Forum Moderators: open
I'm tired of creating multiple versions of code just to make sure that NN4 is supported.
I think we need make all our pages completely unusable for NN4 (after all this is easier to do than to make pages look right under NN4).
Maybe we need to sniff for NN4 and put up a big "Download NN7.0 to view this page banner".
If we all make sure that our code looks as bad as possible under NN4 maybe it will disappear all together!
What do you think?
And, er....
Who's willing to go first?
(I'll stop supporting it when my users/customers stop using it)
Plus, some sites have a high enough nn4 %'s to make it still worthwhile. Even if you have 5% will you cut out that sales percentage on the premise?
As always it is a site by site decision that will always bring consequences. You just have to figure out if you can live with them.
<rant>
There is nothing I hate more than "go download a browser" messages. Those sites never get my business and I do my best to make sure they don't get anyone I know's business either.
</rant>
go for it msr986, you don't need us to do it for you if you feel that strongly about it.
Some corporations like mine, with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees world-wide, use Netscape 4.xx browsers for two reasons:
The first is that NN4 is available on the Unix and Unix-like platforms that are needed to run the specialized Computer-Automated-Design/Engineering/Manufacturing software we use. We're locked into this software by contract in many cases - but that's a separate issue.
The second is that the high level of integration of Internet Explorer with Windows makes IE a security nightmare - as recent patch history has made clear. (It is not that MS intentionally or incompetently left security holes in IE. It is simply that the huge number of features and data-sharing capabilities available between IE and Windows leaves a large number of "sneak paths" which can be exploited.)
So, I use NN4.79 at work all day. And sometimes I shop online (during my lunch hour, of course). Do you want my business? If not, OK, there are plenty of sites that do. If so, make sure your site is functional with NN4.xx. It doesn't have to be pretty or full-featured, it just has to function.
I too hope that we will be able to upgrade to NN7.0 (or 7.1 more likely). But it is up to individual and corporate users to upgrade, and those who wish to market to those users must do the cost-benefit analysis to determine - each site owner individually - whether it is worthwhile to support the minority of old-browser users.
The idea that if all web sites stopped supporting NN4.xx tomorrow, the world would upgrade overnight is a dream. There would simply be a drop-off in sales until such time as everyone got around to upgrading. There would be a time lag due to platforms for which no new browser version is available - the platforms would have to be replaced or the browser would have to be developed. Then there would be a time lag for major corporations to perform security acceptance testing of the replacement browsers (this is probably why NN4.80 exists, BTW - It is a minor upgrade, and so does not need to go through the entire security test battery). But in the meantime, sales go down. If you can afford the loss, fine. If not, think twice.
This is business... Return on investment. Do the numbers and decide rationally, not based on personal wishes or prejudices.
Jim
<edit> To further clarify - Individual employees of my company cannot download and install software on our workstations. They are centrally administrated. </edit>
I think that users will have to make their own choice. Because, if they still use NN4, they might have serious reasons for this (like the one jdMorgan told).
And trying to push the user to do something a hard way is not a polite (and clever) thing that developers can do.
BTW, that's why I totally disagree with webstandards.org Upgrade campagne - I accept their reasons, but refure the methods they use.
nobody loses out really...it's just a matter of getting away from the idea that cross browser compatibility means pages that render identically in all browsers
A language is a language is a language. All code should be standardized and displayed exactly the same way on all browsers. When MS, Netscape, Opera and the rest finally decide that there are better ways to compete than screwing around with how a language is supposed to be interpreted ... then and only then will any of us be able to heave a collective sigh of relief.
Until then, I will cater to any and all major browsers as best I can.
I gave up supporting NN4 a long time ago. I don't have unlimited time, so I would rather spend the small amout of time I do have on improving my sites for the 95%+ majority of users than for the small minority of users. I'll gain much more benefit from the extra work I do for the 95% than for the 3-4%.
