? Most of these people are like Grandma age, and considering
that I'm surprised the Firefox penetration isn't significantly LOWER.
> But this is only proving my point. Split out the business/industry/
> corporate users from the tech/geek/enthusiast/zealot users, and you
> will find the former overwhelmingly IE (and staying so), and the
> latter is the only sector where FF is going to gain any momentum.
Maybe so, but IE is increasingly supporting web standards. Therefore,
if your site was following web standards and working on Firefox, you
could, with zero effort, also support IE updates. Obviously they go to
great lengths to make sure their IE6 crap will still work in later
versions of IE, however it seems pointless to intentionally write your
site incorrectly because of an assumption, regardless of how true or
false it may be.
> As for my site bring broken in FF and that indicating my lack of
> standards: Dude, you have NO idea! ;-) I'm so non-standard on that
> site that there isn't even a DOCTYPE set. The whole thing is running
> in IE Browser quirks mode. And I'm Ok with that. Know why? Cause I
> can trust that 99% of my target audience will see it jsut fine because
> they are using a browser that I can anticipate and predict it's
> behaviour.
Then what about that 1%? Following web standards makes it so that
99.9999% of your target audience can see it just fine. I used to be
okay with writing broken html, too... back in 1998.
> And "predictable behaviour" beats the heck outta any neato product no
> matter how standards compliant it tries to be. None of them are.
> Pick one, and you can predict its behaviour, and know how to work
> around it and what to avoid.
>
> Again, I have a very specific IE-Only target demographic.
This doesn't make sense, though. You can only predict it's behavior
because it's behaving incorrectly the same way. If you wrote it to the
web standards, it would always behave predictably, even in conforming
browsers. Over the years, I've determined that pretty much the same
amount of effort goes into your project, whether you decide to write
it incorrectly specific to IE or correctly with IE specific tweaks. I
think it's important to note that if we ignore the existence of IE6,
most of the tricks people have had to use for IE bugs no longer apply,
so why ignore the standards?
And, really, what I'm getting at, is that disregard for the standards,
to me, indicates a development mentality that is rather poor for
professional web development. I guarantee you that most of my sites
don't validate (mostly due to time/budget constraints), but they DO
work in all browsers as equally as possible.
> How's your site doing? What's it do? How long has it been running?
> Is it a commercial endeavour? I'm just always curious about other
> people's projects.
Eh, economic reasons shut the company down temporarily, but it was a
small business e-commerce site.
>
> Later...
>
> On Jul 16, 12:11 pm, sir_brizz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, even on a site I run that is targeted at young mothers,
> > still a massive portion of the reported browsers by Google Analytics
> > are Firefox (and by massive I mean greater than 20%). Ignoring Firefox
> > is even more stupid than ignoring IE6, since Firefox pretty closely
> > follows web standards and your site being utterly broken in Firefox is
> > probably indicative of your disregard for the standards.
>
> > On Jul 16, 11:02 am, Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Seriously, I'm NOT complaining. I made a simple suggestion. What
> > > brought on the complaining was the essentially "go f*ck yerself" reply
> > > that I got back.
>
> > > My website has not been updated in AGES. It's not designed for
> > > firefox because, from a purely business aspect, I really don't care
> > > about support for FF. I spend my time doing other people's sites.
> > > Most of them are not designed for firefox because outside the "geek
> > > zone", no one uses it. That whole "nearly half" number being floated
> > > around falls to pieces when you separate the wheat from the chaff:
> > > take that same poll, exclusing hackers, hobbiests, enthusiasts and
> > > linux zealots, and FF hardly makes a blip on the radar screen. Take
> > > that same poll and include only Corporate and Industrial users, and
> > > you find that Corporate America is decidedly IE and will be for a long
> > > time. And that's where I work. Corporate Intranets. That means IE.
>
> > > And, yeah, I do agree that changing boats after leaving the shore is
> > > risky. I'm OK with that. I'm just asking "Is it ok with you that
> > > 99% of the people who look at your product are going to think
> > > 'ROACH'?" If so, then Bob's yer uncle, and have a good time. But one
> > > way or another, ROACH is exactly what 99 out of 100 people are going
> > > think the instant they see your product. If you're OK with that, then
> > > more power to ya.
>
> > > And, yes. I am an information architech. (uhhhh. programmer+)
>
> > > I'd wager that I've written more code and implemented more systems
> > > than everyone else in this thread combined. And I am NOT kidding.
>
> > > Oh,... and have a nice day. ;-)
>
> > > On Jul 1, 3:26 pm, Kara Rawson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > @ Mr. kirby
>
> > > > you are an idiot.
>
> > > > stop complain and being rude to people who volunteer there time.
>
> > > > you should spend more time debugging your crappy looking website,
>
> > > >www.wallaceinfo.com
>
> > > > which doesn't work in FF.
>
> > > > on a side note im a professional graphic designer / artist and engineer.
>
> > > > i love the FB logo, i think its mad cute.
>
> > > > @kirby, i betcha didn't know that it also does more damage to your brand
> > > > by changing it out after it has beem saturated in the market. secondly
> > > > why does it matter for something that doesn't get sold. You should
> > > > download the source and rebrand it with some fancy graphics you think
> > > > are kewl, and sell it. See how that works out for yea. prolly not well,
> > > > as no one cares what the logo looks like. to me and prolly 99.9 of other
> > > > engineers its merely a button to push when you wanna debug a website.
>
> > > > i actually take a little offense to you calling yoruself a information
> > > > systems archtect. do you even know what that is or what they do?
>
> > > > kara- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Firebug" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
