| Author |
Browser usage by useragent
|
|
| Brian Wakem 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| Most stats packages do a pretty poor job of determining how many vistors are
using which browser IMO.
So, I just knocked up a little script, mainly to see how much Firefox had
penetrated the market, and to see how much IE is suffering with all its bad
press, security flaws etc.
The answer is not a lot. Here are the stats taken from 1 day picked at
random on our website (Last Tuesday as it happens).
Agent Hits
MSIE 285178 [ 87.3% ]
Googlebot 15653 [ 4.8% ]
Firefox 12734 [ 3.9% ]
Other 4916 [ 1.5% ]
Mozilla 3322 [ 1.0% ]
Yahoo! Slurp 1679 [ 0.5% ]
Opera 1293 [ 0.4% ]
Konqueror 962 [ 0.3% ]
msnbot 477 [ 0.1% ]
LWP 286 [ 0.1% ]
I must say I am quite shocked that IE still has such a firm grip on the
browser market. And Googlebot produced more hits than Firefox!
--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png
| |
| Mark Goodge 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:28:35 +0100, Brian Wakem put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>Most stats packages do a pretty poor job of determining how many vistors are
>using which browser IMO.
>
>So, I just knocked up a little script, mainly to see how much Firefox had
>penetrated the market, and to see how much IE is suffering with all its bad
>press, security flaws etc.
>
>The answer is not a lot. Here are the stats taken from 1 day picked at
>random on our website (Last Tuesday as it happens).
>
>
>Agent Hits
>MSIE 285178 [ 87.3% ]
>Googlebot 15653 [ 4.8% ]
>Firefox 12734 [ 3.9% ]
>Other 4916 [ 1.5% ]
>Mozilla 3322 [ 1.0% ]
>Yahoo! Slurp 1679 [ 0.5% ]
>Opera 1293 [ 0.4% ]
>Konqueror 962 [ 0.3% ]
>msnbot 477 [ 0.1% ]
>LWP 286 [ 0.1% ]
>
>
>I must say I am quite shocked that IE still has such a firm grip on the
>browser market. And Googlebot produced more hits than Firefox!
You need to take into account the fact that nearly everything which
has reason (good or bad) to hide its true nature does so by pretending
to be IE. The problem is that there is no way, from the UA stats
alone, to tell how many hits this accounts for.
Mark
--
http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| Brian Wakem wrote
> Most stats packages do a pretty poor job of determining how many
> vistors are using which browser IMO.
>
> So, I just knocked up a little script, mainly to see how much Firefox
> had penetrated the market, and to see how much IE is suffering with
> all its bad press, security flaws etc.
>
> The answer is not a lot. Here are the stats taken from 1 day picked
> at random on our website (Last Tuesday as it happens).
>
>
> Agent Hits
> MSIE 285178 [ 87.3% ]
> Googlebot 15653 [ 4.8% ]
> Firefox 12734 [ 3.9% ]
> Other 4916 [ 1.5% ]
> Mozilla 3322 [ 1.0% ]
> Yahoo! Slurp 1679 [ 0.5% ]
> Opera 1293 [ 0.4% ]
> Konqueror 962 [ 0.3% ]
> msnbot 477 [ 0.1% ]
> LWP 286 [ 0.1% ]
>
>
> I must say I am quite shocked that IE still has such a firm grip on
> the browser market. And Googlebot produced more hits than Firefox!
Depends on your site. What is the makeup of your average visitor?
Bear in mind also that Opera for one can identify itself as IE, which is
normally how I have it set.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Brian Wakem 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Depends on your site. What is the makeup of your average visitor?
>
> Bear in mind also that Opera for one can identify itself as IE, which is
> normally how I have it set.
>
It still has 'Opera' in the string somewhere, that is what I tested for.
--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| Brian Wakem wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
[color=darkred]
> It still has 'Opera' in the string somewhere, that is what I tested for.
Right. Didn't know that.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the Bad cafeteria
Brian Wakem <no@email.com> said:
> ...
> So, I just knocked up a little script, mainly to see how much Firefox had
> penetrated the market,
Interesting, may I be so bold as to enquire the purpose? I'm not sure how
that information helps me (as a site builder). I can see how that info
would be very useful if I were a UA manufacturer.
