photo gallery css erratic
in [CSS]
|
From: Albert Ross on 6 Apr 2010 13:03 On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 14:28:39 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous(a)example.invalid> wrote: >MG wrote: > >> "Rob W." wrote: >>>> "rf" wrote: >>>>> And how many people are still using versions 7 and 6? >>>>> In the real world? >>> >>> 1. Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 5.779.670 39,80% >>> 2. Microsoft Internet Explorer 8.0 4.750.849 32,71% >>> 3. Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 876.458 6,04% >>> 4. Mozilla Firefox 3.5.7 492.731 3,39% >>> 5. Safari 4.0.4 416.556 2,87% >>> 6. Mozilla Firefox 3.6 379.801 2,62% >> >> This site puts Firefox at 46% >> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp > >I don't think w3schools qualifies as "real world." It's a site visited >by the technically-oriented, who would be expected to use a browser >other than the one foisted upon them. One of my "common-man" sites >shows, for March: > >1. MSIE 8: 30.8% >2. Firefox: 24.4% >3. MSIE 7: 18.5% >4. MSIE 6: 9.7% >5. Safari: 9.7% >6. Chrome: 2.7% > >That's still 60% for the browser-like object from Microsoft. Useful numbers. So finally IE6 and former abortions are dying! Probably because for their sins most MS users have Automatic Updates turned on. And it absolutely figures that more techy oriented folks will use Real Browsers instead hence the big differences between sites
From: Albert Ross on 6 Apr 2010 13:35 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:27:44 +1000, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >When I was on Mac OS 6 or was it 8, there was a program one could >buy to store things in a way that was more like the way a wet >memory works, you could stick any old thing in a big bin with >various keywords attached. And this made it easy to search to dig >it out. Wife 101 unfortunately mine was the beta version
From: Ed Mullen on 8 Apr 2010 23:02 Adrienne Boswell wrote: > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "rf"<rf(a)z.invalid> writing in > news:_6Gtn.16962$pv.5562(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: > >> >> "Josiah Jenkins"<josiah-jenkins(a)somewhere_else.invalid> wrote in >> message news:eq8er5h49gv2ka2ligdatj20o7mmm9i25m(a)4ax.com... >> >>> It displays correctly on my box ! >> >>> Vista with SP2 >>> IE ver : 8.06.001.18882 >> >> >> And how many people are still using versions 7 and 6? >> >> In the real world? >> >> > > Probably quite a few, since Win2000 cannot use anything higher than 6, > and there are, I am sure, a lot of boxes around that have not been > upgraded to a newer OS. > Considering that, I wonder if this notion has any validity or can gain any traction: If site designers abandon supporting IE6, IE7 and below, won't that force OS and browser upgrades? I mean, at some point, won't people and organizations so rooted in the past finally be forced "bite the bullet" and get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century? And the ones that don't? Do we really care? -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net Deja Roo: What? ANOTHER kangaroo?!!!
From: rf on 9 Apr 2010 01:38 "Ed Mullen" <ed(a)edmullen.net> wrote in message news:3liqrn.uvf.19.1(a)news.alt.net... > Adrienne Boswell wrote: >> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "rf"<rf(a)z.invalid> writing in >> news:_6Gtn.16962$pv.5562(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au: >> >>> >>> "Josiah Jenkins"<josiah-jenkins(a)somewhere_else.invalid> wrote in >>> message news:eq8er5h49gv2ka2ligdatj20o7mmm9i25m(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> It displays correctly on my box ! >>> >>>> Vista with SP2 >>>> IE ver : 8.06.001.18882 >>> >>> >>> And how many people are still using versions 7 and 6? >>> >>> In the real world? >>> >>> >> >> Probably quite a few, since Win2000 cannot use anything higher than 6, >> and there are, I am sure, a lot of boxes around that have not been >> upgraded to a newer OS. >> > > Considering that, I wonder if this notion has any validity or can gain any > traction: > > If site designers abandon supporting IE6, IE7 and below, won't that force > OS and browser upgrades? I mean, at some point, won't people and > organizations so rooted in the past finally be forced "bite the bullet" > and get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century? You are going to force me to spend several hundreds of dollars for a new OS, and then perhap another thousand dollars for a new PC, just so I can visit your site? Won't happen. > And the ones that don't? Do we really care? I do. They'll be the ones I'll be targeting with my sites that *do* work with their current browsers :-)
From: Josiah Jenkins on 9 Apr 2010 06:12
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:38:36 GMT, "rf" <rf(a)z.invalid> wrote: >"Ed Mullen" <ed(a)edmullen.net> wrote in message >news:3liqrn.uvf.19.1(a)news.alt.net... >> Adrienne Boswell wrote: >>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "rf"<rf(a)z.invalid> writing >>>> "Josiah Jenkins"<josiah-jenkins(a)somewhere_else.invalid> wrote >>>> >>>>> It displays correctly on my box ! >>>> >>>>> Vista with SP2 >>>>> IE ver : 8.06.001.18882 >>>> >>>> And how many people are still using versions 7 and 6? >>>> >>>> In the real world? >>> >>> Probably quite a few, since Win2000 cannot use anything higher than 6, >>> and there are, I am sure, a lot of boxes around that have not been >>> upgraded to a newer OS. >>> >> >> Considering that, I wonder if this notion has any validity or can gain any >> traction: >> >> If site designers abandon supporting IE6, IE7 and below, won't that force >> OS and browser upgrades? I mean, at some point, won't people and >> organizations so rooted in the past finally be forced "bite the bullet" >> and get dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century? > >You are going to force me to spend several hundreds of dollars for a new OS, >and then perhap another thousand dollars for a new PC, just so I can visit >your site? Won't happen. > >> And the ones that don't? Do we really care? > >I do. They'll be the ones I'll be targeting with my sites that *do* work >with their current browsers :-) Just a thought. You 'professional' types have to take account of which browsers are in common use and write your pages accordingly. Hence the comments I've seen about not just having different browsers on your machines but, for example, different versions of IE. Then there's the 'workarounds' you folks use to get a page to display correctly in IE . . . We 'amateurs' who hang around here in the hope of improving our output are, on the other hand, more likely than the normal user (whatever that is ?) to be using a more recent OS and a browser other than IE. And, as we're generally writing either 'vanity' or 'hobby' pages rather than earning a crust for our work, we can (literally) afford to ignore the Win 9* and W2K users. I'll go and sit quietly at the back of the room again ! -- http://www.ian-stewart.eu |