link--this

First of all, you need to remember that many web designers are stupid. They put in Javascript code to block out anyone that uses anything other than IE. So a lot of Mozilla users fake to have their browsers look like IE.

Even aside from that my stats show much different numbers than yours. You get a lot more traffic than I do. I've only had about 29,000 hits so far this month. And my stats program works a bit differently than yours, so my numbers aren't quite the same. However, out of the top 15 User-Agents to my site, getting rid of things that aren't browsers shows 5556 Mozilla hits, and 4471 IE hits.

Perhaps part of the reason your IE readership is so high is because your site doesn't work so well in Mozilla. Additionally, my stats lean towards Mozilla simply because of my more technical readership.

You should consider this: Let's assume for a second that Mozilla actually is a better brower for developers. If you continue to design for IE and neglect Mozilla, then your readers will continue to have to keep a copy of IE around just to view your site. However, if you saw the benefits of a browser that SUPPORTS OPEN STANDARDS then you would design for the standard, and then implement work arounds to appease the masses.

It isn't that hard.

If you continue to show your support for proprietary formats, buggy rendering engines, and customer product lock-down by developing sites that don't work in standards complaint browsers (like Mozilla), then, in the long run, you make your own life hard. If however, you support a STANDARD, then you're making a statement. You're saying, "I don't want to have to code a web page for each different browser. I want to code once and have it just work."

I'm not saying that Mozilla does everything right. It has bugs just like any other piece of software. But at least it tries and does a damn good job at it.

IE gets things as basic as the "box model" wrong. And if you do a search on the web, more people are inventing workarounds for IE than they are for Mozilla.

By designing pages that only work properly in such a flawed browser you are showing your support for poor technology, horrible bugs, and the desire to code every page 2 - 3 times.

Supporting the standards isn't that hard. My site (http://revjim.net/) looks good in all new browsers and is usuable in ANY browser. And I didn't really put MUCH extra work into it. The same goes for other sites (http://sivatonight.com/) that I've done.

Consider it?

¤ ¤ credit: Reverend Jim | 11.20.02 at 04:27 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Excuse me, but you don't come into MY house and tell me how to run things. You wouldn't walk in off the street and tell me how to program my VCR and what dishwashing detergent to use, and you sure as hell aren't going to come in here and give me lectures about my code and how I should strive towards your type of Mozilla numbers. I don't want techinical readers. I do not have a techinical blog.

Perhaps in your Mozilla love-fest, you missed where I said:

"A designer can only code for so many browsers without the same standards before she says 'fuck it' with her own site. I have to make too many other people happy with their sites -- everyone else has to sit down, shut up, and make ME happy with my own!"

Everyone, say buh-bye to Jim. I have a short fuse today and will not tolerate a lecture or being "talked down to"... It isn't that hard.

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 11.20.02 at 04:40 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I'm not trying to instigate anything. I'm certainly not saying you should have my Mozilla numbers. In fact I'm stating that my inflated Mozilla numbers most likely have to do with my highly technical readership.

And you can do whatever you want with your code. Mozilla is my primary browser. And your site works well enough in it that I can read your content, so that's all that really matters.

I was merely suggesting that you consider supporting Mozilla and stating reasons why you might make that choice.

I apologize if I've offended you in any way. That certainly wasn't my intent.

¤ ¤ credit: Reverend Jim | 11.20.02 at 04:45 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

And, Jimmy boy, most web designers aren't stupid, it's just an awful lot of stupid people fancy they are web designers.

Meh.

¤ ¤ credit: Sekimori | 11.20.02 at 04:45 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Sekimori: I couldn't have said it better myself.

¤ ¤ credit: Reverend Jim | 11.20.02 at 04:48 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Ok, for the record, I was only jerking Robyn's chain about the Netscape thing since she did actually send me an email about it. An email that made me laugh out loud, by the way.
My thoughts on the matter end with "If it don't work in my favorite browser (Netscape), try it in IE. If it works there, then decide if the site is worth my extra effort."
You see me here, don't you?

¤ ¤ credit: a different Bill | 11.20.02 at 05:01 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Thanks Bill! This has just been a bad, baaaad day for me for reasons I won't go into here...but I'm trying to wade through my MT code, Christine's MT code, and a few dozen other tips and tricks sites trying to make everyone happy on a day I have little time to even make my own self happy. I need a vacation. And a drink.

Sorry you got the brunt end of my wrath, Jim -- but I don't handle it well when I perceive I'm being talked down to. And I won't ever be bullied into changing browsers because "the smart people" use it. I prefer to cator to those who pay me instead...

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 11.20.02 at 05:05 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Robyn-- No apology needed. Truly.

And I wouldn't suggest switching merely because the smart people use it. That's stupid. I suggest it because I think it helps make a statement about where the web developers of today want the market to go.

I have to code however my clients pay me to code as well. And, just as it is for you, that means IE. Everytime. All the time. That's life.

But I've learned that the easiest way to code is to support the standards and then implement work-arounds for the little glitches in each browser that needs to be supported.

And, as Bill said... I'm here. I'm reading. Therefore you must be doing something right.

I'm sorry you're having a bad day. Really. And I know how it feels to be trying to do work for yourself and 14 million other people all at once and, regardless of how hard you try, or what you do, you just can't seem to please anyone.

If I were anywhere near Florida, I'd buy you that drink myself.

¤ ¤ credit: Reverend Jim | 11.20.02 at 05:15 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Hey, Robyn! At work I have to code for IE as we are a Microsoft shop. I don't like using FrontPage, but it is what we are required to use for collaborative work on our intranet. I usually get to the HTML page and edit it there anyway. What I don't like in particular is the MS-way-or-the-highway method that MS uses in their products. I've tried using HomeSite to make changes but they don't always register properly in the IE browser and definitely mess with FrontPage. I DO use MSIE specific scripts to enhance my little piece of the intranet where I work, but I don't have to worry about ANY other browser because all we are supposed to have on our work PCs is MSIE 5.5.

I first tried Mozilla (both Windows version and Linux version) pre-1.0 version and kind of liked it. It did freeze up my PC back then, but the 101 reasons (as listed by Reverend Jim earlier) won me over. Now I am using Mozilla v1.2b and it is great. No lockups, REAL integrated popup blocking, integrated email, newsgroups (that I don't use), composer (that I don't use), chat (that I don't use) and address book. I also have the Calendar add-in and the BlogThis add-in on Mozilla as well as having it all skinned. I am waiting on BannerBlind to come out of beta to block in-line ads. Plus I don't have to check in each week to download the latest security patch from MS and wonder how many more patches there will be next week.

While we disagree with the status of browsers (I think MSIE is a POS), I do enjoy your blog and haven't let any shortcomings of my browser's rendering capabilities stop me from reading.

Peace!

¤ ¤ credit: Bill | 11.20.02 at 09:36 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

I don't have anything to say about code and what not, but I do want to say I'd have to agree with the Robyn Rocks part :)

¤ ¤ credit: Stacy | 11.21.02 at 11:43 AM | link--this ¤ ¤