At least with NN6+, Netscape have managed to release a browser that (mostly) works ok with most sites, so if AOL do switch to Netscape / gecko, the switch will be to a browser that will probably work ok and we won't need to spend countless hours unfixing sites for broken browsers.
The ONLY REASON why people are still using NN4 is because it STILL WORKS. If the web community at large did not support NN4 people would switch.
People are strange beasts. They oppose change. Sometimes they need a nudge to implement change. There is no reason for these people to change browsers if the one they are using is doing an adequate job for them. Even corporate users would switch if NN4 was broken.
As webmasters, we have become very good at coding hacks to support older browsers. If we did not do our job so well, the older browsers would not linger on so long. In a way, WE are responsible for NN4 being here today!
The day WILL come when most of us will not support NN4; I just hope that day comes soon!
Some corporations like mine, with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees world-wide, use Netscape 4.xx browsers for two reasons:1. Unix and Unix-like platforms that run the specialized Computer-Automated-Design
2. security
Thanks for that, jdMorgan. You make a powerful point for e-commerce sites to take in - and you've also explained why one of my engineering-related sites still registers so high in NN4 use. I knew it couldn't be explained away with "schools and libraries".
So, it's not only up to us, the website developers, to force a switch. We're just one piece of a complex puzzle - and like it or not, there are economic forces at work that are not under our control.
The first is that NN4 is available on the Unix and Unix-like platforms that are needed to run the specialized Computer-Automated-Design/Engineering/Manufacturing software we use.
I am with Erik Jarvis, serve NN4 a simpler page.
Yes, we're an engineering firm - and have zero tolerance for the kinds of security risks that we'd be exposed to if we used the IE browser and email client - we just can't afford the loss of intellectual property and/or the loss of productivity associated with some of the current exploits.
The security angle is important enough that even though we have tens of thousands of PCs in addition to the *nix boxes, those PCs are set up with Windows NT/2000/XP and Netscape 4.xx! I'm not in the IT loop here, but I do hope that we will be testing and certifying (or paying someone else to test and certify) the newer Netscape/Mozilla or Opera browsers soon.
The winner will be a browser and e-mail client that supports a very wide variety of platforms, and does not pose security risks for the corporation. Hopefully, it'll handle CSS properly, too! :)
Jim
If a huge majority of useful sites (USPS, Amazon.com, Google, etc.) simply stopped working on NS4, you can bet your sweet bippy that individuals and companies would switch -- if not immediately, than more quickly. I don't buy the argument that it'd be THAT hard to test for NS7 security compliance, for instance. Frankly, the lack of stability on NS4 alone (it's crashed on me a good number of times more than newer browsers) would seem to lead to lessened productivity at work.
I remember when I was younger and frequently performing in piano concerts... my dad would always tie my tie for me.
He gently urged me to let him teach me how to tie it myself, but I resisted. After all, why should I bother learning if my dad could do it for me quickly, easily?
One day, he said nicely but firmly, "Adam, this is the last time I'm tying your tie for you. You need to do it yourself next time" and I knew he meant it.
I learned to a tie my tie. It took some time, some frustration, and so on... but I did it.
I also want to respectfully refute the argument that shutting out (or sending ugly pages) to x% of Netscape users is going to necessarily result in less revenue for a company.
I'm in the process of updating my own site with CSS and XHTML, and simply sending the NS4 folks no stylesheet at all. I'm confident that the 90% of the non-NS4 people will appreciate the much-faster-loading times and streamlined interface (and likely more frequent content updates!) and will visit my site more often and more deeply than before... likely offsetting the folks I push away.
And, despite there being undoubtedly a few corporate-holders-on with NS4, I'm guessing that most NS4 users are non-tech-savvy individuals, or individuals living in other countries where it costs money to be online and download large programs.
In a cynical realization, I reminded myself that 99% of my revenue generation is from Americans... and likely more wealthy and tech-savvy ones as well (I get affiliate income from amazon.com, US credit cards, etc.)
So in essence, despite the early ethical pangs of abandoning NS4 folks, I'm confident that I'm making the right decision... for me (saving time and anguish) and for my revenues.
