Statistics (again?)

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Nico Schuyt, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. Nico Schuyt

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    I posted this question this morning but don't see it in my newsreader. In
    Google it's all mixed up in other threads (http://tinyurl.com/3auja)

    New attempt:
    Anyone know where to find recent global stats regarding browser usage
    (particularly javascript)?
    W3Schools stops at july 2003:
    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
    The last one on thecounter.com is May 2003:
    http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/index.php and is unreliable (for
    example no hits on tuesday:
    http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/weekday.php)
    Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nico Schuyt wrote:
    > Anyone know where to find recent global stats regarding browser usage
    > (particularly javascript)?


    Why do you think you need them?
    Leif K-Brooks, Jan 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nico Schuyt

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >> Anyone know where to find recent global stats regarding browser usage
    >> (particularly javascript)?


    > Why do you think you need them?


    Because I, like a lot of other people here, always point at the "10-15% js
    disabled". I still have my doubts about the reliability of those figures and
    now even my sources like thecounter.com seem to be no longer available.
    Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Nico Schuyt

    Augustus Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    news:40083089$0$20174$...
    > Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    > > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    > >> Anyone know where to find recent global stats regarding browser usage
    > >> (particularly javascript)?

    >
    > > Why do you think you need them?

    >
    > Because I, like a lot of other people here, always point at the "10-15% js
    > disabled". I still have my doubts about the reliability of those figures

    and
    > now even my sources like thecounter.com seem to be no longer available.


    I think his point was:
    1) You should design for every browser... not just the most popular ones
    (its not that hard to do)
    2) You can use all the Javascript you want in your site... but you shouldn't
    make it required for the site's operation. There is nothing you can do with
    Javascript that you can't put in a way around with plain HTML (its not that
    hard to do)
    3) Resolution doesn't matter... you should make your site viewable in any
    size window (its not that hard to do)

    This applies to everything else you want to put in your site: Flash, ActiveX
    controls, Java Applets, downloading fonts... you can do it, but you should
    make your site operational if the user doesn't elect to use those features
    or has them disabled (again, its not that hard to do)
    Augustus, Jan 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Nico Schuyt

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Augustus wrote:
    > "Nico Schuyt" wrote:
    >> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >>> Nico Schuyt wrote:


    >>>> Anyone know where to find recent global stats regarding browser
    >>>> usage (particularly javascript)?


    >>> Why do you think you need them?


    >> Because I, like a lot of other people here, always point at the
    >> "10-15% js disabled". I still have my doubts about the reliability
    >> of those figures and now even my sources like thecounter.com seem to
    >> be no longer available.


    > I think his point was:
    > <snip>


    Hey, I'm not *completely* a newbie :)
    Point is simply that if we all use those figures, we should be able to
    mention a reliable source.
    And the height of the percentage *does* matter. If 50% of the visitors used
    NS4.7 I wouldn't just suffice with suppressing CSS. Same with js. If it's
    indeed such a high percentage, it's hardly acceptable (for my customers) to
    create an ugly alternative.
    Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Nico Schuyt

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <40084262$0$35157$>,
    says...
    > Hey, I'm not *completely* a newbie :)
    > Point is simply that if we all use those figures, we should be able to
    > mention a reliable source.
    > And the height of the percentage *does* matter. If 50% of the visitors used
    > NS4.7 I wouldn't just suffice with suppressing CSS. Same with js. If it's
    > indeed such a high percentage, it's hardly acceptable (for my customers) to
    > create an ugly alternative.


    Sometimes the design will sell more widgets than the fact that everyone
    can see it will. Different people like different things.

    And I completely agree with you, if the percentage started edging over
    (for me) 25%, then I would have to start re-thinking. I personally
    think the "effective" percentage is still close to 10%, as a lot of the
    people that have it turned off are at the office, and they should not
    (or can not, or are very limited by blocking) be surfing the web from
    the office, so while they are counted as having it off, they effectively
    would not be going to some web sites anyway, so you can eliminate that
    percentage of and of course you have the people that will actually turn
    it on because they want your content. (Even our zealots admit to doing
    that).

