sir_brizz wrote: > > 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. > im young, im hip, i work for corp america. im proud of it. hopefully we all can make corp america a fun place to work, like my job is. Thank god for gen-x. >> 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. > it is impossible IMHO to make a validating site, that works in 99% browsers, The point is to make your site as accessable to as many people as possible. Honestly i spend like 0 time updating look and feel on web, cuz i script all my sites using xhtml strict, works for me extremely well, only until recently have i been being less formal with html. > >> 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. > along with like 40% of all other business in our country like yours :-/ > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