--
William Tasso
virtue is its own punishment
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:41:16 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the Bad cafeteria
> Brian Wakem <no@email.com> said:
>
>
> Interesting, may I be so bold as to enquire the purpose? I'm not sure how
> that information helps me (as a site builder). I can see how that info
> would be very useful if I were a UA manufacturer.
>
Oi! get off my bandwagon! <bg>
Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
Over 235,000 definitions and descriptions
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-10-23, 6:21 pm |
| Brian Wakem wrote:
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>
> It still has 'Opera' in the string somewhere, that is what I tested for.
Since version 8.0 there is a "true spoofing" mode that allows it to spoof
IE 6 and Netscape 3.0, 4.78 and 5.0 without "Opera" in the User-Agent
header at all!
The option is not available in the GUI, but can be switched on through
opera6.ini, or through ua.ini on a site-by-site basis. The default ua.ini
provided upon installation turns on true spoofing for a few sites.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2005-10-24, 3:14 am |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Bear in mind also that Opera for one can identify itself as IE, which is
> normally how I have it set.
I never do that, unless I am playing with a clueless web author's "IE
required" site.
I *want* the sites/stats to count up and reflect that I do not use IE.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
|
|
"Brian Wakem" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:3s1hg3Flb2glU1@individual.net...
> Most stats packages do a pretty poor job of determining how many vistors
> are
> using which browser IMO.
Unfortunately statistically most sites aren't a good reflection - however
check out the BBCs stats
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=...627252&from=rss
:D
| |
|
|
"Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com" <sales@exleaseit.co.uk> wrote
in message news:IdS6f.46603$MF6.41460@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> It is interesting to note that Netscape Navigator has pretty much
> disappeared ... :D
>
Who?
;)
| |
|
| On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:28:35 +0100, Brian Wakem wrote:
>
> I must say I am quite shocked that IE still has such a firm grip on the
> browser market. And Googlebot produced more hits than Firefox!
Why shocked? IE had over 90% market for many years and it slipped due to
Firefox. It's not going to go down below 50% in the short time Firefox was
out.
When IE 7.0 comes out next year with tabbed browsing and the features that
made people switch to Firefox, with fixes to CSS hacks, XHTML
complianiance.. etc, I predict many users will switch back to IE and IE
will again have over 90% market share.
--
Karim
http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Innovative Web Hosting since 1998 .
| |
| John Bokma 2005-10-24, 6:36 pm |
| Karim <karim3412@yahoo.moc> wrote:
> When IE 7.0 comes out next year with tabbed browsing and the features
> that made people switch to Firefox, with fixes to CSS hacks, XHTML
> complianiance.. etc, I predict many users will switch back to IE and
> IE will again have over 90% market share.
Yup, I might be one of those :-D.
--
John PERL SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-24, 6:37 pm |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>
> I never do that, unless I am playing with a clueless web author's "IE
> required" site.
Likewise. In my case it was the bank.
> I *want* the sites/stats to count up and reflect that I do not use IE.
I share those sentiments, but it was easier for me just to keep it on
IE.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-24, 6:37 pm |
| Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote
> One of the things that has suprised me is how much of a difference,
> different websites have (stats wise) in anything you can gather... IT
> orientated websites, finance, "fun", business etc... all seem to have
> quite different stats... Businesses often don't use anything but IE
> - yet for some reason some colleges and schools seem to be using
> Netscape (or Firefox)...
Indeed. Designers/publishers tend to use Macs, which tend to use Safari,
so sites aimed at them might expect to see a much higher share for Safari.
By way of example.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-24, 6:37 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> Brian Wakem wrote:
>
>
>
> Since version 8.0 there is a "true spoofing" mode that allows it to spoof
> IE 6 and Netscape 3.0, 4.78 and 5.0 without "Opera" in the User-Agent
> header at all!
>
> The option is not available in the GUI, but can be switched on through
> opera6.ini, or through ua.ini on a site-by-site basis. The default ua.ini
> provided upon installation turns on true spoofing for a few sites.
