Remarkable Squadron Website (GA-045)

[A.Member]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

Which means you leave out 40% of the market.

At a minimum, you must test for both IE and Firefox.  Ideally, you also include Chrome , Safari, and Opera.   However, if the site works in Firefox, it will likely work in Chrome and Opera.

The suggestions above indicate they "don't care" about IE.  That is foolish.  Users of less popular browsers also tend to understand that they are using something that is less mainstream and as a result there may be certain functionality differences for which  they need to make accommodations.   

[A.Member]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

You were saying?

2010 July:

IE 8/7/6 - 30.4%
Firefox -  46.4%
Chrome - 16.7%
Safari - 3.4%
Opera - 2.3%


IE only is 1/3 of the market these days.

Guess that depends on your source:
NetMarketShare Broswer Market Share, July 2010



W3 Global Web Stats, June 2010

Statcounter Global Stats, Through 2010

The point is, that IE is still, by far the most popular browser used.   To suggest that it dosn't matter or you don't care about it is foolish.

[HGjunkie]

I am the originator of this discussion and I could care less about all of the html vs whatever else is being used.  As a person who enjoys a professional easy to view CAP squadron website, I still say it's top notch.

It's important though. I can't see the page at all. I will not use that POS, bloated, infection vector that is IE.

^ That's the main thing. I didn't even think to try IE...because, well, it's a non-factor.

^ And that is huge issue you need to get over because, like it or not, the fact is that Microsoft still has over 60% of the market share.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

You were saying?

2010 July:

IE 8/7/6 - 30.4%
Firefox -  46.4%
Chrome - 16.7%
Safari - 3.4%
Opera - 2.3%


IE only is 1/3 of the market these days.

Guess that depends on your source:
NetMarketShare Broswer Market Share, July 2010



W3, June 2010

The point is, that IE is still, by far the most popular browser used.   To suggest that it dosn't matter or you don't care about it is foolish.

That's 2 against 1.

[Capt Rivera]

From W3:

Statistics Are Often MisleadingYou cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading.
Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, while other sites attract hobbyists using old low spec computers.
Also be aware that  many statistics may have an incomplete or faulty browser detection. It is quite common by many web-stats report programs, not to detect the newest browsers.
(The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures).

From MarketShare:

We use a unique methodology for collecting this data.  We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers.  The data is compiled from approximately 160 million visitors per month.  The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics.  The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly, weekly, daily and hourly basis.

In addition, we classify 430+ referral sources identified as search engines.  Aggregate traffic referrals from these engines are summarized and reported on.  The statistics for search engines include both organic and sponsored referrals.  The websites in our population represent almost all countries on earth.

[Майор Хаткевич]

So between all sources, IE is either ~30, 45 or 60%. Could a company afford loosing 40% of their customer base? what about 55%? 70%? I know that would hurt my bottom line every month.

IE is down 12% in one year according to the W3 counter. It will only continue, and as was stated, most people use IE because, well, they aren't quite proficient with web capabilities.

[A.Member]

So between all sources, IE is either ~30, 45 or 60%. Could a company afford loosing 40% of their customer base? what about 55%? 70%? I know that would hurt my bottom line every month.

IE is down 12% in one year according to the W3 counter. It will only continue, and as was stated, most people use IE because, well, they aren't quite proficient with web capabilities.

ie...see my post at the top of this page (reply #40):

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2880.msg203420#msg203420

[Майор Хаткевич]

So between all sources, IE is either ~30, 45 or 60%. Could a company afford loosing 40% of their customer base? what about 55%? 70%? I know that would hurt my bottom line every month.

IE is down 12% in one year according to the W3 counter. It will only continue, and as was stated, most people use IE because, well, they aren't quite proficient with web capabilities.

ie...see my post at the top of this page (reply #40):

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2880.msg203420#msg203420

I don't use IE because it's not secure. Because it was/is the biggest browser, it's obviously attacked a lot more (just like Windows is over Apple).  When working with eCommerce, I'd rather not use a browser that's been easily hacked to get any and all information from.

[Pylon]

Who cares if it has 30% or 80% market share.  It also doesn't matter if you use/don't use, support/don't support, like/hate IE.   The point is that there are thousands of users you're trying to target not using IE that can't use a site if it's only compatiable with IE.   

If you can afford to leave out chunks of your target market, why bother market on the web at all?

There are basically two development subsets:  one for IE.  and one for standards-based browsers.  If you develop for IE, you risk leaving out a significant market share of users who may not be able to access or properly use your website - especially mobile users (a growing portion of the web browsers.  And again, whether you like it/hate it, use mobile browsing/don't use it, think it's stupid/think it's revolutionary doesn't matter - what matters is that people you're trying to reach are using it).   

However, if you do strict standards-based development, it's a good chance your site will work and appear 90%+ correctly in just about every browser out there, including the usually litany of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc., and will also likely work fairly decently on mobile browsers.  Standards-compliant websites also will at minimum work in IE (whereas some IE-centric sites, like the above example, don't work at all in other browsers) though there may be some functionality or design quirks.

It's clear which approach has the advantage, regardless of market share percentages or the personal browser preferences of the developer.

