Browser Stats

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Michael, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. Michael

    Michael Guest

    Does anyone have a link to any accurate stats for the current browser market
    share?
     
    Michael, Dec 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michael

    kchayka Guest

    Michael wrote:

    > Does anyone have a link to any accurate stats


    no

    --
    To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
    address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
     
    kchayka, Dec 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Nico Schuyt, Dec 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Michael

    John W. Guest

    "Michael" <> wrote:

    >Does anyone have a link to any accurate stats for the current browser market
    >share?
    >

    See here: <http://selfaktuell.teamone.de/sonst/userwatch.shtml>

    John OO
    --
    <http://webcel.nl/> webshopsoftware + more

    "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once"
    - John Archibald Wheeler -
     
    John W., Dec 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Michael

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:br59d1$266es8$-berlin.de>
    Michael said:

    > Does anyone have a link to any accurate stats for the current browser market
    > share?


    no such thing, just lots of guesses.

    --
    brucie
    10/December/2003 10:16:23 am kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 10, 2003
    #5
  6. Michael

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <br5om5$28rffi$-berlin.de>, brucie01
    @bruciesusenetshit.info says...
    > > Does anyone have a link to any accurate stats for the current browser market
    > > share?

    > no such thing, just lots of guesses.


    Sometimes and educated guess is the way to go.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Dec 10, 2003
    #6
  7. Whitecrest wrote:
    > Sometimes and educated guess is the way to go.


    How is the guess educated, exactly?
     
    Leif K-Brooks, Dec 10, 2003
    #7
  8. Michael

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Sometime around Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:46:51 GMT, Leif K-Brooks is reported to
    have stated:
    > Whitecrest wrote:
    >> Sometimes and educated guess is the way to go.

    >
    > How is the guess educated, exactly?


    By fake UA strings, of course.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Dec 10, 2003
    #8
  9. Michael

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <vOvBb.562$>,
    says...
    > > Sometimes and educated guess is the way to go.

    > How is the guess educated, exactly?


    Take a second and thing about it. If you can not figure it out, head
    back to remedial statistics.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Dec 10, 2003
    #9
  10. Michael

    brucie Guest

    in post <news:>
    Whitecrest said:

    >>> Sometimes and educated guess is the way to go.


    >> How is the guess educated, exactly?


    > Take a second and thing about it. If you can not figure it out, head
    > back to remedial statistics.


    garbage in ---> garbage out

    although in the case of internet statistics it seems more like

    garbage in ---> gospel out

    so there! put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    --
    brucie
    10/December/2003 09:49:12 pm kilo
     
    brucie, Dec 10, 2003
    #10
  11. Michael

    DU Guest

    Michael wrote:
    > Does anyone have a link to any accurate stats for the current browser market
    > share?
    >
    >


    Rather than asking such question, you should have explained which
    purpose would serve such info (if it was truly accurate). When I design
    a webpage or do a website, I set myself a minimum common denominator. In
    the last 2 years, I always set myself the goal of supporting browsers
    and other web-aware applications/devices which could support well (did
    not say entirely nor perfectly)
    - HTML 4.01 elements and attributes,
    - CSS1 properties and
    - DOM 1 methods and attributes.
    Roughly 96% (and still climbing) of all browsers in use out there do
    support well HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1. (If 96% of all browsers in use out
    there support HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1, then why would it be useful,
    relevant to know the respective browser market shares? If I don't need
    cross-browser code for 96% of browsers - different versions, different
    browser manufacturers - then why would it matter to know their
    respective browser market share?) As for the remaining 4%, I write very
    clearly on my sites that people should upgrade their browsers. I test my
    sites without javascript and then without CSS to see if content still is
    accessible and if basic functionalities of the sites are rendered. I
    test my sites with text browsers and check if content still degrade
    (still can be accessed) in other user agents: MSN-TV viewer, Simply Web
    2000 (text-to-speech browser and a rather good one), Delorie services
    (colors, Lynx viewer) and that's it. With experience, I know better how
    to make a site furthermore accessible and usable: that is what really
    matters here.
    In the final analysis, the real issue is about browsers and web-aware
    applications, devices complying with web standards and source code of
    webpages using, conforming to web standards. Simple as that.

