browser detection and redirection

J

jaydev

Hi,

I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
have a sample code for this?
I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
types I need to redirect to there download page.
Internet Explorer version 5.0and above
Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above
Mozilla version 1.3 and above
Opera version 7.0 and above
Safari/OmniWeb version 4.5 and above
Konqueror version 3.2 and above


Appreciate any help

Thanks,
Jay
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

jaydev said:
I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
have a sample code for this?

Browser sniffing is oft-mentioned as "doomed to failure."
I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
types I need to redirect to there download page.

Normally, if you write a good site to begin, you won't have to restrict
your audience to a specific set of browsers.
Internet Explorer version 5.0and above
...the latest is IE 7, and it is only usable by XP SP2 people. What about
W95/W98/ME/Win2K people?
Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above
...if you talk them into v 8.n, they will lose their email client.
Mozilla version 1.3 and above
...the latest version of the suite is SeaMonkey.

And my User Agent string says:
Mozilla/6.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)

What will you do then?
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

jaydev wrote :
Hi,

I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
browser download page if the clients uses old version, could anyone
have a sample code for this?

Hello jaydev,

You have an interesting and worthy post in there. It's definitely a good
question.
I want to use the following version browser only, if they are other
types I need to redirect to there download page.
Internet Explorer version 5.0and above
Netscape Navigator version 7.0 and above
Mozilla version 1.3 and above
Opera version 7.0 and above

I would not bother trying to detect Opera 7.x users: there are very few
users using Opera 7.x since they usually upgrade to the latest Opera
version all by themselves. It's MSIE 5.x, MSIE 6 users which would be
worth detecting and who are most likely to be sensitive to issues of
upgrading or migrating/switching to another browser name.
Safari/OmniWeb version 4.5 and above

Safari and OmniWeb upgrades are not free if I'm not wrong. So, here,
it's kinda difficult, delicate to tell them to upgrade. I think it's not
worth it otherwise it's not ok to annoy them, mainly for that reason.
Konqueror version 3.2 and above

You have to wonder if Konqueror users upgrade to the latest stable
Konqueror release available by themselves and, if not, why and if their
numbers (visits at your site) are worth the trouble to detect them (via
javascript or otherwise).
Appreciate any help

Thanks,
Jay


For any IE users, I think it is worth the efforts to invite such users
to either upgrade or to switch.

For other users, maybe just a link to a specific page listing where they
can get the latest version of their own browser name (and in such
webpage, telling them that browser upgrade is easy, free and will not
lose their profile info, bookmarks, emails, etc.. some people still
believe that upgrading browser version will make them lose their data
like bookmarks, preferences, etc.) would be good enough. What I mean
here is that, for instance, there are so few, so little Firebird users,
Phoenix users that it is not worth the problem to detect these users.

For NS 4.x users, I believe NS 4.x users are people who are not able to
perform browser upgrades by themselves and are going to actually upgrade
when they upgrade their computers or os: so, maybe it's not worth it.
Anyway, there are very few NS 4.x users on the web.

For any IE 5.x and IE 6 browsers, I suggest use of conditional comment:

<!--[if lte IE 6]>
<p>Some useful, relevant text, your speech here ...
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx">Download
Internet Explorer 7</a></p>
<![endif]-->

or

<!--[if lte IE 6]>
<p>You're using an old Internet Explorer version which is known to be
prone to spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make
computers unsafe. For best security and better usability, please
consider switching to a better browser. Visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->


More on this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/browserdetection.asp

I do **__not__** recommend user agent string detection: it's known to be
difficult to implement, unreliable and unmanageable in the long run.