>
Well it's meaningless then. How many users actually know how to switch
that on or are likely to switch it on? It's hardly even worth bringing up.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-10-24, 6:37 pm |
| And lo, SpaceGirl didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> Well it's meaningless then. How many users actually know how to switch
> that on or are likely to switch it on? It's hardly even worth bringing
> up.
As of version 9.0 (currently in Preview), it can be easily done through
the opera:config UI. Just scroll down to "User Agent" and select 4 or 5.
Agents 1 to 3 are the Opera-tagged strings.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#rsear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-24, 10:20 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> Well it's meaningless then. How many users actually know how to switch
> that on or are likely to switch it on? It's hardly even worth bringing
> up.
That's him told!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:27:16 -0400, GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, SpaceGirl didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
> As of version 9.0 (currently in Preview), it can be easily done through
> the opera:config UI. Just scroll down to "User Agent" and select 4 or 5.
> Agents 1 to 3 are the Opera-tagged strings.
>
> Grey
Even if it's very accessible, why would one mess around with the user agent
setting unless Opera can't display the viewed site properly. The other
question is once the setting changes because of a problematic site, would a
typical user remember to change it back?
--
Karim
http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Innovative Web Hosting since 1998
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-10-25, 3:28 am |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
>
> Well it's meaningless then. How many users actually know how to switch
> that on or are likely to switch it on? It's hardly even worth bringing
> up.
If you read my post, you'd see that I said that ua.ini switches on true
spoofing *by default* for many sites on a site-by-site basis.
I am a die-hard Opera customiser, but have never felt the need to change
ua.ini -- so I'd imagine that most other Opera users haven't either. Thus
most Opera users must use true spoofing on some sites.
It's not a matter of "how many users actually know how to switch [...] it
on?", but how many actually know how to switch it *off*.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 6:27 am |
| GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, SpaceGirl didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
>
> As of version 9.0 (currently in Preview), it can be easily done through
> the opera:config UI. Just scroll down to "User Agent" and select 4 or
> 5. Agents 1 to 3 are the Opera-tagged strings.
>
> Grey
>
Nobody except a techie WOULD though... which rules out almost everyone
who visits the web. The vast majority of people online these days are
not geeks :) So really, Opera pretending to be IE is not something to
loose sleep over.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 6:27 am |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
> If you read my post, you'd see that I said that ua.ini switches on true
> spoofing *by default* for many sites on a site-by-site basis.
>
> I am a die-hard Opera customiser, but have never felt the need to change
> ua.ini -- so I'd imagine that most other Opera users haven't either. Thus
> most Opera users must use true spoofing on some sites.
>
> It's not a matter of "how many users actually know how to switch [...] it
> on?", but how many actually know how to switch it *off*.
>
By default (as far as I can see in MY version of Opera) it still says
"Opera" in the string.
If Opera HAVE done that in version 9 it would be a pretty stupid thing
to do if you ask me. Every browser has its quirks (Opera and Firefox
included) and making browsers pretend to be something else is a tad daft.
Opera 8 is my second browser BTW... I love it!
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| C A Upsdell 2005-10-25, 6:43 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
I have Opera 8.50 and there is no ua.ini, default or otherwise, so it
would seem that Opera has not yet implemented this feature.
[color=darkred]
>
> If you read my post, you'd see that I said that ua.ini switches on true
> spoofing *by default* for many sites on a site-by-site basis.
But surely such spoofing would only be done if the site does not handle
Opera correctly: a site which does handle Opera correctly would not be
spoofed via ua.ini, therefore the userAgent for that site will certainly
contain 'Opera', and a browser sniffer will reliably identify the browser.
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| C A Upsdell wrote:
> I have Opera 8.50 and there is no ua.ini, default or otherwise, so it
> would seem that Opera has not yet implemented this feature.
Check your *profile* directory -- not the program directory.
If you're on UNIX, this is "~/.opera/". If you're on Windows, I don't know
where it would be -- probably somewhere in "C:\Windows\Profiles\USERNAME"
or "C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME" depending on Windows version.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> If Opera HAVE done that in version 9 it would be a pretty stupid thing
> to do if you ask me.