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Nico Schuyt

    Augustus Guest

    "Whitecrest" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <40084262$0$35157$>,
    > says...
    > > Hey, I'm not *completely* a newbie :)
    > > Point is simply that if we all use those figures, we should be able to
    > > mention a reliable source.
    > > And the height of the percentage *does* matter. If 50% of the visitors

    used
    > > NS4.7 I wouldn't just suffice with suppressing CSS. Same with js. If

    it's
    > > indeed such a high percentage, it's hardly acceptable (for my customers)

    to
    > > create an ugly alternative.

    >
    > Sometimes the design will sell more widgets than the fact that everyone
    > can see it will. Different people like different things.
    >
    > And I completely agree with you, if the percentage started edging over
    > (for me) 25%, then I would have to start re-thinking. I personally
    > think the "effective" percentage is still close to 10%, as a lot of the
    > people that have it turned off are at the office, and they should not
    > (or can not, or are very limited by blocking) be surfing the web from
    > the office, so while they are counted as having it off, they effectively
    > would not be going to some web sites anyway, so you can eliminate that
    > percentage of and of course you have the people that will actually turn
    > it on because they want your content. (Even our zealots admit to doing
    > that).


    I guess alot of it depends just how important that percentage, be it 5%, 10%
    or 20%, is to you.

    If your site is just a forum thing you put up as a hobby and you make a
    couple of bucks from it through some banner ads to cover the hosting... or a
    tribute to your favorite band, Flock of Seagulls, chock full of pictures and
    lyrics... then maybe it doesn't matter if some people can't use your site.

    But if you are selling something and make scripting a requirement to use
    your site, then suddenly saying "10% of the people not being able to view my
    site is ok... if they really want to buy my stuff, they'll turn scripting
    on" sounds kind of stupid

    Looking at it from another perspective.. if my restaurant ordering site gets
    over 100,000 visitors a month and of them, about 99.5% places an order
    online... if I cut out 10% of my visitors by making scripting a requirement
    (the percentage might be more, since almost every one of them is an office
    dweller placing an order for lunch or catering for a meeting, or to grab a
    quick bite on the way home) then I am cutting out about 10,000 customers a
    month

    If the average order amount is up around $11.50 then my customers are losing
    out on about $115,000 worth of business per month (not to mention I would
    lose out on collecting my 25 cents)

    To me, and I am sure to my customers, 10% isn't an acceptible loss of
    business... even 1% isn't. Anything more than 0% isn't acceptible since no
    matter what the situation you can always build a workaround

    Clint
    That Auggie Guy
    Augustus, Jan 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Nico Schuyt

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <bua48n$flutb$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    > I guess alot of it depends just how important that percentage, be it 5%, 10%
    > or 20%, is to you.


    Not so much how important are they, but rather, do you generate better
    sales using it rather then not using it. which ever is bets thats what
    you do.

    And in some cases, the pizzazz mattes.

    > If your site is just a forum thing you put up as a hobby and you make a
    > couple of bucks from it through some banner ads to cover the hosting... or a
    > tribute to your favorite band, Flock of Seagulls, chock full of pictures and
    > lyrics... then maybe it doesn't matter if some people can't use your site.


    That is a valid statement if your site is meant to make direct income
    for the company. If the site is there to brand your customer, or if it
    there to entertain them, then all bets are off, and you are right, it
    does not matter if they can not see your site.

    > But if you are selling something....


    Ah the Holy grail of truth. This is what I have been saying for years,.
    If your site is used to make direct sales, or is directly related to
    income in your company (advertising is not directly related to income)
    then you want every single people you can get to see your site.

    but there are other uses for the Internet. Even for corporations. I
    can not imagine going to any site related to the entertainment industry
    and seeing a plain Jane site with no eye candy. It just will not work.

