January 20, 2004 at 8:15 am
WHy not?
January 20, 2004 at 10:53 am
Depends on what it costs us. IE has by far the largest market share. Not only that, I "know" that everyone using SQL has IE around somewhere! It's really about cost and time on a per change basis. To back up and try to code to the lowest common denominator I dont think is doable for us, we'd rather spend the time we can find on content and other features.
January 23, 2004 at 2:27 am
Actually I tend to use Firebird as my default browser and SQLServerCentral works fine in its existing form.
In fact, if you see the bug fixes you will see that I posted a message saying that all worked fine in Firebird but not IE!
In what way is the site NOT Firebird friendly, apart from not using the ActiveX posting facility?
On the economics side I work for a technical documentation company in the web department and our contracts say we have to provide sites that are compatible with Netscape 4.6 (our designers nickname it Nutscrape) upwards and IE 4 upwards. It is simply not financially viable for us to build sites for other browsers.
If we had to develop for another browser we would have to look closely at AOL before moving to anything else.
http://www.e-janco.com/Browser/MSExplorer.htm
One issue we have with web-site stats is that people using screen readers and other tools for the disabled are grossly undercounted in the web server log files.
Basically, a screen reader will record fewer hits because it ignores images, frames, ActiveX etc.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply