RE: Something I've never seen done on a web page before ! -- WEB400

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com]
> >
> > Just as a question, why do you use something as old as 4.77?...
>
> So, I count 4.86 + 1.12 + 0.64 = 6.62%, at least, of my web
> customers who order from our web site using some version of
> Netscape less than 6.0.  Opera's in there with 0.01%.

You know, the thing about statistics is that they tend to obscure the
question asked.  I asked Jeff why he used Netscape 4.77 (and as it turns
out, he uses 4.79, but that doesn't change my question), not whether some of
your customers do.  But let's continue on with your comments.


> So you wouldn't mind, at all, loosing 6�% of your customers from
> now on?  Heck, if your sales are $1,000,000 a year, that's only
> $66,200 you're throwing out the window.  If you're doing
> $10,000,000 a year, what's a measly $662,000, eh?

God, I hate sarcastic responses, especially ones that don't relate to the
question.  The IHT site supports 4.77.  Just some of the features of the
site don't.  And they do a good job of dumbing down to the older versions.
As long as your basic functions don't require the advanced functions, then
you won't "throw $66,200 out the window".

But let's review your numbers.  Who cares what percentage of users dropped
by your site?  It's revenue that matters.  So, in order to get number that
actually have meaning, did you happen to check how many of those customers
also actually ordered things?  And how much they ordered?  Does it pay for
the amount of time you've spent making your site compatible with 4.77?  If
so, then you've got a business case.  If not, you're wasting money.  Hit
counts don't matter when figuring businsess cases - you have to keep track
of the actual revenue generated by users with different browsers.  If you
had those numbers, this would really be a moot discussion.

Because it's going to depend on your business.  If I sell web site
development services, reducing the capabilities of my site to support older
browsers probably isn't going to help my business.  If, on the other hand,
my market is low-end consumers, then I might want to make special effort to
support those older browsers.

Again, this isn't the question I posed.  You evidently think 4.77 support
pays for itself.  For the sake of your bottom line, I hope you're right.


> Especially in this economy, I don't think we can afford to throw
> customers away because it'll take an extra week to support a
> browser we don't use.  Yes, I have IE, Netscape 4.7x and Netscape
> 6.x all installed on my computer, and I test our web sites with them.

A week for your website perhaps.  But you have no idea how much work it
would take to support all the function in the IHT website.  From my
experience, I know there are functions that will not work with 4.77, or will
not work without far more than a week's worth of effort.  So whether or not
you spend a week being compatible with 4.77 doesn't really relate to the
issue of what browsers the IHT website supports.

Because you and IHT are completely different.  IHT is not a storefront.  IHT
probably makes money based on hit passthrough.  If their site is boring and
plain, people may go to a competing site.  On the other hand, the advanced
features might increase readership 50%.  That increase would more than
offset the 5% loss of Netscape 4.77 users.  But since we don't know any of
the real figures, we're just guessing.

Statistics, statistics, statistics.


> > ... And do you
> > expect websites to code to the lowest common denominator in
> order to support
> > you?
>
> Umm... yes.

Then I assume all of your web pages support Lynx, right?  Or are you making
your decision based on those hit statistics (the ones with no revenue
numbers attached)?  Hey, you never know... that 12% of "unknown" might
contain a heavy preponderance of Lynx users.

Anyway, I've had this discussion before, and I disagree entirely with your
opinion that every web page must support Netscape 4.77.  It's a case by case
business decision, not a moral imperative.

Macromedia isn't going to worry about making pages that require the Flash
player.  Microsoft isn't giong to worry about Netscape users.  And a
high-end consumer goods site probably isn't going to worry about customers
who don't spend enough to get off of 4.77.

And even so, after all is said and done, this question is moot, because the
IHT site DOES support 4.77.  Just some of the advanced features aren't
available.  And that's YOUR decision, if you choose to stay with an out of
date browser, not theirs.

Joe