[A.Member]

Who cares if it has 30% or 80% market share.  It also doesn't matter if you use/don't use, support/don't support, like/hate IE.   The point is that there are thousands of users you're trying to target not using IE that can't use a site if it's only compatiable with IE.   

If you can afford to leave out chunks of your target market, why bother market on the web at all?

There are basically two development subsets:  one for IE.  and one for standards-based browsers.  If you develop for IE, you risk leaving out a significant market share of users who may not be able to access or properly use your website - especially mobile users (a growing portion of the web browsers.  And again, whether you like it/hate it, use mobile browsing/don't use it, think it's stupid/think it's revolutionary doesn't matter - what matters is that people you're trying to reach are using it).   

However, if you do strict standards-based development, it's a good chance your site will work and appear 90%+ correctly in just about every browser out there, including the usually litany of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc., and will also likely work fairly decently on mobile browsers.  Standards-compliant websites also will at minimum work in IE (whereas some IE-centric sites, like the above example, don't work at all in other browsers) though there may be some functionality or design quirks.

It's clear which approach has the advantage, regardless of market share percentages or the personal browser preferences of the developer.

Agreed!

[Stonewall]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

[HGjunkie]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

That's what we do on CAP Talk! 

[A.Member]

I don't use IE because it's not secure. Because it was/is the biggest browser, it's obviously attacked a lot more (just like Windows is over Apple).  When working with eCommerce, I'd rather not use a browser that's been easily hacked to get any and all information from.

Sorry but can't let this myth continue to propagate either....

Firefox, Safari Top Browser Vulnerability List

Symantec 2009 Global Internet Security Threat Report
See page 36...and I hope you have the Firefox plug-in for .pdfs...   

Speaking of plug-ins, that is a point of real concern:
http://w2spconf.com/2010/papers/p21.pdf

And don't get me started on Adobe's vulnerabilities because they're getting smoked right now.

So, some would argue that because of it's popularity, IE's exploits are found sooner and more widely reported, thus making it more secure than others (or at least as secure as others).

[A.Member]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

Actually, your thread has sparked some very valuable discussion...and gave the webmaster of the site you pointed out some constructive tips for improvement.

[RADIOMAN015]

That's a very good website.  I've just about thrown in the towel on our squadron website, and actually am trying to recruit a senior member that will work on improving the website, since time wise I can't do everything, and my day job has me at a computer all day long (and I have no desire to do this all night long)  

No website is going to be perfect but if one can capture what your squadron is all about, than it's a great accomplishment.

I personally think that a good website with weekly news updates, can take the place of those quarterly newsletters, which really are pretty late news after the fact.  Also a good up to date squadron schedule (both cadet & senior member) is essential.

RM   

[Short Field]

You guys are rediculous for ruining my thread of praise from 3 years ago.

That's what we do on CAP Talk! 

Really?  That is the way you see CAP Talk?  It is amazing that the website managed to survive for three years without all the extra "constructive" input. 

[vento]

Who cares if it has 30% or 80% market share.  It also doesn't matter if you use/don't use, support/don't support, like/hate IE.   The point is that there are thousands of users you're trying to target not using IE that can't use a site if it's only compatiable with IE.   

If you can afford to leave out chunks of your target market, why bother market on the web at all?

There are basically two development subsets:  one for IE.  and one for standards-based browsers.  If you develop for IE, you risk leaving out a significant market share of users who may not be able to access or properly use your website - especially mobile users (a growing portion of the web browsers.  And again, whether you like it/hate it, use mobile browsing/don't use it, think it's stupid/think it's revolutionary doesn't matter - what matters is that people you're trying to reach are using it).   

However, if you do strict standards-based development, it's a good chance your site will work and appear 90%+ correctly in just about every browser out there, including the usually litany of Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc., and will also likely work fairly decently on mobile browsers.  Standards-compliant websites also will at minimum work in IE (whereas some IE-centric sites, like the above example, don't work at all in other browsers) though there may be some functionality or design quirks.

It's clear which approach has the advantage, regardless of market share percentages or the personal browser preferences of the developer.

Well said!  :clap:

[Eclipse]

The average squadron should not be rolling their own website, they should be using services like Google and Blogger.  Complicated websites, meaning anything not using templates, widgets and other low-level tools, don't live past the "guy" who designed it leaving the unit or no longer being interested in doing it.

This is not a knock against many beautiful efforts out there, simply the reality of our needs and sustainable abilities.

You can put together very professional, easy to use sites that fit all your needs and are easy to update without more than about an hour's effort.

[A.Member]

The average squadron should not be rolling their own website, they should be using services like Google and Blogger.  Complicated websites, meaning anything not using templates, widgets and other low-level tools, don't live past the "guy" who designed it leaving the unit or no longer being interested in doing it.

This is not a knock against many beautiful efforts out there, simply the reality of our needs and sustainable abilities.

You can put together very professional, easy to use sites that fit all your needs and are easy to update without more than about an hour's effort.

I tend to agree with this.  About 6 months seems pretty typical before interest in regularly maintaining the site wanes.  If the site is not easy to update (ie requires coding) it may never be done again.  As much as I despise the blog style sites with cookie cutter formats, they serve a purpose.