Also, give some reasons for regular users why should they stop using NN4 and upgrade.
Just throwing around some general words is useless. Operate with facts.
If you do this, the discussion could be much more productive.
Not sure why you are asking one particular person for concrete reasons when so many of us have already clearly specified compelling reasons for users to switch away from NS4.
But I'll give a few in bullet form just in case :)
- BAD VIEW OF THE INTERNET
Many sites are simply not accessible, or are poorly accessible with NS4. With the latter, current NS4 users may actually not know that they're missing anything. It's like when I first got glasses: "Ah! You mean people really CAN see clearly that far?!?"
- UNSTABLE
While arguments have been made here that NS4 is a proven 'safe' browser for use in secure environments, I'd also note that it's far more prone to crashing than my IE6. I can't remember the last time IE6 crashed on me. NS4 has crashed on me four times in the one week I've been using it.
- HAMPERS ACTUAL ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES
The longer we code using 'hacks' for NS4, the longer we delay making our content truly accessible to others who are legitimately handicapped (such as people using screen readers) and those attempting to access a nice clean copy of our work on a Palm, or WAP device.
- UNSUPPORTED
If users have problems with an NS4 browser, they will have a much harder time getting help than if they were using a more current, standard browser.
- SLOW!
On my dad's P400mhz, IE6 is considerably faster rendering pages than on his old NS4 browser. Same with my P700mhz. I'm willing to bet that -- excepting maybe an old 386 -- IE6 is always going to win the speed test hands down.
Again, NS4 folks likely aren't even aware that they're accessing the 'net more slowly, and with more restrictions than if they upgraded.
I therefore heartily agree with the first poster; it IS largely up to us (webmasters) to help push things along. Let's let the NS4 people understand how their Internet access is being deadened and hampered, and let's give them the encouragement to upgrade.
Come to think of it, isn't this much the same conundrum faced by HDTV?
CONTENT PRODUCERS:
We're not going to standardize on HDTV content until there's a market out there... until enough people have bought HDTV-compatible sets.
CONSUMERS:
We're not going to go and buy an expensive HDTV unit until we're shown that we're missing out by not getting one. Right now, there's no reason to upgrade!
Interesting, eh?
Easy.
With the time I save from not futzing around with ensuring compatibility (e.g., maintaining separate stylesheets), I can instead spend more time:
- creating a greater quantity and quality of compelling content
- analyzing and targeting markets via advertising/promotions/PR
- participating in online communities (my site's and others!)
- updating and fine-tuning the design of my site
- responding to queries from my site visitors
In other words, by telling <10% of my visitors to take a hike, I can MUCH better serve 90+% of my visitors.
That's smart. And it's good business.
It'd be like a company spending $10,000 a month to advertise on the radio in Boise, Idaho... when only 3% of its customers come from that city and collectively only supply $6,000 in revenues.
That's lousy business.
I agree, and this was the point I was trying to make originally.
> So, it's not only up to us, the website developers, to force a switch
I must disagree (to some degree). If most websites did not render correctly, even large corporations would spend the money and switch.
> Let me ask you msr986: why don't you support NN4?
If you read the thread fully, (which you could not have) you would see that I do support NS4 (but I hate to, and would love to stop).
starway: What kind of car do you drive? You could use a Ford Model T. It still performs it's function. (many will argue that it is better in many ways that a modern vehicle). If the people who designed highways install special lanes for cars that couldn't go over 40mph we might still see Model T's on the road. (sometimes when I code for NS4, I feel like I'm stuck in the slow lane).
(I could think of many more analogies, but point made, I will move on....)
> When MS, Netscape, Opera and the rest finally decide that there are better ways to compete than screwing around with how a language is supposed to be interpreted
YES, I agree. But, for the most part IE5.0+, Opera, NS7 can do a fair job rendering code written to standards. I have no problem writing code which is cross browser compatible. But, at the time of NS4, MS and NS were in the middle of a proprietary browser war. MS pulled the plug on IE4. NS4 cannot render standards; It should go....