    > Looking at it from another perspective.. if my restaurant ordering site gets
    > over 100,000 visitors a month and of them, about 99.5% places an order
    > online...


    And you are absolutely right, that site should make sure that ever
    stinking swinging dick can see and use it. I have NEVER said
    differently.

    But,let cartoon network try the same thing and it would be a miserable
    failure because kids do not go there to buy something, they go there to
    be entertained, then they watch the cartoon network, then they buy the
    things that are advertised on it. Similar results could not be achieves
    with HTML and CSS alone.

    > if I cut out 10% of my visitors by making scripting a requirement
    > (the percentage might be more, since almost every one of them is an office
    > dweller placing an order for lunch or catering for a meeting, or to grab a
    > quick bite on the way home) then I am cutting out about 10,000 customers a
    > month


    If cartoon network went to an all html and CSS page they would o out of
    business. There are different uses for the web other than buying
    something and text information. It is a pity so many here miss that
    simple point.

    > To me, and I am sure to my customers, 10% isn't an acceptible loss of
    > business... even 1% isn't. Anything more than 0% isn't acceptible since no
    > matter what the situation you can always build a workaround


    And this is why we can steal so many customers away from designers like
    yourself. See I can offer the customer a page just like you can, or I
    can offer him pizzazz it totally depends on what they need to make their
    page perform the way they need it to. If the customer needs html and
    CSS, they get it (your restaurant example). If the customer needs
    pizzazz they get it (pick any large corporation or anything related to
    the entertainment industry). See you refuse the pizzazz, which is
    closing a line of revenue for yourself. And I am more than glad to take
    it.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Nico Schuyt

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote:

    >Hey, I'm not *completely* a newbie :)


    Then don't ask newbie questions.

    >Point is simply that if we all use those figures, we should be able to
    >mention a reliable source.


    The point is not to use any figures in the first place, they are
    useless. Follow Augustus's advice and use optional techniques to your
    heart's delight, just make sure that they are optional for use of the
    site.

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Jan 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Nico Schuyt

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article
    <>,
    says...
    > Follow Augustus's advice and use optional techniques to your
    > heart's delight, just make sure that they are optional for use of the
    > site.


    Why follow potential bad advice. It completely depends on the site.
    There is no one rule that fits ever site on the web.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 17, 2004
    #10
  11. Nico Schuyt

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:


    > Then don't ask newbie questions.


    I don't get it, the phrase "10-15% js disabled" is used dozens of times in
    this ng. Not only by me but also by the experts like rf, brucie and david
    dorward. Noone objects. Now that I ask for a recent reference it's suddenly
    a newbie question

    > The point is not to use any figures in the first place, they are
    > useless.


    Do you mean useless or unreliable? Like I said before, the height of the
    percentage has effect of the choice of the fall back method. If the figures
    are unreliable, please submit a reference.

    > Follow Augustus's advice and use optional techniques to your
    > heart's delight, just make sure that they are optional for use of the
    > site.


    Non of my sites is js dependant.
    Regards, Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Nico Schuyt

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote:

    >> Then don't ask newbie questions.

    >
    >I don't get it, the phrase "10-15% js disabled" is used dozens of times in
    >this ng. Not only by me but also by the experts like rf, brucie and david
    >dorward.


    They are only human (brucie excepted), I imagine that they sometimes
    can't resist the temptation to get newbies to see the error of their
    ways by mentioning a scary percentage.

    >Noone objects.


    I do.

    >Now that I ask for a recent reference it's suddenly
    >a newbie question


    I was surprised that you brought up this question, you usually do a good
    job at answering newbie questions.

    >> The point is not to use any figures in the first place, they are
    >> useless.

    >
    >Do you mean useless or unreliable?


    Useless/pointless.

    >Like I said before, the height of the
    >percentage has effect of the choice of the fall back method.


    I don't follow, can you give an example? Optional technologies used
    properly ultimately fall back to straight html, this ensures maximum
    compatibility.

