I didn't realize that BC's exchange rate was higher than Ontario's. <@GRIN>
There is plenty to agree with in your comments. One thing that I've really enjoyed about this list is that with topics like this, it has become a forum to share our opinions. Unfortunately there was a period about a year ago when it was just plain ugly. Whenever possible I try to follow the principles of people like Jakob Nielsen who is one of the leading supporters of Web Usability. He does agree that whenever the developer can control or knows for 100% certain that all users will be using a certain browser and version than development can be done to utililize that particular browser. So I agree with your comments when it comes to developing for an intranet. However let me give you an Extranet 'for instance'. You develop a site for a client to use as an Extranet. One of their users routinely visits two Extranet sites, the one that you developed and another that was developed to support both Netscape and IE. Their browser of choice happens to be Netscape. Why should he switch browsers simply to be able to visit one site? I would think that it would develop a level of dissatisfaction in that user that might reach the point where he says "forget it" and stops dealing with your client's site which may lead to him or her finding another supplier. Your client can't understand why he/she lost a customer. I would think that in most cases, if there is a surcharge up front for making sure that Netscape works the client is likely to say forget it. With regards to your characterization about IE being more forgiving. Another way of looking at it could be that any surcharge to ensure other browsers work is just a surcharge to cover poor development skills. Following on that thought of course we shouldn't be made to pay for poor work that we do, we should pass the buck. <@GRIN> I'm not trying to beat anyone up here, my post was to point out that in the short history of the web we've heard the expression, "the King is dead, long live the King" enough times to know that nothing has stayed on top for very long. Change is imminent, change is also very good. Hope this helps, Steve Smith Skadt Information Solutions Office: (519) 624-4388 GTA: (416) 606-3885 Fax: (519) 624-3353 Cell: (416) 606-3885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.skadt.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott Cadillac Sent: June 14, 2002 12:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic news) Hi Steve, Please see my replies below.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Multiple recipients of list witango-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:51 AM Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic news) > I got into the PC game in 1985. At the time, (on the Intel side) everyone > either bought IBM or bought a clone although some bought from a new company > called Compaq. Almost every machine went out the door with a copy of > WordPerfect and/or Lotus 123. These were the ONLY applications in their > respective fields. I might be mistaken but I seem to recall WordPerfect > charging a 'premium' for support, mainly because they could. > > Nobody had heard of Dell, Microsoft couldn't give Word away, and few if > anyone knew they had a product called Excel. > > Around 1996 I remember supporting Tango 1.5 customers who were running into > problems caused by people hitting the sites they were developing who were > using this 'new' Internet Explorer browser. Many just gave up and said that > they would not worry about the problems from this browser because there were > so few people using it. Hmmmm... A very good point Steve and an interesting tale too :-) As a matter of fact, I've been watching the recent Gold release of Mozilla 1.0 with interest (and have even installed it). Although my developer career revolves around building Intranet Applications designed exclusively for MSIE (specifcally 5.0 or higher on Windows) - I am trying to be prepared for an evolving future. If someone could actually build a 'standards' compliant browser that WORKS! then I would consider it for inclusion in our development plans - but until then, the current versions of MSIE is the only browser that delivers what it promises (90% of the time). > And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't many of the 'problems' associated > with current versions of Netscape typically the work of sloppy coding that > Netscape gets picky about but that IE just lets slip through? My personal characterization is that MSIE is more forgiving and inventive - whereas Netscape just can't cope :-). > I hate the idea of a surcharge being placed on coding for a 'different' > browser. Time is money. Should we be the ones that pay the penalty by giving away our time to debug HTML and JavaScript, that more often doesn't work in Netscape - but does work in MSIE? >What will be next? A surcharge for developing for users who 'Think > Different'? I can't speak for anyone else - but our 'Market' is users that 'Think Different'. We build Intranet Applications for Business users (and Accountants) that are tired of funky web-sites with lots of pretty graphics or are loaded down with Applets and Plugins. Our users that 'Think Different' want meat, functionality, flexiability and they want it fast and without hassle. And they are thinking about this outside of the simple HTML box. XML and several of Microsoft's Extension play are large part in this by giving me Databinding, Behaviours and a workable DOM via JScript. Should I dumb down all my functionality so a few other Browser wannabes can play catch up - and limit my customer's abilities? I don't think so. Obviously I am talking about Intranet and Extranet Applications and not public Internet sites in general, so please forgive me for muddying the waters of this interesting discussion. > Just my 2 cents, My 18 cents (Canadian Exchange :-). > Steve Smith > > Skadt Information Solutions > Office: (519) 624-4388 > GTA: (416) 606-3885 > Fax: (519) 624-3353 > Cell: (416) 606-3885 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: http://www.skadt.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of James Macfarlane > Sent: June 14, 2002 10:37 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic > news) > > > I have a retail site with over 600,000 visitors a month. The stats are > about the same. > > We're thinking on a surcharge for Netscape compatibility on projects. > 90% of the debugging time is taken up by Netscape rendering issues. If > satisfying 7% of your client base is important, then pay up. > > ....now if Microsoft would only make IE available as a plug-in for > Netscape the problem would be solved (grin). > > - James > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Garth Penglase > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:46 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list witango-talk > Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: IE browser share now 93% in 2002 (Off topic > news) > > > I would say that to use those statistic to prove that you need only code > > for IE is dangerous, as there is a much higher showing, right across the > > board, of existing NS browsers and Other browser users, on the web sites > > that I control. And nothing stays the same for too long in tech anyway. > > Remember different sources give different statistic on this, and the > stats > are be based on different questions (ie don't believe to much what you > read > from one source). Believe me, it'd make life a lot easier if there was > only > one browser to code for. > Garth > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body