Browser identification approach: not best, not reliable
Object/Feature support detection approach: best, most reliable
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#DevCrossBrowser

I personally believe people should prefer Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.1
instead of choosing IE 7. This is also a very defendable decision. Or
you could even put a "browse happy" link/button/banner instead for IE
visitors and leave the whole decision up to the visitor.
http://browsehappy.com/

Then, the detection would / could go like :


<!--[if gt IE 6]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is a browser known to have an
history of security concerns (to be prone to spywares, to have unpatched
security weaknesses, to make computers unsafe). I do not recommend the
use of Internet Explorer due to its relatively poor standards support
and security record, as well as its history of abandoning development
efforts. For all these reasons, I recommend switching to another browser
like <a href="http://www.opera.com/download/">Opera 9.1</a> or <a
href="http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/">Firefox 2.0</a> which are
available in many languages. Also, you may want to visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

Downloadable Promotional graphics from Browser Happy
http://browsehappy.com/badges/

For Netscape Navigator, Mozilla, Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox 1.0.x users,
you will need to rely on userAgent string detection. If you decide to go
for this (if you have assessed that it's worth the trouble to detect
these users and then to invite them to upgrade), then you will need to
detect in the correct order navigator.product, navigator.vendor (and
possibly navigator.vendorSub too), navigator.productSub.

I would first try to detect Phoenix users, Firebird users and Firefox
1.0.x users. All Netscape users (NS 7.x, NS 8.x) could be also detected too.

if(navigator.product == "Gecko" && navigator.productSub &&
navigator.productSub > "20060201")
/* I don't think it's acceptable or justified to annoy people using a
less than 6 months old browser version */
{
if(navigator.vendor && possibly navigator.vendorSub=="Netscape")
{
...more code to develop...
}
else if()
{
...more code to develop...
};
}

Gérard
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Gérard Talbot:
jaydev wrote :

Hello jaydev,

You have an interesting and worthy post in there. It's definitely a
good question.

Well, it might be a good _question_. The correct _answer_, though, is that
such efforts are a waste of everyone's time, and worse.

The page author would just upset and throw out some part of potential users.
If he somehow managed to make someone update his browser, this would still
distract from the site's own content.

Besides, the detection is bound to fail, and the redirects are bound to take
users to wrong pages. Maybe not immediately, but next month or next year. If
you can make me believe that authors who write browser-sniffing and
browser-redirection code will actually _maintain_ the monstrosity they
create, you might just as well try making me believe in elves, Santa Claus,
the Great Pumpkin, and even politicians' promises before elections.
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
Browser sniffing is oft-mentioned as "doomed to failure."

We agree.

Browser identification approach (aka "browser sniffing"): not best, not
reliable approach
Using Object/Feature support detection approach: best and overall most
reliable
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#DevCrossBrowser
Normally, if you write a good site to begin, you won't have to restrict
your audience to a specific set of browsers.

Jay wants to invite people and to assist people using old browsers into
upgrading their browser versions. This is a perfectly valid attitude,
especially in this particular time period where Internet Explorer 7 has
been very recently released, Firefox 2.0 will be out in a few days and
Opera 9.1 will be released in a few days. Any/all respectable web author
wants people using old, buggy, unsecure, non-recommendable,
non-compliant web standards browsers (like MSIE 6) to upgrade to the
best, free, available browser out there.
..the latest is IE 7, and it is only usable by XP SP2 people. What about
W95/W98/ME/Win2K people?

..if you talk them into v 8.n, they will lose their email client.

Good point. You normally would want a NS 7.x user to upgrade to the
latest available Seamonkey 1.x release.
..the latest version of the suite is SeaMonkey.

Correct. Again, good point.
And my User Agent string says:
Mozilla/6.0 (Starship Enterprise NCC-1701)

What will you do then?

Good point... but only a minority of users "play" with their userAgent
identification string like you.

{
"Another major problem with this approach is that the browser identity
can be 'spoofed' because, in many modern browsers, the
navigator.appVersion and navigator.userAgent string properties are user
configurable strings. For example,

* Firefox 1.x users and users of any/all Mozilla-based browsers can
customize the "general.useragent.*" string properties to any value.
* Opera 6+ allows users to set the browser identification string
via a menu
* MSIE uses the Windows registry
* Safari and Icab browsers mask their browser identity under
Internet Explorer or Netscape labels
}

which is why browser identification based on userAgent string detection
is not reliable.

http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#BrowserIdent

One way to work around this problem would be to know which property or
method has been recently implemented in recently released Gecko-based
browsers.

