browser detection and redirection

Discussion in 'HTML' started by jaydev, Oct 23, 2006.

  1. jaydev

    jaydev Guest

    Hi,

    I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
    have a sample code for this?
    I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
    types I need to redirect to there download page.
    Internet Explorer version 5.0and above
    Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above
    Mozilla version 1.3 and above
    Opera version 7.0 and above
    Safari/OmniWeb version 4.5 and above
    Konqueror version 3.2 and above


    Appreciate any help

    Thanks,
    Jay
     
    jaydev, Oct 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jaydev wrote:

    > I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    > browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
    > have a sample code for this?


    Browser sniffing is oft-mentioned as "doomed to failure."

    > I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
    > types I need to redirect to there download page.


    Normally, if you write a good site to begin, you won't have to restrict
    your audience to a specific set of browsers.

    > Internet Explorer version 5.0and above

    ...the latest is IE 7, and it is only usable by XP SP2 people. What about
    W95/W98/ME/Win2K people?

    > Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above

    ...if you talk them into v 8.n, they will lose their email client.

    > Mozilla version 1.3 and above

    ...the latest version of the suite is SeaMonkey.

    And my User Agent string says:
    Mozilla/6.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)

    What will you do then?

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jaydev wrote :
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    > browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
    > have a sample code for this?


    Hello jaydev,

    You have an interesting and worthy post in there. It's definitely a good
    question.

    > I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
    > types I need to redirect to there download page.
    > Internet Explorer version 5.0and above
    > Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above
    > Mozilla version 1.3 and above
    > Opera version 7.0 and above


    I would not bother trying to detect Opera 7.x users: there are very few
    users using Opera 7.x since they usually upgrade to the latest Opera
    version all by themselves. It's MSIE 5.x, MSIE 6 users which would be
    worth detecting and who are most likely to be sensitive to issues of
    upgrading or migrating/switching to another browser name.

    > Safari/OmniWeb version 4.5 and above


    Safari and OmniWeb upgrades are not free if I'm not wrong. So, here,
    it's kinda difficult, delicate to tell them to upgrade. I think it's not
    worth it otherwise it's not ok to annoy them, mainly for that reason.

    > Konqueror version 3.2 and above


    You have to wonder if Konqueror users upgrade to the latest stable
    Konqueror release available by themselves and, if not, why and if their
    numbers (visits at your site) are worth the trouble to detect them (via
    javascript or otherwise).

    >
    >
    > Appreciate any help
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Jay



    For any IE users, I think it is worth the efforts to invite such users
    to either upgrade or to switch.

    For other users, maybe just a link to a specific page listing where they
    can get the latest version of their own browser name (and in such
    webpage, telling them that browser upgrade is easy, free and will not
    lose their profile info, bookmarks, emails, etc.. some people still
    believe that upgrading browser version will make them lose their data
    like bookmarks, preferences, etc.) would be good enough. What I mean
    here is that, for instance, there are so few, so little Firebird users,
    Phoenix users that it is not worth the problem to detect these users.

    For NS 4.x users, I believe NS 4.x users are people who are not able to
    perform browser upgrades by themselves and are going to actually upgrade
    when they upgrade their computers or os: so, maybe it's not worth it.
    Anyway, there are very few NS 4.x users on the web.

    For any IE 5.x and IE 6 browsers, I suggest use of conditional comment:

    <!--[if lte IE 6]>
    <p>Some useful, relevant text, your speech here ...
    <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx">Download
    Internet Explorer 7</a></p>
    <![endif]-->

    or

    <!--[if lte IE 6]>
    <p>You're using an old Internet Explorer version which is known to be
    prone to spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make
    computers unsafe. For best security and better usability, please
    consider switching to a better browser. Visit <a
    href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    explanations and assistance.</p>
    <![endif]-->


    More on this:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/browserdetection.asp

    I do **__not__** recommend user agent string detection: it's known to be
    difficult to implement, unreliable and unmanageable in the long run.