Phew! Lucky they did it in version 8.
http://message-id.net/<173t23-gm7.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| C A Upsdell 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>
> Check your *profile* directory -- not the program directory.
>
> If you're on Windows, I don't know
> where it would be -- probably somewhere in "C:\Windows\Profiles\USERNAME"
> or "C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME" depending on Windows version.
Could not locate any 'profile' directory.
| |
|
| C A Upsdell wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> Could not locate any 'profile' directory.
C:\Documents and Settings\[windows username if any]\Application
Data\Opera\Opera\profile\ua.ini
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
|
| Els wrote:
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>
> C:\Documents and Settings\[windows username if any]\Application
> Data\Opera\Opera\profile\ua.ini
Forgot to mention: "Application Data" normally is an invisible folder.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| C A Upsdell 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> Forgot to mention: "Application Data" normally is an invisible folder.
Still can not locate such a directory.
Also, my previous point is still valid: "such spoofing would only be
done if the site does not handle Opera correctly: a site which does
handle Opera correctly would not be spoofed via ua.ini, therefore the
userAgent for that site will certainly contain 'Opera', and a browser
sniffer will reliably identify the browser."
| |
| Norman L. DeForest 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Toby Inkster wrote:
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>
> Check your *profile* directory -- not the program directory.
>
> If you're on UNIX, this is "~/.opera/". If you're on Windows, I don't know
> where it would be -- probably somewhere in "C:\Windows\Profiles\USERNAME"
> or "C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME" depending on Windows version.
It looks from my system that the "profile" directory is created as a
subdirectory of where Opera was installed. On my Windows 98 machine,
I chose to install Opera in the "E:\Opera" directory. "ua.ini" is at
"E:\Opera\profile\ua.ini".
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
"> Is there anything Spamazon DOESN'T sell?
Clues. The market's too small to justify the effort."
-- Stuart Lamble in the scary devil monastery, Fri, 13 May 2005
| |
| GreyWyvern 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| And lo, C A Upsdell didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> [Opera profile directory]
>
> Still can not locate such a directory.
You have Opera open now? Type "opera:about" into the address bar.
Your "Preferences", "Saved windows", and "Bookmarks" should all be
pointing to folders within your profile directory.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#rsear - Orca Search: Full-featured spider
and site-search engine
| |
| C A Upsdell 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| Norman L. DeForest wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Toby Inkster wrote:
>
>
>
> It looks from my system that the "profile" directory is created as a
> subdirectory of where Opera was installed. On my Windows 98 machine,
> I chose to install Opera in the "E:\Opera" directory. "ua.ini" is at
> "E:\Opera\profile\ua.ini".
I have a similar profile directory ... but no ua.ini.
| |
|
| Norman L. DeForest wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Toby Inkster wrote:
>
>
> It looks from my system that the "profile" directory is created as a
> subdirectory of where Opera was installed. On my Windows 98 machine,
> I chose to install Opera in the "E:\Opera" directory. "ua.ini" is at
> "E:\Opera\profile\ua.ini".
On WinXP, I installed Opera in P:\....\Opera, but the profile
directory, including the ua.ini, is still on the C: drive.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
|
|
|
| Allis wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> In Application Data?
Yup, as per my other post:
C:\Documents and Settings\[windows username if any]\Application
Data\Opera\Opera\profile\ua.ini
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:48:02 -0400, C A Upsdell wrote:
> Norman L. DeForest wrote:
>
> I have a similar profile directory ... but no ua.ini.
Do a search on the WHOLE computer which means choose 'local harddrives' in
search. 'My documents..' folder will reside in the same partition where
your OS is installed, regardless where the application in installed.
--
Karim
http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Innovative Web Hosting since 1998 .
| |
| C A Upsdell 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| GreyWyvern wrote:
> And lo, C A Upsdell didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
>
>
> You have Opera open now? Type "opera:about" into the address bar.
>
> Your "Preferences", "Saved windows", and "Bookmarks" should all be
> pointing to folders within your profile directory.
Okay, found it (finally!).
Oddly, it contains lines such as "www.opera.com=1", which AFAIK should
correspond to no spoofing. Which makes me wonder why such lines are there.