    FWIW, 85% of users out there use MSIE 5+.
    5% - 8% of users out there use a Mozilla-based browser.
    2% of users out there use an Opera based software or application.
    Give or take 10% on these figures. That's what I think and I don't try
    to convince anyone with these figures. They represent trends, rough
    convergences among all stats available out there.

    DU
     
    DU, Dec 10, 2003
    #11
  12. DU wrote:

    > Roughly 96% (and still climbing) of all browsers in use out there do
    > support well HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1.


    No they don't. They support well those parts of HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM1
    that web authors expect to work reasonably well. There are lots of other
    parts of e.g. HTML 4.01 that don't work at all, except in some modern
    minor browsers (Mozilla, Opera, Lynx...). But people tend to just forget
    about those parts, since Explorer doesn't have any support for them.
    Some of those things have been around since HTML 2.

    > (If 96% of all browsers in use out
    > there support HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1, then why would it be useful,
    > relevant to know the respective browser market shares?


    There is also CSS2 with lots of interesting stuff that web authors
    might want to use. A quick look at the browser statistics, and a
    quick look at what Explorer does not support, can then be quite
    sobering.

    > FWIW, 85% of users out there use MSIE 5+.


    And there are lots of things in HTML 4.01 that don't work for them.

    --
    Bertilo Wennergren <> <http://www.bertilow.com>
     
    Bertilo Wennergren, Dec 10, 2003
    #12
  13. Michael

    DU Guest

    Bertilo Wennergren wrote:

    > DU wrote:
    >
    >> Roughly 96% (and still climbing) of all browsers in use out there do
    >> support well HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1.

    >
    >
    > No they don't. They support well those parts of HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM1
    > that web authors expect to work reasonably well. There are lots of other
    > parts of e.g. HTML 4.01 that don't work at all, except in some modern
    > minor browsers (Mozilla, Opera, Lynx...). But people tend to just forget
    > about those parts, since Explorer doesn't have any support for them.


    Lots of other parts?

    > Some of those things have been around since HTML 2.
    >


    In the post I wrote, I clearly and distinctively mentioned this:
    "(...) support well (did not say entirely nor perfectly)". Next time, I
    would appreciate if you could explicitly mention that you snipped my
    post and where you did it.


    >> (If 96% of all browsers in use out there support HTML 4.01, CSS1,
    >> DOM1, then why would it be useful, relevant to know the respective
    >> browser market shares?

    >
    >
    > There is also CSS2 with lots of interesting stuff that web authors
    > might want to use. A quick look at the browser statistics, and a
    > quick look at what Explorer does not support, can then be quite
    > sobering.
    >


    Nowhere in my post I am speaking of CSS2. So your comment here does not
    really "interact" with my post. Of course CSS2 has useful and
    interesting stuff. But my post was aiming at more basic, fundamental
    matters. We're still at a web global picture where a lot people are
    using table designs, nested tables, <font>, <img src="spacer.gif">,
    insane amounts of document.write(), eval(), setTimeout(exp,1),
    innerHTML, badly designed pages, etc.. All of this can be removed and
    replaced by CSS1 properties and sound, better DOM 1 methods inside a
    better designed page, with respect for user system resources.
    According to W3C, it is estimated that 99% of all webpages out there (10
    billions indexed or so) would fail validation. How many webpages out
    there do trigger MSIE 6 for windows into standards compliant rendering
    mode where this corrects CSS1 box model, where this reduces a lot the
    need for cross-browser code?
    I'm talking about big numbers here and a global picture.

    >> FWIW, 85% of users out there use MSIE 5+.

    >
    >
    > And there are lots of things in HTML 4.01 that don't work for them.
    >


    Lots of things? Can you be more specific? How many? Which ones? Your
    claim here; not mine.
    I see a lot of green cells in this page:
    http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results.xhtml
    and those who are not green do not need to be used often or can have a
    suitable workaround.

    The more complex and/or requiring a webpage is, the more you'll reach
    the limits of a browser: I'm sure we'll agree on this. But for a very
    wide majority of webpages out there (say 90%), you don't need CSS2
    properties, rarely seen HTML 4.01 attributes, etc. That is what my post
    basically was trying to say. And I'm not alone thinking and saying this
    out loud. E. Meyer, R. Lionhearth, P.P. Koch, www.westciv.com and sites
    who do reviews and test browsers support and will support my opinion
    here: roughly 96% of all browsers in use out there do support very well
    commonly used HTML 4.01 elements and attributes, CSS1 properties, DOM1
    methods.