    Browser identification approach: not best, not reliable
    Object/Feature support detection approach: best, most reliable
    http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#DevCrossBrowser

    I personally believe people should prefer Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.1
    instead of choosing IE 7. This is also a very defendable decision. Or
    you could even put a "browse happy" link/button/banner instead for IE
    visitors and leave the whole decision up to the visitor.
    http://browsehappy.com/

    Then, the detection would / could go like :


    <!--[if gt IE 6]>
    <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is a browser known to have an
    history of security concerns (to be prone to spywares, to have unpatched
    security weaknesses, to make computers unsafe). I do not recommend the
    use of Internet Explorer due to its relatively poor standards support
    and security record, as well as its history of abandoning development
    efforts. For all these reasons, I recommend switching to another browser
    like <a href="http://www.opera.com/download/">Opera 9.1</a> or <a
    href="http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/">Firefox 2.0</a> which are
    available in many languages. Also, you may want to visit <a
    href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    explanations and assistance.</p>
    <![endif]-->

    Downloadable Promotional graphics from Browser Happy
    http://browsehappy.com/badges/

    For Netscape Navigator, Mozilla, Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox 1.0.x users,
    you will need to rely on userAgent string detection. If you decide to go
    for this (if you have assessed that it's worth the trouble to detect
    these users and then to invite them to upgrade), then you will need to
    detect in the correct order navigator.product, navigator.vendor (and
    possibly navigator.vendorSub too), navigator.productSub.

    I would first try to detect Phoenix users, Firebird users and Firefox
    1.0.x users. All Netscape users (NS 7.x, NS 8.x) could be also detected too.

    if(navigator.product == "Gecko" && navigator.productSub &&
    navigator.productSub > "20060201")
    /* I don't think it's acceptable or justified to annoy people using a
    less than 6 months old browser version */
    {
    if(navigator.vendor && possibly navigator.vendorSub=="Netscape")
    {
    ...more code to develop...
    }
    else if()
    {
    ...more code to develop...
    };
    }

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Scripsit Gérard Talbot:

    > jaydev wrote :
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    >> browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
    >> have a sample code for this?

    >
    > Hello jaydev,
    >
    > You have an interesting and worthy post in there. It's definitely a
    > good question.


    Well, it might be a good _question_. The correct _answer_, though, is that
    such efforts are a waste of everyone's time, and worse.

    The page author would just upset and throw out some part of potential users.
    If he somehow managed to make someone update his browser, this would still
    distract from the site's own content.

    Besides, the detection is bound to fail, and the redirects are bound to take
    users to wrong pages. Maybe not immediately, but next month or next year. If
    you can make me believe that authors who write browser-sniffing and
    browser-redirection code will actually _maintain_ the monstrosity they
    create, you might just as well try making me believe in elves, Santa Claus,
    the Great Pumpkin, and even politicians' promises before elections.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Oct 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
    > jaydev wrote:
    >
    >> I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    >> browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
    >> have a sample code for this?

    >
    > Browser sniffing is oft-mentioned as "doomed to failure."
    >


    We agree.

    Browser identification approach (aka "browser sniffing"): not best, not
    reliable approach
    Using Object/Feature support detection approach: best and overall most
    reliable
    http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#DevCrossBrowser

    >> I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
    >> types I need to redirect to there download page.

    >
    > Normally, if you write a good site to begin, you won't have to restrict
    > your audience to a specific set of browsers.
    >


    Jay wants to invite people and to assist people using old browsers into
    upgrading their browser versions. This is a perfectly valid attitude,
    especially in this particular time period where Internet Explorer 7 has
    been very recently released, Firefox 2.0 will be out in a few days and
    Opera 9.1 will be released in a few days. Any/all respectable web author
    wants people using old, buggy, unsecure, non-recommendable,
    non-compliant web standards browsers (like MSIE 6) to upgrade to the
    best, free, available browser out there.

    >> Internet Explorer version 5.0and above

    > ..the latest is IE 7, and it is only usable by XP SP2 people. What about
    > W95/W98/ME/Win2K people?
    >
    >> Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above

    > ..if you talk them into v 8.n, they will lose their email client.
    >


    Good point. You normally would want a NS 7.x user to upgrade to the
    latest available Seamonkey 1.x release.

    >> Mozilla version 1.3 and above

    > ..the latest version of the suite is SeaMonkey.
    >


    Correct. Again, good point.

    > And my User Agent string says:
    > Mozilla/6.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)
    >
    > What will you do then?


    Good point... but only a minority of users "play" with their userAgent
    identification string like you.