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:59:06 -0400, C A Upsdell wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> Still can not locate such a directory.
>
> Also, my previous point is still valid: "such spoofing would only be
> done if the site does not handle Opera correctly: a site which does
> handle Opera correctly would not be spoofed via ua.ini, therefore the
> userAgent for that site will certainly contain 'Opera', and a browser
> sniffer will reliably identify the browser."
No one here has yet to give life examples of why one would mess around with
the user agent setting. The only time I can think of is if a site indicates
it's optimized for IE and it doesn't display properly in Opera. Even then
Opera might still have problems.
There were incidents when a few MS sites 'deliberately' used invalid CSS
files for Opera. The Swedish cook Opera spoof.
--
Karim
http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Innovative Web Hosting since 1998 .
| |
|
| C A Upsdell wrote:
> GreyWyvern wrote:
>
> Okay, found it (finally!).
Where was it? :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| Els wrote
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>
> Where was it? :-)
At the back of the kitchen drawer would be my guess.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-25, 6:44 pm |
| Karim wrote
> No one here has yet to give life examples of why one would mess around
> with the user agent setting. The only time I can think of is if a site
> indicates it's optimized for IE and it doesn't display properly
At least two people gave that example.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Els wrote
>
>
> At the back of the kitchen drawer would be my guess.
The kitchen drawer in Application Data, or the one in E:\Opera ?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
|
| "C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote in message
news:JKqdnXyUeakZscPeRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>
> But surely such spoofing would only be done if the site does not handle
> Opera correctly: a site which does handle Opera correctly would not be
> spoofed via ua.ini, therefore the userAgent for that site will certainly
> contain 'Opera', and a browser sniffer will reliably identify the browser.
If a site doesn't display properly in Opera, will UA spoofing cause it to
suddenly display properly, then?
| |
|
| Tony wrote:
> "C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote in message
> news:JKqdnXyUeakZscPeRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>
> If a site doesn't display properly in Opera, will UA spoofing cause it to
> suddenly display properly, then?
No, but some sites which don't display at all in Opera (page saying
"we don't support Opera" or "you need Internet Explorer 6+"), may just
display (even correctly at times) when spoofing as IE.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| Tony wrote
> If a site doesn't display properly in Opera, will UA spoofing cause it
> to suddenly display properly, then?
In my experience, yes. My online banking doesn't display at all unless I
spoof the UA!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| C A Upsdell wrote:
> Oddly, it contains lines such as "www.opera.com=1", which AFAIK should
> correspond to no spoofing. Which makes me wonder why such lines are there.
But the user may have chosen a UA other than "Opera" as their default. The
ua.ini will therefore override the user's default when visiting
www.opera.com.
Not entirely redundant.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>
> But the user may have chosen a UA other than "Opera" as their default.
> The ua.ini will therefore override the user's default when visiting
> www.opera.com.
>
> Not entirely redundant.
Leave 'em Tob'. They're not worth it.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Phew! Lucky they did it in version 8.
>
> http://message-id.net/<173t23-gm7.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>
>
Not in version 8.5; I just tried it...
"MOZILLA/4.0 (COMPATIBLE; MSIE 6.0; WINDOWS NT 5.1; EN) OPERA 8.50"
....is what Opera identifies itself as when "identify as IE" is selected
in the options (which appears to be default). It has the word "Opera" in
the string, so it wont fool the smarter scripts (I mean, properly
written ones!), and almost NO users will ever know to change it to
anything else.
What's that message ID thing btw?
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>
>
>
>
> But the user may have chosen a UA other than "Opera" as their default. The
> ua.ini will therefore override the user's default when visiting
> www.opera.com.
>
> Not entirely redundant.
>
Come on, be realistic. How likely is that? :)
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Tony wrote
>
>
>
>
> In my experience, yes. My online banking doesn't display at all unless I
> spoof the UA!
>
That's really bad... doesn't suprise me tho :(
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> Not in version 8.5; I just tried it...
>
> "MOZILLA/4.0 (COMPATIBLE; MSIE 6.0; WINDOWS NT 5.1; EN) OPERA 8.50"
On which site? Toby said it was switched on for *some sites* by
default.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 6:45 pm |
| Els wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
> On which site? Toby said it was switched on for *some sites* by
> default.