    This page
    http://devedge.netscape.com/toolbox/tools/2001/feature-detection/
    gives MSIE 6 for windows good score for DOM 1 HTML, CSS1, DOM Core 1.
    (N.B.: border-spacing is a CSS2 property, not a CSS1 property). And
    again here, I don't claim that MSIE 6's support for DOM 1 is impeccable,
    flawless, perfect: I do claim it support well, even very well DOM 1
    methods and attributes.

    I remember seeing a webdesigner testing 12 different webpage designs
    with 6 recent browsers (I can't find that page anymore): if I remember
    right, all of them except 1 (ICab, I think) achieved 95%+ of accurate
    rendering. I'm trying to find that page with the results now. It's a
    recent test, not more than 3 months old.

    DU
     
    DU, Dec 10, 2003
    #13
  14. DU wrote:

    > Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
    >
    >> DU wrote:
    >>
    >>> Roughly 96% (and still climbing) of all browsers in use out there do
    >>> support well HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1.

    >>
    >>
    >> No they don't. They support well those parts of HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM1
    >> that web authors expect to work reasonably well. There are lots of other
    >> parts of e.g. HTML 4.01 that don't work at all, except in some modern
    >> minor browsers (Mozilla, Opera, Lynx...). But people tend to just forget
    >> about those parts, since Explorer doesn't have any support for them.

    >
    > Lots of other parts?


    The <link /> element springs to mind. As does <abbr />.

    Support for @cite of <q/> and <blockquote/> is also lacking.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 10, 2003
    #14
  15. Michael

    DU Guest

    Toby A Inkster wrote:

    > DU wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>DU wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Roughly 96% (and still climbing) of all browsers in use out there do
    >>>>support well HTML 4.01, CSS1, DOM1.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>No they don't. They support well those parts of HTML 4.01, CSS1 and DOM1
    >>>that web authors expect to work reasonably well. There are lots of other
    >>>parts of e.g. HTML 4.01 that don't work at all, except in some modern
    >>>minor browsers (Mozilla, Opera, Lynx...). But people tend to just forget
    >>>about those parts, since Explorer doesn't have any support for them.

    >>
    >>Lots of other parts?

    >
    >
    > The <link /> element springs to mind.


    Yes, this one missing is rather annoying; it's an HTML 2.0 element on
    top of that.

    As does <abbr />.
    >


    You can workaround this with a
    <span title="Description of abbreviation" style="cursor:help,
    default;"><abbr title="...">...</abbr></span>. I remember answering a
    post exactly on this in this newsgroup, I think.

    > Support for @cite of <q/> and <blockquote/> is also lacking.
    >


    Agreed. But this can be worked around too and is not as fatal, damaging
    or major as using 500 &nbsp; in a page markup instead of using properly
    CSS1 margin and padding properties. Or as damaging as nested tables,
    over-constrained tables, 100 document.write()'s, improper nesting
    everywhere, etc. The big problem on the web is no longer with
    browsers/browser manufacturers and their compliance to HTML 4.01, CSS1,
    DOM1 but rather the poorly authored webpage, outdated markup code (like
    <font>, <center>, <layer>), disconnected-disfunctional webpage designs,
    "if (document.all) ... if(document.layers)" code in millions of pages.
    If a very large majority of browsers now support
    document.getElementById, then testing for/supporting document.all and
    document.layers is no longer needed.
    It's not enough to have people upgrade their browsers; upgrading the
    code (and coding techniques) that these browsers support is also needed.

    DU
     
    DU, Dec 10, 2003
    #15
    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. Utter Newbie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    474
    Utter Newbie
    Jul 28, 2003
  2. Dan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    352
  3. Jeff Thies

    browser market share stats

    Jeff Thies, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    478
    RepAlciere
    Dec 4, 2003
  4. JDS
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    498
    Michael Wilcox
    Feb 2, 2005
  5. Neredbojias

    Browser Stats

    Neredbojias, Jul 2, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
    Neredbojias
    Jul 2, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page