    {
    "Another major problem with this approach is that the browser identity
    can be 'spoofed' because, in many modern browsers, the
    navigator.appVersion and navigator.userAgent string properties are user
    configurable strings. For example,

    * Firefox 1.x users and users of any/all Mozilla-based browsers can
    customize the "general.useragent.*" string properties to any value.
    * Opera 6+ allows users to set the browser identification string
    via a menu
    * MSIE uses the Windows registry
    * Safari and Icab browsers mask their browser identity under
    Internet Explorer or Netscape labels
    }

    which is why browser identification based on userAgent string detection
    is not reliable.

    http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#BrowserIdent

    One way to work around this problem would be to know which property or
    method has been recently implemented in recently released Gecko-based
    browsers.

    For Opera 9, I recommend

    if(window.opera && window.addEventListener && document.body.textContent)
    [needs to be tested]
    DOM 3 Core textContent attribute was implemented in Opera starting with
    Opera 9.

    For recent Gecko-based browsers (Seamonkey 1.0.?, Firefox 2):

    if(window.netscape && document.compatMode &&
    document.documentElement.createSVGAngle)
    [I have not tested this one; maybe there is a better way]

    Finally, a very safe, sound, respectable policy would be to add a link to

    Why update?
    http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/why.htm

    to

    Find browsers
    http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/find.htm

    and to
    Browse Happy
    http://browsehappy.com/

    or possibly to

    Alternative Browser Alliance
    List of Alternative Web Browsers
    http://www.alternativebrowseralliance.com/browsers.html
    (personally, I would not recommend NS 8.x and I would definitely not
    recommend K-meleon 1.x to newbies)

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 24, 2006
    #5
  6. Gérard Talbot wrote:

    > Jay wants to invite people and to assist people using old browsers
    > into upgrading their browser versions.


    I wasn't sure that is what he meant, as he included "I want to use the
    following version browser only, if they are other types I need to
    redirect to there download page."

    ...which made me think he was designing pages that would not work in
    older browsers. You could be right, let's ask him. ;-)

    I love it when I go to a site with Opera or Firefox and am presented
    with a page that tells me "you need to upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.0
    or better". So I change the UA string to "IE6.0 WinXP" and it lets me
    right in. As if I want to upgrade to a seven year old browser...

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
    > Gérard Talbot wrote:
    >
    >> Jay wants to invite people and to assist people using old browsers
    >> into upgrading their browser versions.

    >
    > I wasn't sure that is what he meant, as he included "I want to use the
    > following version browser only, if they are other types I need to
    > redirect to there download page."
    >


    I think he meant webpages like

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx
    http://www.opera.com/download/
    http://browser.netscape.com/ns8/
    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
    http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
    http://www.icab.de/dl.php
    etc.


    > ..which made me think he was designing pages that would not work in
    > older browsers. You could be right, let's ask him. ;-)
    >


    Yes, he may have misworded all that.

    > I love it when I go to a site with Opera or Firefox and am presented
    > with a page that tells me "you need to upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.0
    > or better".


    Sometimes, I have been served such kind of message. Not often though.
    The web is changing. Slowly but it is changing.

    > So I change the UA string to "IE6.0 WinXP"


    Do you know of a webpage that describes exactly (step by step) how to
    modify the registry files to do this? I'm still searching...

    and it lets me
    > right in. As if I want to upgrade to a seven year old browser...
    >


    Sites which offer you to upgrade to IE5 are for sure bad sites,
    unmanaged sites.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Gérard Talbot wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
    >> So I change the UA string to "IE6.0 WinXP"

    >
    > Do you know of a webpage that describes exactly (step by step) how to
    > modify the registry files to do this? I'm still searching...


    To change the UA string? With Firefox, it is as simple as selecting one
    in the dropdown that comes with the PrefBar extension.

    http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
    and a screen shot of the Customize dialog:
    http://k75s.home.att.net/images/prefbar.png

    Normally, I leave it set to "Real UA" of course.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 24, 2006
    #8
  9. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
    > Gérard Talbot wrote:
    >
    >> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
    >>> So I change the UA string to "IE6.0 WinXP"

    >> Do you know of a webpage that describes exactly (step by step) how to
    >> modify the registry files to do this? I'm still searching...

    >
    > To change the UA string? With Firefox,


    Oops, my mistake. I reversed what you wrote in my mind.

    I meant to say that one can "regedit" MSIE 6 in a way to modify its
    userAgent string. I know it's doable: I've heard people doing it. But I
    don't know how to do this and wondered if you knew how (step by step).