For Opera 9, I recommend

if(window.opera && window.addEventListener && document.body.textContent)
[needs to be tested]
DOM 3 Core textContent attribute was implemented in Opera starting with
Opera 9.

For recent Gecko-based browsers (Seamonkey 1.0.?, Firefox 2):

if(window.netscape && document.compatMode &&
document.documentElement.createSVGAngle)
[I have not tested this one; maybe there is a better way]

Finally, a very safe, sound, respectable policy would be to add a link to

Why update?
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/why.htm

to

Find browsers
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/find.htm

and to
Browse Happy
http://browsehappy.com/

or possibly to

Alternative Browser Alliance
List of Alternative Web Browsers
http://www.alternativebrowseralliance.com/browsers.html
(personally, I would not recommend NS 8.x and I would definitely not
recommend K-meleon 1.x to newbies)

Gérard
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Gérard Talbot said:
Jay wants to invite people and to assist people using old browsers
into upgrading their browser versions.

I wasn't sure that is what he meant, as he included "I want to use the
following version browser only, if they are other types I need to
redirect to there download page."

...which made me think he was designing pages that would not work in
older browsers. You could be right, let's ask him. ;-)

I love it when I go to a site with Opera or Firefox and am presented
with a page that tells me "you need to upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.0
or better". So I change the UA string to "IE6.0 WinXP" and it lets me
right in. As if I want to upgrade to a seven year old browser...
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
I wasn't sure that is what he meant, as he included "I want to use the
following version browser only, if they are other types I need to
redirect to there download page."

I think he meant webpages like

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx
http://www.opera.com/download/
http://browser.netscape.com/ns8/
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
http://www.icab.de/dl.php
etc.

..which made me think he was designing pages that would not work in
older browsers. You could be right, let's ask him. ;-)

Yes, he may have misworded all that.
I love it when I go to a site with Opera or Firefox and am presented
with a page that tells me "you need to upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.0
or better".

Sometimes, I have been served such kind of message. Not often though.
The web is changing. Slowly but it is changing.
So I change the UA string to "IE6.0 WinXP"

Do you know of a webpage that describes exactly (step by step) how to
modify the registry files to do this? I'm still searching...

and it lets me
right in. As if I want to upgrade to a seven year old browser...

Sites which offer you to upgrade to IE5 are for sure bad sites,
unmanaged sites.

Gérard
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Gérard Talbot said:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :

Do you know of a webpage that describes exactly (step by step) how to
modify the registry files to do this? I'm still searching...

To change the UA string? With Firefox, it is as simple as selecting one
in the dropdown that comes with the PrefBar extension.

http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
and a screen shot of the Customize dialog:
http://k75s.home.att.net/images/prefbar.png

Normally, I leave it set to "Real UA" of course.
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote :
To change the UA string? With Firefox,

Oops, my mistake. I reversed what you wrote in my mind.

I meant to say that one can "regedit" MSIE 6 in a way to modify its
userAgent string. I know it's doable: I've heard people doing it. But I
don't know how to do this and wondered if you knew how (step by step).

E.g.:
The user agent string, instead of saying, returning

"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)"

could instead return

"Stop using userAgent string detection and start using object/feature
support detection as explained at
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html#ObjectFeatDetect "

Gérard
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
Scripsit Gérard Talbot:


Well, it might be a good _question_. The correct _answer_, though, is
that such efforts are a waste of everyone's time, and worse.

It all depends actually on what is the whole webpage context, situation
(purpose served for browser detection), not just how detection is done -
that is if it can be done reliably - but also *_how_* people are invited
The page author would just upset and throw out some part of potential
users. If he somehow managed to make someone update his browser, this
would still distract from the site's own content.

Any link involving a download would do that too. E.g.:

<object classid="clsid:8AD9C840-044E-11D1-B3E9-00805F499D93"
codebase=
"http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/autodl/jinstall-1_5_0-windows-i586.cab#Version=1,5,0,9"

codetype="application/java" standby="Loading of applet in progress..."
height="200" width="350"> (...)
will involve an auto-download of 16.2MB download for anyone not using
JRE 1.5.0_b9.
Besides, the detection is bound to fail, and the redirects are bound to
take users to wrong pages.

