Thread Starter
dss
(@dss)
podz!
article 619 happens for me, sends the bad men packing!
thank you!
Root – it must be, I can use it 🙂
My IE visitors are now treated to a splash of colour Firefox style.
Is all of this really necessary? I am sure that most including myself can admit that IE is not the greatest, but to “send someone packing, does not seem to be the right way. I believe that the internet should be a place for people to go, to be able to share information, without having to be concerned about having to possess someone’s version of a browser standard. I say develop and code a site so it would be compatible with all, and not with something that a few would want to make elitist. I am sure that most will not like this opinion, and that is fine, but when we start to head down the road to were we have the haves and have-nots, or “our group is using this, so you use it too or you will not be part of our group�, is just wrong. ‘INTERNET FOR ALL’
Many things within our societies will work better with better equipment.
Want better sound from your TV ? Get a surround system.
Want digital Radio for better clarity? Buy one.
Want to really use the whole internet ? Use a decent ISP.
All of these are promoted widely, and if by pointing someone at a resource that not only does it’s job, but does it much much better than the tool many people are using, then such promotion is a ‘Good Thing’.
IE is flawed. That is not up for discusion really is it ?
But for as long as the market continues to use it, those that cater to that market will also do so.
The market providers will not change until the market users do. And market users should always be the ones to show others alternative paths – never the market providers.
Unless of course the W3C should just be told to go home and not bother because all standards now emanate from Richmond ?
This sounds combative, and I don’t mean it to, but it’s a (fairly) free world out there on the internet, so surely we can all play by whatever rules we want ?
Rather a weak argument there podz 😉 A free market is not, nor should it be, uni-directional. In truth I suspect it is the market providers normally introducing alternatives, new and better mouse traps so to speak – though the users choose whether they want to accept the “new and improved”. There is no greater example of a failed attempt than Coca Cola’s 1985 introduction of “New Coke”. As a provider it behooves me to ensure that my product is not only acceptable to my users but also works with the “latest and greatest” as well as the “old and getting older” browser while encouraging my users to update to the browser which best displays my product.
IE has issues, sure, but so does FF. One’s vantage point determines the particular browser preference. For instance, you have a post on your site encouraging your readers to comment to a site which is designed for IE (but still accessible to FF users). Well, the site uses Microsoft’s ASP so of course they will prefer MS IE over FF. FF users can still surf the site, albeit with a less aesthetically pleasing experience.
True, but there is a difference.
English Heritage is a publicly funded exercise, and has to conform to a lot more laws and legislation than does a weblog.
They are accountable for how they have spent the taxpayers money – a weblog author isn’t.
Rules, beliefs, promotion and a desire for change are good things, but exclusion is not. Just because one chooses to use IE instead of FF, should not be the basis for exclusion (“is there a way to check and see which browser a viewer is using and send them away if they happen to be using IE?�). If someone wants to put up a fight for FF, they should demonstrate how inferior IE is by including those that they want to convert. I would rather have someone point out how bad something is, rather than not defend there point of view and slam the door in my face. My point for posting to this was to express my concern that excluding people on the basis of their browser is not a way to win converts. FF and IE both have there fault, and are in no way perfect (I am sure that most FF disciples would disagree). What I believe it all comes down to is allowing each person to decide what they want to use. Now, if anyone wants to set up their sites to only allow FF users, then fine by me. But I think it would be a shame to miss out on some information and opinion, only because the color of my browser is IE.
Yes, but the law and current legislation says …….
Either way, I do support a weblog author using scripts to affect their visitors (with regard to browsers – I’m not talking ActiveX and similar!). In the end, it is the weblog that will be adversely affected – the user will simply go elsewhere. If that has been taken into consideration, then I fully support them.
Your turn 🙂
I am not sure why everyone is arguing 😉 all this does is give a message + the site informing the user they should …. well… that they have an option. You the author can word it any way you want to. I basically say on my site:
Still using Internet Explorer?
Get FireFox
I think that offers the best of both worlds. The IE readers still get a site, just not as pleasing to the eye. The author does not have to deal with trying that hard to please all audiences, but allows him / her to focus on a select group. Which btw the author has every right to do.
Kind regards,
gravity
As an aside, I just updated these: http://www.mfr.f2s.com/stats/
Heh.. that konqueror percentage is all me 😉
Anonymous
The script (of which I’m the author) doesn’t block users, it merely displays a small message. It CAN be altered to do so, but as was pointed out above, that’s not really something that should be done. But I guess it’s up to the blogger, really.
Many thanks for your script !
Anonymous
What this debate is overlooking is that not everyone gets to choose their own browser. Of course, if you are elitist enough to want to exclude anyone accessing your site from a computer not their own, such as a work, library or internet cafe computer, that is up to you. But it makes you a jerk.