>
In this case... http://www.garbagefansite.com/news/ (it's not a live
site, early testing!). It grabs the browser string from the HTTP header.
I doubt Opera have singled out my beta site :)
View the source of the page when it's loaded. Somewhere in the top of
the text you'll find the string the server found (it writes it back to
the page).
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
|
|
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> In this case... http://www.garbagefansite.com/news/ (it's not a live
> site, early testing!). It grabs the browser string from the HTTP header.
> I doubt Opera have singled out my beta site :)
Exactly.
Opera has singled out a couple of sites, to really spoof without
mentioning Opera in the string. Indeed, not the Garbage fan site ;-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 10:28 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just for you Miranda:
>
> http://charlessweeney.com/images/bank.jpg
>
> Spoofing as IE, it works with no problems.
>
Useless people! Oh well. My bank was similar until about 8 months ago.
Couldn't use their site with Fx at all. Thankfully the upgraded. I've
never tried with Opera though. I'll maybe try that sometime.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-25, 10:28 pm |
| Els wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Exactly.
> Opera has singled out a couple of sites, to really spoof without
> mentioning Opera in the string. Indeed, not the Garbage fan site ;-)
>
*looks confused*
um. I'll go to bed now.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| Allis 2005-10-25, 10:28 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Allis wrote:
>
>
> Yup, as per my other post:
> C:\Documents and Settings\[windows username if any]\Application
> Data\Opera\Opera\profile\ua.ini
Thanky ;)
re: Other post. I don't catch 'em all.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Ellen Tells it like it is...</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="description" content="Ellen Fiess">
<meta name="keywords" content="Ellen Fiess">
<meta name="author" content="AWW">
<meta name="language" content="en">
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow">
<meta name="revisit" content="30 days">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://themooseisloose.net/page_files/mis.css"
type="text/css">
<script type="text/javascript">
var photos=new Array()
var photoslink=new Array()
var which=0
//define images.
photos[0]="1.jpg"
photos[1]="2.jpg"
photos[2]="3.jpg"
photos[3]="4.jpg"
photos[4]="5.jpg"
photos[5]="6.jpg"
photos[6]="9.jpg"
photos[7]="10.jpg"
photos[8]="11.jpg"
photos[9]="12.jpg"
photos[10]="13.jpg"
photos[11]="14.jpg"
photos[12]="15.jpg"
photos[13]="16.jpg"
//(1=linked)
var linkornot=0
//Set corresponding URLs for above images. Define ONLY if variable linkornot
equals "1"
photoslink[0]=""
photoslink[1]=""
photoslink[2]=""
//do NOT edit pass this line
var preloadedimages=new Array()
for (i=0;i<photos.length;i++){
preloadedimages[i]=new Image()
preloadedimages[i].src=photos[i]
}
function applyeffect(){
if (document.all && photoslider.filters){
photoslider.filters.revealTrans.Transition=Math.floor(Math.random()*23)
photoslider.filters.revealTrans.stop()
photoslider.filters.revealTrans.apply()
}
}
function playeffect(){
if (document.all && photoslider.filters)
photoslider.filters.revealTrans.play()
}
function keeptrack(){
window.status="Image "+(which+1)+" of "+photos.length
}
function backward(){
if (which>0){
which--
applyeffect()
document.images.photoslider.src=photos[which]
playeffect()
keeptrack()
}
}
function forward(){
if (which<photos.length-1){
which++
applyeffect()
document.images.photoslider.src=photos[which]
playeffect()
keeptrack()
}
}
function transport(){
window.location=photoslink[which]
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<table border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td width="100%" colspan="2"><center>
<script>
if (linkornot==1)
document.write('<a href="java script:transport()">')
document.write('<img src="'+photos[0]+'" name="photoslider"
style="filter:revealTrans(duration=2,transition=23)" border=0>')
if (linkornot==1)
document.write('</a>')
</script>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="50%" height="21"><p align="left"><a href="#"
onClick="backward();return false">Previous Slide</a></td>
<td width="50%" height="21"><p align="right"><a href="#"
onClick="forward();return false">Next Slide</a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
| |
|
| Allis wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> Thanky ;)
> re: Other post. I don't catch 'em all.
np - I don't either. Especially this one below:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> <title>Ellen Tells it like it is...</title>
[snip half a document]
> //do NOT edit pass this line
Tough <g>
[snip other half of document]
> </html>
What was that all about?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
|
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> *looks confused*
>
> um. I'll go to bed now.