Of course, that's possible and it's the danger. That's why it will
always be best to create real link in a webpage where people can choose
a browser (download) by themselves and not via javascript, which as you
rightly point out, is not 100% full-proof.
Maybe not immediately, but next month or next
year. If you can make me believe that authors who write browser-sniffing
and browser-redirection code will actually _maintain_ the monstrosity
they create, you might just as well try making me believe in elves,
Santa Claus, the Great Pumpkin, and even politicians' promises before
elections.

Very often, they don't maintain the monstruosity they create ... or copy
from others' sites.

Jukka, just visit my own website http://www.gtalbot.org/ and you'll see
that all links at the bottom of the webpages can not mislead or
misredirect visitors.

I do use some kind of browser detection in a few of my DHTML section
webpages and it happened once, after a browser upgrade (involving
Opera), that it no longer worked, and so, I had to update the whole
thing, tune again.

If you include the following in a webpage

<!--[if gte IE 4]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
work for many years.

Gérard
 
S

Spartanicus

Gérard Talbot said:
If you include the following in a webpage

<!--[if gte IE 4]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
work for many years.

MS Conditional Comments were not introduced until IE5.0/Win, so IE4
users would not get the message.

Then there is also the unbelievable arrogance and patronising attitude
exhibited by the above message. It's no-one's bleeping business what
browser a user is using, and IE is no exception to this.

Aggressively pushing alternatives to IE by the above scaremongering and
lambasting frequently causes people to develop a hatred for other
browsers and the people pushing them.

*YOU* reject IE, so don't use it. Mind your own business about what
others use.
 
A

Andy Dingley

jaydev said:
I am looking for code to detect and redirect to the corresponding
browser download page if the clients uses old version,

Then stop doing that. It's bad and wrong for a whole load of reasons.

It's their browser. You worry about your site, you let the customer
worry about their browser.

Maybe you're a major trustworthy ISP or security vendor offering a
browser checking service. In this narrow case, there could be a case
for _advising_ people that their browser version is out of date and
shoudl be upgraded. You should present this information as a table of
what you think they have, what version you think it is, then some
_suggestions_ as to how to upgrade, which they can follow if (and only
if) they wish to. DO NOT FORCE A REDIRECT ON THEM BECAUSE _you_ THINK
THEY OUGHT TO BE FORCED TO UPGRADE.

If you were competent to advise people to upgrade browser versions (one
of only half-a-dozen sites I'd trust to do this) you'd already know how
to do this, and you'd be telling us how to do it.

If this is for your site, or your cat Mittens' homepage, then why
should it be telling me stuff about my browser? Go away - it's none of
your business. It's also very bad security practice to train naive
customers into believing that random websites are trustworthy
authorities to recommend upgrades. What happens if you're actually an
Elbonian credit card fraud ring trying to install trojaned browsers on
the unsuspecting?

If you want to "browser sniff" to see if browsers can support features
that your site needs to use, then don't browser sniff, feature sniff
instead. Don't assume that "IE 4 doesn't support the .foobar property",
instead test whether this browser actually supports .foobar directly
(this is easy and a standard JavaScript technique).

Remember that browser sniffing is usually based on the user agent
string, and that's very far from reliable. It's commonly misrepresented
deliberately, let alone all the general unreliability of it.

If you need to force users to use a particular browser, then your site
is wrong. Fundamentally and abjectly wrong.
 
B

Bergamot

Gérard Talbot said:
one can "regedit" MSIE 6 in a way to modify its
userAgent string.

Be advised, however, that if you do this, things like Windows Update
won't work any more.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Gérard Talbot:
It all depends actually on what is the whole webpage context,
situation (purpose served for browser detection), not just how
detection is done - that is if it can be done reliably - but also
*_how_* people are invited to upgrade. A simple clickable-reactive
<browse happy image> might be good enough, you know.

Arguing with visitors about their choice of a browser is just foolish, no
matter how you do that. Even if your site is _about_ the choice of a browser
and nothing else, all this sniffing and puffing is pointless: anyone who is
really interested in the choice of a browser surely knows what he is using
and wants to read _rational arguments_ or comparisons.