    E.g.:
    The user agent string, instead of saying, returning

    "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)"

    could instead return

    "Stop using userAgent string detection and start using object/feature
    support detection as explained at
    http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#ObjectFeatDetect "

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 24, 2006
    #9
  10. Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
    > Scripsit Gérard Talbot:
    >
    >> jaydev wrote :
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    >>> browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
    >>> have a sample code for this?

    >>
    >> Hello jaydev,
    >>
    >> You have an interesting and worthy post in there. It's definitely a
    >> good question.

    >
    > Well, it might be a good _question_. The correct _answer_, though, is
    > that such efforts are a waste of everyone's time, and worse.
    >


    It all depends actually on what is the whole webpage context, situation
    (purpose served for browser detection), not just how detection is done -
    that is if it can be done reliably - but also *_how_* people are invited
    to upgrade. A simple clickable-reactive <browse happy image> might be
    good enough, you know.

    > The page author would just upset and throw out some part of potential
    > users. If he somehow managed to make someone update his browser, this
    > would still distract from the site's own content.
    >


    Any link involving a download would do that too. E.g.:

    <object classid="clsid:8AD9C840-044E-11D1-B3E9-00805F499D93"
    codebase=
    "http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/autodl/jinstall-1_5_0-windows-i586.cab#Version=1,5,0,9"

    codetype="application/java" standby="Loading of applet in progress..."
    height="200" width="350"> (...)
    will involve an auto-download of 16.2MB download for anyone not using
    JRE 1.5.0_b9.

    > Besides, the detection is bound to fail, and the redirects are bound to
    > take users to wrong pages.


    Of course, that's possible and it's the danger. That's why it will
    always be best to create real link in a webpage where people can choose
    a browser (download) by themselves and not via javascript, which as you
    rightly point out, is not 100% full-proof.

    > Maybe not immediately, but next month or next
    > year. If you can make me believe that authors who write browser-sniffing
    > and browser-redirection code will actually _maintain_ the monstrosity
    > they create, you might just as well try making me believe in elves,
    > Santa Claus, the Great Pumpkin, and even politicians' promises before
    > elections.


    Very often, they don't maintain the monstruosity they create ... or copy
    from others' sites.

    Jukka, just visit my own website http://www.gtalbot.org/ and you'll see
    that all links at the bottom of the webpages can not mislead or
    misredirect visitors.

    I do use some kind of browser detection in a few of my DHTML section
    webpages and it happened once, after a browser upgrade (involving
    Opera), that it no longer worked, and so, I had to update the whole
    thing, tune again.

    If you include the following in a webpage

    <!--[if gte IE 4]>
    <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
    spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
    unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
    switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
    href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    explanations and assistance.</p>
    <![endif]-->

    it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
    work for many years.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 24, 2006
    #10
  11. jaydev

    Spartanicus Guest

    Gérard Talbot <> wrote:

    >If you include the following in a webpage
    >
    ><!--[if gte IE 4]>
    ><p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
    >spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
    >unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
    >switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
    >href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    >src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    >height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    >explanations and assistance.</p>
    ><![endif]-->
    >
    >it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
    >work for many years.


    MS Conditional Comments were not introduced until IE5.0/Win, so IE4
    users would not get the message.

    Then there is also the unbelievable arrogance and patronising attitude
    exhibited by the above message. It's no-one's bleeping business what
    browser a user is using, and IE is no exception to this.

    Aggressively pushing alternatives to IE by the above scaremongering and
    lambasting frequently causes people to develop a hatred for other
    browsers and the people pushing them.

    *YOU* reject IE, so don't use it. Mind your own business about what
    others use.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Oct 24, 2006
    #11
  12. jaydev

    Andy Dingley Guest

    jaydev wrote:

    > I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    > browser download page if the clients uses old version,


    Then stop doing that. It's bad and wrong for a whole load of reasons.

    It's their browser. You worry about your site, you let the customer
    worry about their browser.

    Maybe you're a major trustworthy ISP or security vendor offering a
    browser checking service. In this narrow case, there could be a case
    for _advising_ people that their browser version is out of date and
    shoudl be upgraded. You should present this information as a table of
    what you think they have, what version you think it is, then some
    _suggestions_ as to how to upgrade, which they can follow if (and only
    if) they wish to. DO NOT FORCE A REDIRECT ON THEM BECAUSE _you_ THINK
    THEY OUGHT TO BE FORCED TO UPGRADE.

    If you were competent to advise people to upgrade browser versions (one
    of only half-a-dozen sites I'd trust to do this) you'd already know how
    to do this, and you'd be telling us how to do it.