    >> Follow Augustus's advice and use optional techniques to your
    >> heart's delight, just make sure that they are optional for use of the
    >> site.

    >
    >Non of my sites is js dependant.


    Good, but I was referring to all optional technologies, that includes
    graphic displays, js, css, flash etc.

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Jan 17, 2004
    #12
  13. Nico Schuyt

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Spartanicus wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >
    >>> Then don't ask newbie questions.


    >> I don't get it, the phrase "10-15% js disabled" is used dozens of
    >> times in this ng. Not only by me but also by the experts like rf,
    >> brucie and david dorward.


    > They are only human (brucie excepted), I imagine that they sometimes
    > can't resist the temptation to get newbies to see the error of their
    > ways by mentioning a scary percentage.


    Maybe, maybe. I cann't find it again, but I'm almost certain one of the
    experts here assured me statistics concerning js are reliable (in contrary
    of the ones concerning browser usage).

    >> Noone objects.


    > I do.


    You didn't when I pointed people at the 10-15%

    >> Now that I ask for a recent reference it's suddenly
    >> a newbie question


    > I was surprised that you brought up this question, you usually do a
    > good job at answering newbie questions.


    Thanks :) But I prefer to have reliable facts the next time I point to
    possible problems

    >> Like I said before, the height of the
    >> percentage has effect of the choice of the fall back method.


    > I don't follow, can you give an example? Optional technologies used
    > properly ultimately fall back to straight html, this ensures maximum
    > compatibility.


    Well, take the problems with NS4.7 as an example. It's a lot of work to
    create a special (limited) stylesheet, so the only thing I do is add
    'media="all"' to the stylesheet link. No problem because the site is still
    readable an the very limited NS47-users. If that percentage was 10%, such an
    easy solution should probably give too many complaints of my customers.

    >>> Follow Augustus's advice and use optional techniques to your
    >>> heart's delight, just make sure that they are optional for use of
    >>> the site.


    >> Non of my sites is js dependant.


    > Good, but I was referring to all optional technologies, that includes
    > graphic displays, js, css, flash etc.


    All my sites comply (ehhh, almost :0)
    Cheers, Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Nico Schuyt

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <7msi00p46fj1e7m3ojigqdq93315qvjab4
    @news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>, says...
    > They are only human (brucie excepted), I imagine that they sometimes
    > can't resist the temptation to get newbies to see the error of their
    > ways by mentioning a scary percentage.
    > Good, but I was referring to all optional technologies, that includes
    > graphic displays, js, css, flash etc.


    I have to believe you just don't understand the technology. Actually
    this is a good thing because it lets those of us who do understand it,
    take those jobs you can not do.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Nico Schuyt

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote:

    >> They are only human (brucie excepted), I imagine that they sometimes
    >> can't resist the temptation to get newbies to see the error of their
    >> ways by mentioning a scary percentage.

    >
    >Maybe, maybe. I cann't find it again, but I'm almost certain one of the
    >experts here assured me statistics concerning js are reliable (in contrary
    >of the ones concerning browser usage).


    Double standards I'm afraid, I'm sure you've seen many posts from the
    regulars about how 81.3% of statistics are made up on the spot, usually
    followed up by someone arguing that's it's actually 74.8%. This type of
    humorous response usually flows from someone asking "how many people use
    x", the point being made is that statistics should not matter when
    making coding decisions.

    >>> Noone objects.

    >
    >> I do.

    >
    >You didn't when I pointed people at the 10-15%


    I'll pay better attention next time ;-)

    >But I prefer to have reliable facts the next time I point to
    >possible problems


    The point is not to mention statistics.

    >>> Like I said before, the height of the
    >>> percentage has effect of the choice of the fall back method.

    >
    >> I don't follow, can you give an example? Optional technologies used
    >> properly ultimately fall back to straight html, this ensures maximum
    >> compatibility.