Almost all sites that try to convince users about changing or upgrading a
browser are trying to say something about some other issues as well, and
then they lose their point by making noise about the browser issue. If you
use a telephone to contact a person or an organization about something, what
would you think if you first heard "Dear caller, we have detected that you
are using an old telephone model with serious security problems. You will
now be automatically connected to a person who will give you advice on
upgrading to a newer model..."?
Any link involving a download would do that too.

Indeed, if the download has nothing to contribute to the purpose and content
of the site. Wasn't this obvious?
Of course, that's possible and it's the danger.

It _will_ happen, sooner or later, and it's _one_ of the dangers.
That's why it will
always be best to create real link in a webpage where people can
choose a browser (download) by themselves

The "real link" will get rotten, sooner or later, as links tend to do -
_especially_ links related to technological issues like newest browser
versions.
Very often, they don't maintain the monstruosity they create ... or
copy from others' sites.

This also means that people with some experience on browser propaganda pages
know this and automatically devaluate sites with such features, since it is
rational to expect "Oh, this is one of _those_ pages".
Jukka, just visit my own website http://www.gtalbot.org/ and you'll
see that all links at the bottom of the webpages can not mislead or
misredirect visitors.

Huh? What has that got to do with the issue. At the bottom of, say,
http://www.gtalbot.org/FirefoxSection/
I see the following:

"Valid HTML 4.01 strict! CSS compliant Web standards project Get Nvu
HTML editor"

That soup of links _is_ misleading. Very misleading. On the other hand,
there is no link for browser update, which is of course good, but then this
example is irrelevant.
If you include the following in a webpage

<!--[if gte IE 4]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
work for many years.

Parody has become impossible.
 
H

Harlan Messinger

Gérard Talbot said:
If you include the following in a webpage

<!--[if gte IE 4]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

Imagine buying a car for off-road adventures, knowing that it's a bit
unstable but choosing to take the chance, and then having car wash
employees, service station attendants, and random people in parking lots
coming up to you all the time to stop you and rant, "Don't you know how
unsafe your car is?" Receiving unsolicited advice from strangers in
public is annoying, and it's annoying on the Web as well. There's no
reason why the sites I choose to visit for reasons that have nothing to
do with the Web client I use should make it their personal quest to
contest my choice of browser.
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Jukka K. Korpela wrote :
Scripsit Gérard Talbot:


Arguing with visitors about their choice of a browser is just foolish,
no matter how you do that.
Really?

Even if your site is _about_ the choice of a
browser and nothing else, all this sniffing and puffing is pointless:
anyone who is really interested in the choice of a browser surely knows
what he is using and wants to read _rational arguments_ or comparisons.

If you address the visitors' intelligence, you may actually help them
consider the current browser they are using.

Some ISPs will support their customers in upgrading browsers. Some
e-commerce sites will support to upgrade as well.

Like I said, it's not worth it to annoy users who are already using
non-IE browsers. Those who choose a non-IE browser usually are good at
keeping up with the latest available version of their browser.

For IE 5.x, it may be already pointless or useless to annoy them: for
some reasons (non-computer savvy, fear?, something else), they haven't
upgrade already to MSIE 6 or to other alternate browsers.

For IE 6, then I think it's worth addressing such issue. Within the next
12 months or so, IE 6 users will have choice and will most likely be
bombarded with upgrade/switch campains.

I'm just reducing the span of the discussion here.
Almost all sites that try to convince users about changing or upgrading
a browser are trying to say something about some other issues as well,
and then they lose their point by making noise about the browser issue.
If you use a telephone to contact a person or an organization about
something, what would you think if you first heard "Dear caller, we have
detected that you are using an old telephone model with serious security
problems.

What if the user is calling the phone company and reporting problems
with his phone? What if the user is calling his phone utility company
and asking for the best recommendable phone product?

You will now be automatically connected to a person who will
give you advice on upgrading to a newer model..."?

[snipped]

How about a disclaimer webpage saying something like "The webpages of
this website use valid markup code, semantic markup code and valid CSS
code. Despite our best coding, testing and technical efforts, the
formating of webpages may not render as intended in browsers which have
an incomplete support of W3C web standards or incorrect implementation
of W3C web standards. For best viewing conditions and for best security,
we recommend Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.1 or ..."