    If this is for your site, or your cat Mittens' homepage, then why
    should it be telling me stuff about my browser? Go away - it's none of
    your business. It's also very bad security practice to train naive
    customers into believing that random websites are trustworthy
    authorities to recommend upgrades. What happens if you're actually an
    Elbonian credit card fraud ring trying to install trojaned browsers on
    the unsuspecting?

    If you want to "browser sniff" to see if browsers can support features
    that your site needs to use, then don't browser sniff, feature sniff
    instead. Don't assume that "IE 4 doesn't support the .foobar property",
    instead test whether this browser actually supports .foobar directly
    (this is easy and a standard JavaScript technique).

    Remember that browser sniffing is usually based on the user agent
    string, and that's very far from reliable. It's commonly misrepresented
    deliberately, let alone all the general unreliability of it.

    If you need to force users to use a particular browser, then your site
    is wrong. Fundamentally and abjectly wrong.
     
    Andy Dingley, Oct 24, 2006
    #12
  13. jaydev

    Bergamot Guest

    Gérard Talbot wrote:
    >
    > one can "regedit" MSIE 6 in a way to modify its
    > userAgent string.


    Be advised, however, that if you do this, things like Windows Update
    won't work any more.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Oct 25, 2006
    #13
  14. Scripsit Gérard Talbot:

    > It all depends actually on what is the whole webpage context,
    > situation (purpose served for browser detection), not just how
    > detection is done - that is if it can be done reliably - but also
    > *_how_* people are invited to upgrade. A simple clickable-reactive
    > <browse happy image> might be good enough, you know.


    Arguing with visitors about their choice of a browser is just foolish, no
    matter how you do that. Even if your site is _about_ the choice of a browser
    and nothing else, all this sniffing and puffing is pointless: anyone who is
    really interested in the choice of a browser surely knows what he is using
    and wants to read _rational arguments_ or comparisons.

    Almost all sites that try to convince users about changing or upgrading a
    browser are trying to say something about some other issues as well, and
    then they lose their point by making noise about the browser issue. If you
    use a telephone to contact a person or an organization about something, what
    would you think if you first heard "Dear caller, we have detected that you
    are using an old telephone model with serious security problems. You will
    now be automatically connected to a person who will give you advice on
    upgrading to a newer model..."?

    >> The page author would just upset and throw out some part of potential
    >> users. If he somehow managed to make someone update his browser, this
    >> would still distract from the site's own content.

    >
    > Any link involving a download would do that too.


    Indeed, if the download has nothing to contribute to the purpose and content
    of the site. Wasn't this obvious?

    >> Besides, the detection is bound to fail, and the redirects are bound
    >> to take users to wrong pages.

    >
    > Of course, that's possible and it's the danger.


    It _will_ happen, sooner or later, and it's _one_ of the dangers.

    > That's why it will
    > always be best to create real link in a webpage where people can
    > choose a browser (download) by themselves


    The "real link" will get rotten, sooner or later, as links tend to do -
    _especially_ links related to technological issues like newest browser
    versions.

    > Very often, they don't maintain the monstruosity they create ... or
    > copy from others' sites.


    This also means that people with some experience on browser propaganda pages
    know this and automatically devaluate sites with such features, since it is
    rational to expect "Oh, this is one of _those_ pages".

    > Jukka, just visit my own website http://www.gtalbot.org/ and you'll
    > see that all links at the bottom of the webpages can not mislead or
    > misredirect visitors.


    Huh? What has that got to do with the issue. At the bottom of, say,
    http://www.gtalbot.org/FirefoxSection/
    I see the following:

    "Valid HTML 4.01 strict! CSS compliant Web standards project Get Nvu
    HTML editor"

    That soup of links _is_ misleading. Very misleading. On the other hand,
    there is no link for browser update, which is of course good, but then this
    example is irrelevant.

    > If you include the following in a webpage
    >
    > <!--[if gte IE 4]>
    > <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
    > spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
    > unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
    > switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
    > href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    > src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    > height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    > explanations and assistance.</p>
    > <![endif]-->
    >
    > it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
    > work for many years.


