Hi Will, This has been discussed a few times on this list. Generally the feeling is that the upgrade message has past its use-by date by a fair while now. More here:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=3D9FABE7-0458-48F4-623B8 948682690E4 And here: http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=3D9FAB4A-0A75-9940-12D33 1FA3B3338B8 You can do a quick search through early posts to find more if needed. Russ > > First, I appreciate everyone's input. It's very helpful, and I will > definitely use the ideas/suggestions. > > I'm gathering that the "ahem" class method (see > http://archive.webstandards.org/upgrade/tips.html )of giving your visitors a > friendly urge to upgrade their browser to a more standards-compliant one is > not such a good thing anymore. With the WaSP's ending of the Browser > Upgrade Campaign, it's apparently no longer something one should do(?). > > I had implemented it because after looking through our visitor logs, I had > found that a small percentage of people were still on older browsers, and I > know due to the nature of our site, people would write in and complain when > our old kludgy table-based site was replaced by a standards-based site. > > I do see the point of providing a "Skip to Content" link (or "Skip > Navigation", as it helps people using text browsers and such by allowing > them to get to the bulk of the page and not have to re-read the nav links > each time they go to a new page of your site. However, like Paul, I'm not > understanding how this is better than the "ahem" class. > > What are your opinions about using a browser upgrade warning for people on > older browsers? ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