    >
    >Well, take the problems with NS4.7 as an example. It's a lot of work to
    >create a special (limited) stylesheet, so the only thing I do is add
    >'media="all"' to the stylesheet link. No problem because the site is still
    >readable an the very limited NS47-users. If that percentage was 10%, such an
    >easy solution should probably give too many complaints of my customers.


    This is usually a preoccupation of dezigners and possibly customers. I'm
    used to coding for users, they never complain if there aren't any pretty
    colours, users want things to work.

    --
    Spartanicus
    Spartanicus, Jan 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Nico Schuyt

    Augustus Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    news:400928e9$0$126$...
    > Spartanicus wrote:
    > > Nico Schuyt wrote:

    >
    > > Then don't ask newbie questions.

    >
    > I don't get it, the phrase "10-15% js disabled" is used dozens of times in
    > this ng. Not only by me but also by the experts like rf, brucie and david
    > dorward. Noone objects. Now that I ask for a recent reference it's

    suddenly
    > a newbie question


    According to thecounter.com at
    http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/December/javas.php
    it was 13% had javascript disabled

    I don't think its really a "newbie question" per se... I think its that
    partly it came across as an irrelevant question (Because the answer to the
    question now is, and probably always will be: "it doesn't matter how many do
    or don't have javascript enabled... you should build your site so that those
    with javascript disabled can still use it") and that another poster in the
    thread was coming across as a newbie who has some kind of shrine to
    javascript in the back of his closet.
    Augustus, Jan 18, 2004
    #16
  17. Nico Schuyt

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Augustus wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote


    >> I don't get it, the phrase "10-15% js disabled" is used dozens of
    >> times in this ng. Not only by me but also by the experts like rf,
    >> brucie and david dorward. Noone objects. Now that I ask for a recent
    >> reference it's suddenly a newbie question


    > According to thecounter.com at
    > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/December/javas.php
    > it was 13% had javascript disabled


    December 2003! How is that possible?? Like I mentioned in my original
    posting thecounter.com seems to stop at may 2003
    (http://www.thecounter.com/stats/)
    But this one also seems to be corrupt: No hits on tuesday and wednesday:
    http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/November/weekday.php

    > I don't think its really a "newbie question" per se...


    Asking for reliable statistics and other references is *never* a newbie
    question.

    > I think its
    > that partly it came across as an irrelevant question (Because the
    > answer to the question now is, and probably always will be: "it
    > doesn't matter how many do or don't have javascript enabled...


    Well, I'll quote myself again :) : "And the height of the percentage does
    matter. If 50% of the visitors used NS4.7 I wouldn't just suffice with
    suppressing CSS. Same with js. If it's indeed such a high percentage, it's
    hardly acceptable (for my customers) to create an ugly alternative."

    Regards, Nico
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 18, 2004
    #17
  18. Nico Schuyt

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <bude9c$gltja$-berlin.de>,
    says...
    > According to thecounter.com at
    > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/December/javas.php
    > it was 13% had javascript disabled
    >
    > I don't think its really a "newbie question" per se... I think its that
    > partly it came across as an irrelevant question (Because the answer to the
    > question now is, and probably always will be: "it doesn't matter how many do
    > or don't have javascript enabled... you should build your site so that those
    > with javascript disabled can still use it") and that another poster in the
    > thread was coming across as a newbie who has some kind of shrine to
    > javascript in the back of his closet.


    Sadly, with out knowing all of the particulars of a web site, Making the
    statement

    "it doesn't matter how many do or don't have javascript enabled... you
    should build your site so that those with javascript disabled can still
    use it"it is impossible to say for a fact that using anything is
    "wrong."

    Is wrong. It completely depends on the site.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Jan 18, 2004
    #18
    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. amit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    375
  2. che
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    478
  3. abcd

    Importing again and again

    abcd, Jun 8, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    317
    Maric Michaud
    Jun 9, 2006
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    392
  5. Ò»Ê×Ê«

    A design problem I met again and again.

    Ò»Ê×Ê«, Apr 1, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    694
    Dennis Lee Bieber
    Apr 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page