    Parody has become impossible.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Oct 25, 2006
    #14
  15. Gérard Talbot wrote:
    > If you include the following in a webpage
    >
    > <!--[if gte IE 4]>
    > <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
    > spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
    > unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
    > switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
    > href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    > src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    > height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    > explanations and assistance.</p>
    > <![endif]-->


    Imagine buying a car for off-road adventures, knowing that it's a bit
    unstable but choosing to take the chance, and then having car wash
    employees, service station attendants, and random people in parking lots
    coming up to you all the time to stop you and rant, "Don't you know how
    unsafe your car is?" Receiving unsolicited advice from strangers in
    public is annoying, and it's annoying on the Web as well. There's no
    reason why the sites I choose to visit for reasons that have nothing to
    do with the Web client I use should make it their personal quest to
    contest my choice of browser.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Oct 25, 2006
    #15
  16. Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
    > Scripsit Gérard Talbot:
    >
    >> It all depends actually on what is the whole webpage context,
    >> situation (purpose served for browser detection), not just how
    >> detection is done - that is if it can be done reliably - but also
    >> *_how_* people are invited to upgrade. A simple clickable-reactive
    >> <browse happy image> might be good enough, you know.

    >
    > Arguing with visitors about their choice of a browser is just foolish,
    > no matter how you do that.


    Really?

    > Even if your site is _about_ the choice of a
    > browser and nothing else, all this sniffing and puffing is pointless:
    > anyone who is really interested in the choice of a browser surely knows
    > what he is using and wants to read _rational arguments_ or comparisons.


    If you address the visitors' intelligence, you may actually help them
    consider the current browser they are using.

    Some ISPs will support their customers in upgrading browsers. Some
    e-commerce sites will support to upgrade as well.

    Like I said, it's not worth it to annoy users who are already using
    non-IE browsers. Those who choose a non-IE browser usually are good at
    keeping up with the latest available version of their browser.

    For IE 5.x, it may be already pointless or useless to annoy them: for
    some reasons (non-computer savvy, fear?, something else), they haven't
    upgrade already to MSIE 6 or to other alternate browsers.

    For IE 6, then I think it's worth addressing such issue. Within the next
    12 months or so, IE 6 users will have choice and will most likely be
    bombarded with upgrade/switch campains.

    I'm just reducing the span of the discussion here.

    > Almost all sites that try to convince users about changing or upgrading
    > a browser are trying to say something about some other issues as well,
    > and then they lose their point by making noise about the browser issue.
    > If you use a telephone to contact a person or an organization about
    > something, what would you think if you first heard "Dear caller, we have
    > detected that you are using an old telephone model with serious security
    > problems.


    What if the user is calling the phone company and reporting problems
    with his phone? What if the user is calling his phone utility company
    and asking for the best recommendable phone product?

    You will now be automatically connected to a person who will
    > give you advice on upgrading to a newer model..."?


    [snipped]

    How about a disclaimer webpage saying something like "The webpages of
    this website use valid markup code, semantic markup code and valid CSS
    code. Despite our best coding, testing and technical efforts, the
    formating of webpages may not render as intended in browsers which have
    an incomplete support of W3C web standards or incorrect implementation
    of W3C web standards. For best viewing conditions and for best security,
    we recommend Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.1 or ..."

    The link to such disclaimer page would only appear to IE 5.x, IE 6 and
    IE 7 users thanks to:
    <!--[if lt IE 8]>
    <p><a href="[link to disclaimer page]">Recommended browsers [or some
    other text]</a><p>
    <![endif]-->

    At the bottom of, say,
    > http://www.gtalbot.org/FirefoxSection/
    > I see the following:
    >
    > "Valid HTML 4.01 strict! CSS compliant Web standards project Get Nvu
    > HTML editor"
    >
    > That soup of links _is_ misleading. Very misleading.


    Sorry, I chose quickly a random page. Most other webpages on my site has
    a list of supported browser which are clickable images referencing
    download pages.

    > On the other hand,
    > there is no link for browser update, which is of course good,


    There are links for browser update on a majority of webpages.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 25, 2006
    #16
  17. Harlan Messinger wrote :
    > Gérard Talbot wrote:
    >> If you include the following in a webpage
    >>
    >> <!--[if gte IE 4]>
    >> <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
    >> spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
    >> unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
    >> switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
    >> href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    >> src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    >> height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    >> explanations and assistance.</p>
    >> <![endif]-->

    >
    > Imagine buying a car for off-road adventures, knowing that it's a bit
    > unstable but choosing to take the chance, and then having car wash
    > employees, service station attendants, and random people in parking lots
    > coming up to you all the time to stop you and rant, "Don't you know how
    > unsafe your car is?" Receiving unsolicited advice from strangers in
    > public is annoying, and it's annoying on the Web as well. There's no
    > reason why the sites I choose to visit for reasons that have nothing to
    > do with the Web client I use should make it their personal quest to
    > contest my choice of browser.