Best read the lot again in the morning.
*After* your first coffee(s) ;P
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| Allis 2005-10-25, 10:28 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Allis wrote:
>
> np - I don't either. Especially this one below:
>
>
> [snip half a document]
>
>
> Tough <g>
>
> [snip other half of document]
>
>
> What was that all about?
Holy sheeeet!
Sorry, blonde paste I guess....
and lots of windows...
Pardon the hiccup ;)
--
Allis
http://alt-aww-webmaster.info
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-25, 10:28 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
> Useless people! Oh well. My bank was similar until about 8 months ago.
> Couldn't use their site with Fx at all. Thankfully the upgraded. I've
> never tried with Opera though. I'll maybe try that sometime.
Yep, I couldn't use my bank with Firefox either. Actually, the bank
have been pushing their luck lately, and I threatened to move to
FirstDirect. The website being one reason, although they say it is
getting revamped.
I was put off by FirstDirect's automatic overdraft, I would just spend
it! Money burns a hole in my pocket!
The sooner PayPal issues debit cards and cheque books, the better!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Allis 2005-10-25, 10:28 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote
>
>
> Yep, I couldn't use my bank with Firefox either. Actually, the bank
> have been pushing their luck lately, and I threatened to move to
> FirstDirect. The website being one reason, although they say it is
> getting revamped.
>
> I was put off by FirstDirect's automatic overdraft, I would just spend
> it! Money burns a hole in my pocket!
>
> The sooner PayPal issues debit cards and cheque books, the better!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webs...DCIntro-outside
| |
| Duende 2005-10-26, 3:26 am |
| On 25 Oct 2005 Allis wrote in alt.www.webmaster
>
> Holy sheeeet!
What is holy about your sheeeet?
> Sorry, blonde paste I guess....
More like blonde sheeeet...
> and lots of windows...
It's night. Close your drapes.
;))
--
D?
| |
|
| Duende wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2005 Allis wrote in alt.www.webmaster
>
> What is holy about your sheeeet?
>
> More like blonde sheeeet...
>
> It's night. Close your drapes.
>
> ;))
Trying to hack my webcam again hug? ;))
Told you... port 2289
sheesh
;)
A
| |
|
|
| Toby Inkster 2005-10-26, 6:28 am |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>
> Come on, be realistic. How likely is that? :)
If we're using your "most users leave the setting at the default"
principle: very.
The default User Agent for Opera from version 5.0 to 8.5 (excluding 8.10)
is to identify as Internet Explorer.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-26, 10:23 pm |
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
>
>
> If we're using your "most users leave the setting at the default"
> principle: very.
>
> The default User Agent for Opera from version 5.0 to 8.5 (excluding 8.10)
> is to identify as Internet Explorer.
>
Hmm are you sure? I think they all still have "Opera" in the application
string. Yes the first bit of the string says Internet Explorer, but
right at the end it says Opera x.x, which is easy to detect. So really
Opera doesn't identify itself as IE - it sort of munges the string so
it's a bit-like-IE. Only really basic scripts would detect IE surely?
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-10-26, 10:23 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the cafeteria
SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> said:
> So really Opera doesn't identify itself as IE - it sort of munges the
> string so it's a bit-like-IE. Only really basic scripts would detect IE
> surely?
Only really basic scripters would give a damn what UA is used, surely?
--
William Tasso
virtue is its own punishment
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-26, 10:23 pm |
| William Tasso wrote:
>
> Only really basic scripters would give a damn what UA is used, surely?
If Opera renders 100% correctly, yes. But it doesn't. Just like all
modern browsers it has it's quirks, so sometimes you have to code around
them. Harder to code around if you cant detect the browser in the first
place.