The link to such disclaimer page would only appear to IE 5.x, IE 6 and
IE 7 users thanks to:
<!--[if lt IE 8]>
<p><a href="[link to disclaimer page]">Recommended browsers [or some
other text]</a><p>
<![endif]-->

At the bottom of, say,
http://www.gtalbot.org/FirefoxSection/
I see the following:

"Valid HTML 4.01 strict! CSS compliant Web standards project Get Nvu
HTML editor"

That soup of links _is_ misleading. Very misleading.

Sorry, I chose quickly a random page. Most other webpages on my site has
a list of supported browser which are clickable images referencing
download pages.
On the other hand,
there is no link for browser update, which is of course good,

There are links for browser update on a majority of webpages.

Gérard
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Harlan Messinger wrote :
Gérard Talbot said:
If you include the following in a webpage

<!--[if gte IE 4]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

Imagine buying a car for off-road adventures, knowing that it's a bit
unstable but choosing to take the chance, and then having car wash
employees, service station attendants, and random people in parking lots
coming up to you all the time to stop you and rant, "Don't you know how
unsafe your car is?" Receiving unsolicited advice from strangers in
public is annoying, and it's annoying on the Web as well. There's no
reason why the sites I choose to visit for reasons that have nothing to
do with the Web client I use should make it their personal quest to
contest my choice of browser.

Ok. Fair enough. How about having a list of clickable images to update
browsers?

Gérard
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Spartanicus wrote :
Gérard Talbot said:
If you include the following in a webpage

<!--[if gte IE 4]>
<p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
explanations and assistance.</p>
<![endif]-->

it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
work for many years.

MS Conditional Comments were not introduced until IE5.0/Win, so IE4
users would not get the message.

Noted.

Then there is also the unbelievable arrogance and patronising attitude
exhibited by the above message.

You are over-exaggerating here. Internet Explorer 5.x and IE 6 are prone
to spywares, have unpatched security weaknesses and do make computers
unsafe. Even US-CERT has said so in broad daylight. An objective,
neutral examination of secunia.com website and a wide majority of
security columnists will side with me on this.
It's no-one's bleeping business what
browser a user is using, and IE is no exception to this.

Aggressively pushing alternatives to IE

Read me again. I do say "please consider" in the above text.
by the above scaremongering and
lambasting

You are over-excessively exaggerating here.
frequently causes people to develop a hatred for other
browsers and the people pushing them.

It's possible that too pushy messages or awkward advocacy campains may
trigger the reverse of their intents.
It's also possible that some people are curious, have an open-minded
attitude and will want to check a link coming from a website that, over
the years, they have learn to trust too.
*YOU* reject IE, so don't use it.

Can *YOU* show me where I actually reject IE on my website?? I have a
detailed IE 7 bugs section on my site and I have participated in many
ways to report the bugs in IE 6 as well. If I really rejected IE as a
whole, I would not have reported the problems, spec violations, etc..
that I was able to reproduce.
I don't use IE and don't recommend IE: that's true. But I don't have a
rigid, dogmatic approach to browsers either.
Mind your own business about what
others use.

I don't understand your agressive response to my post. I was assuming we
were discussing the original poster's quests and issues. I advanced an
opinion and merely proposed an idea (some text with a link to
browsehappy webpage) which, I believe, is still defendable decision.

Gérard
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

Andy Dingley wrote :
Then stop doing that. It's bad and wrong for a whole load of reasons.

It's their browser.

It's also his webpage code running inside their browser.

You worry about your site, you let the customer
worry about their browser.

[snipped]

If you need to force users to use a particular browser, then your site
is wrong. Fundamentally and abjectly wrong.

How about telling visitors using buggy, old, non-web-standards-compliant
browsers that they may consider switching if they want his webpage code
to render as expected (layout, formating, functionality)? What's so
wrong with such invitation?

Gérard
 

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
473,995
Messages
2,570,230
Members
46,819
Latest member
masterdaster

Latest Threads

Top