    Ok. Fair enough. How about having a list of clickable images to update
    browsers?

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 25, 2006
    #17
  18. Spartanicus wrote :
    > Gérard Talbot <> wrote:
    >
    >> If you include the following in a webpage
    >>
    >> <!--[if gte IE 4]>
    >> <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
    >> spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
    >> unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
    >> switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
    >> href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
    >> src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
    >> height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
    >> explanations and assistance.</p>
    >> <![endif]-->
    >>
    >> it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
    >> work for many years.

    >
    > MS Conditional Comments were not introduced until IE5.0/Win, so IE4
    > users would not get the message.
    >


    Noted.

    > Then there is also the unbelievable arrogance and patronising attitude
    > exhibited by the above message.


    You are over-exaggerating here. Internet Explorer 5.x and IE 6 are prone
    to spywares, have unpatched security weaknesses and do make computers
    unsafe. Even US-CERT has said so in broad daylight. An objective,
    neutral examination of secunia.com website and a wide majority of
    security columnists will side with me on this.

    > It's no-one's bleeping business what
    > browser a user is using, and IE is no exception to this.
    >
    > Aggressively pushing alternatives to IE


    Read me again. I do say "please consider" in the above text.

    > by the above scaremongering and
    > lambasting


    You are over-excessively exaggerating here.

    > frequently causes people to develop a hatred for other
    > browsers and the people pushing them.


    It's possible that too pushy messages or awkward advocacy campains may
    trigger the reverse of their intents.
    It's also possible that some people are curious, have an open-minded
    attitude and will want to check a link coming from a website that, over
    the years, they have learn to trust too.

    > *YOU* reject IE, so don't use it.


    Can *YOU* show me where I actually reject IE on my website?? I have a
    detailed IE 7 bugs section on my site and I have participated in many
    ways to report the bugs in IE 6 as well. If I really rejected IE as a
    whole, I would not have reported the problems, spec violations, etc..
    that I was able to reproduce.
    I don't use IE and don't recommend IE: that's true. But I don't have a
    rigid, dogmatic approach to browsers either.

    > Mind your own business about what
    > others use.


    I don't understand your agressive response to my post. I was assuming we
    were discussing the original poster's quests and issues. I advanced an
    opinion and merely proposed an idea (some text with a link to
    browsehappy webpage) which, I believe, is still defendable decision.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 25, 2006
    #18
  19. Spartanicus wrote :
    > Gérard Talbot <> wrote:
    >



    > *YOU* reject IE, so don't use it. Mind your own business about what
    > others use.


    I don't control what people ultimately decide for themselves in terms of
    web/internet/computer software usage. Overall, I'm happy about which
    browsers my visitors use.

    Browser statistics for gtalbot.org site
    http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/BrowserStats.html

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 25, 2006
    #19
  20. Andy Dingley wrote :
    > jaydev wrote:
    >
    >> I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
    >> browser download page if the clients uses old version,

    >
    > Then stop doing that. It's bad and wrong for a whole load of reasons.
    >
    > It's their browser.


    It's also his webpage code running inside their browser.

    You worry about your site, you let the customer
    > worry about their browser.
    >


    [snipped]

    > If you need to force users to use a particular browser, then your site
    > is wrong. Fundamentally and abjectly wrong.
    >


    How about telling visitors using buggy, old, non-web-standards-compliant
    browsers that they may consider switching if they want his webpage code
    to render as expected (layout, formating, functionality)? What's so
    wrong with such invitation?

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 25, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Carlos
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    21,963
    amimpat
    Aug 11, 2009
  2. jaydev

    browser detection and redirection

    jaydev, Oct 23, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    Mark Rae
    Oct 23, 2006
  3. G. Garrett Campbell

    java version detection and browser notification

    G. Garrett Campbell, Jan 30, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    757
    Roedy Green
    Jan 31, 2008
  4. jaydev

    browser detection and redirection

    jaydev, Oct 23, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Web Services
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    132
    jaydev
    Oct 23, 2006
  5. Shannon Fang

    Detection of redirection, possible?

    Shannon Fang, Oct 27, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    129
    nobuyoshi nakada
    Oct 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page