Now that NS7 is available, NS4 users have no good excuse not to upgrade. We should all hope that NS7 "catches on" with NS users.
:)
Now that NS7 is available, NS4 users have no good excuse not to upgrade.
jdMorgan made a pretty eloquent explanation of his firm's reasons in message #4 of this thread. And now that Netscape has continued support for organizations like his by releasing NN 4.8, we may be in for even a longer haul than we originally thought.
I would prefer you to go first by putting up the message to download NS7.
However, to keep your users happy - I would rephrase it as something like:
---
Download the latest version of Netscape 7 or IE6.
If your machine is too old and cannot run NS7 or IE6, for example if you have Windows 95, I will pay for your upgrade to a newer operating system, or maybe I will buy you a new a computer if needed.
And if you pay by the minute for your internet connection, I will also pay for your dial-up time.
Thank you for considering our services!
---
P.S., I was using NS and went to a sample site from a high page rank shopping cart site to see what types of shopping cart could be implemented. I was greeted with a message "F*** Netscape" - a large graphic that downloaded. I emailed the company involved and they removed the link immediately. Because many people still do use NS4, if you don't support it, you should become worried about being reported and dropped without warning from Yahoo!
When I upgraded my dad's recent plodder machine, the browser loaded MORE QUICKLY and his surfing was greatly improved. Frankly, I think a lot of the "you're elitist and discriminating against people with older machines" is relying on anecdotal 'evidence.' But maybe there's someone somewhere with a 386 that is somehow not able to download and install a newer browser. If so:
- I stand corrected but...
- I still don't think that sort of person would be contributing to one's revenue stream very highly
Regarding the rude graphic you spotted while surfing with Netscape... THAT is simply inexcusable. While I am no longer supporting visitors to my site who use older browsers, I'll show them a POLITE and INFORMATIVE message if anything! The company you cited had a clearly unprofessional or immature Webmaster (which may or may not reflect on the company as a whole... so perhaps you shouldn't be TOO quick to judge).
As for the pay-by-the-minute argument... I think that's getting weaker all the time.
Newer versions of IE are on TONS of install CD's that I've seen. Seems like practically every piece of software I buy has IE on their install CD, in fact!
Similarly, even when I lived in Europe, I could download a huge program overnight and pay easily under a couple of bucks. And the time and aggravation that people'd save with a newer browser would be, IMHO in nearly any country, worth $2 of phone charges.
Not to mention that more and more people around the world are gaining access to DSL and other broadband options.
The bottom line is that we can keep making excuses for why people can't or shouldn't or won't upgrade. But until we as Webmasters stop hemming and hawing, technological progress on the 'net is going to continue to creep along in this respect. Call me cold and arrogant, but I think a great many users need a polite kick in the pants.
I mean, look, millions of people are still paying $21.95 for subpar "Internet" access (e.g., AOL). Is it because they CAN'T access better alternatives, or is it because they simply haven't been given the encouragement and guidance to do so? I'd say it's a lot of the latter! But I digress :)
I am sorry but I don't see Windows 95 listed there. Same with IE6 requirements.
Think about: Cost of Windows 98? Cost of processor upgrade? Cost of memory upgrade? How much are you expecting people to pay to view your site?
I do think a processor upgrade is overkill, however. I'm pretty sure that folks could upgrade from 95 to 98 without sticking in new chips.
> How much are you expecting people to pay to view your site?
This isn't about "my site." This is about the Web in general.
And again, I respectfully return to my bottom line note: Any person or corporation that is running such old software (old browsers or, for goodness sake, Win 95) is not likely to be a very potential customer for me... or, I'd suggest... for most folks.
Windows 95... 1995... More than half a decade ago. Rightly or wrongly, should anyone be shocked that things change and need to be changed within 5+ years in the fast-moving tech world?
I fail to understand why we need a new verion of HTML every two years, and a new browser every 6 months. Most of it seems to be upgrade for the sake of it.
