Statistics (again?)

N

Nico Schuyt

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
 
N

Nico Schuyt

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
 
A

Augustus

Nico Schuyt said:
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)
 
N

Nico Schuyt

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
 
W

Whitecrest

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).
 
A

Augustus

Whitecrest said:
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
 
W

Whitecrest

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.
 
S

Spartanicus

Nico Schuyt said:
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.
 
W

Whitecrest

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.
 
N

Nico Schuyt

Spartanicus said:
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
 
S

Spartanicus

Nico Schuyt said:
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.
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.
Non of my sites is js dependant.

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

Nico Schuyt

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).

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

Whitecrest

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.
 
S

Spartanicus

Nico Schuyt said:
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.
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.
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.
 
A

Augustus

Nico Schuyt said:
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.
 
N

Nico Schuyt

Augustus said:
Nico Schuyt wrote
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
 
W

Whitecrest

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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,755
Messages
2,569,536
Members
45,007
Latest member
obedient dusk

Latest Threads

Top