While I think you should NEED to do work arounds, often you have to
(although, mostly of IE these days). I think the misuse of detection
scripts to bar some browsers from sites is really idiotic, but at least
that is in the control of the designer and/or what the customer wants.
For a browser manufacturer to deliberately have their browser lie about
what it is is even worse. If that browser has a particular problem or
renders differently from the browser it is pretending to be there is no
way for the designer to "fix" the site to get around it. It takes the
control away from people creating sites and puts it in the hands of
browser manufactures - just like MS did with IE, and NS did right back
at the start. In a world where browsers each render a little
differnetly, "features" like this will ultimately hurt the web, not make
it better, I think.
? I dont know... will Opera always have a browser that renders
"perfectly"? So some future version of Opera that is pretending to be,
for example, Internet Explorer 7 but renders some element totally
differently? What happens to your site? How do you code around it? It's
a slippery slope...
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
|
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op.sy9z22uym9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com...
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the cafeteria
> SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> said:
>
>
> Only really basic scripters would give a damn what UA is used, surely?
>
Not necessarily. The vagaries of browser rendering can necessitate small
adjustments in javascript repositioning, based solely on what browser is
being used.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-10-27, 6:18 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
cafeteria
Tony <nobody@nowhere.not> said:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> news:op.sy9z22uym9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com...
>
> Not necessarily. The vagaries of browser rendering
... are part of the rich tapestry of life and should be embraced,
celebrated with a spring in your step, joy in your heart and a twinkle in
your eye.
> can necessitate small
> adjustments in javascript repositioning, based solely on what browser is
> being used.
pixel perfection is a myth - a monkey on your back - an eternal task
(worse than cleaning/washing/ironing)
What happens when the next big thing in browsers is delivered? Will that
mean that every page one ever built has to be re-worked to accommodate its
quirks?
--
William Tasso
virtue is its own punishment
| |
|
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op.szaunthrm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com...
>
> ... are part of the rich tapestry of life and should be embraced,
> celebrated with a spring in your step, joy in your heart and a twinkle in
> your eye.
Trust me - I celebrate them. Those vagaries keep me employed :)
>
> pixel perfection is a myth - a monkey on your back - an eternal task
> (worse than cleaning/washing/ironing)
I'm not targeting pixel-perfection, but keeping table headers and contents
aligned with each other is nice.
> What happens when the next big thing in browsers is delivered? Will that
> mean that every page one ever built has to be re-worked to accommodate its
> quirks?
Probably.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-28, 6:19 am |
|
Tony wrote:
> I'm not targeting pixel-perfection, but keeping table headers and contents
> aligned with each other is nice.
It's a myth anyway. Pixel perfection can (and often is) achieved. While
a lot of people whine about not trying for pixel perfection, go look at
actual web sites out there. How many millions of commercial & popular
sites have pixel-perfect designs? Of course some of them fall apart
when you increase your font size or use less popular browsers, but so
what? It really doesn't matter, so long as you are maximising your
target audience.
>
> Probably.
That's just daft. If you design a web site to last that long, then
really you need to rethink how you market your site. WWW is moving
along to fast. Browsers go through a generation about every two years.
You should be at least revisiting the design of your site way more
often than that. That's when you can adjust your site for new abscure
releases of browsers IF NEEDED. It's not as simple as that anyway;
generally you design for a browser engine, which will generally render
fine in all versions of the browser.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-10-28, 6:23 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria
SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> said:
>
> Tony wrote:
>
sure - and often desirable too.
[color=darkred]
> It's a myth anyway. Pixel perfection can (and often is) achieved. While
> a lot of people whine about not trying for pixel perfection,
hrmm - I think you'll find the whiners, whingers and general
ne'er-do-wells, the foot-pads, scoudrels and wastrels are the smoke and
mirror artists, the snake-oil merchants peddling the myth of cross-browser
pixel perfection.
> go look at
> actual web sites out there. How many millions of commercial & popular
> sites have pixel-perfect designs?
not one.
> Of course some of them fall apart
> when you increase your font size or use less popular browsers,
indeed they do
> but so
> what? It really doesn't matter,
that's what I said isn't it?
> so long as you are maximising your
> target audience.
hrmm - not sure what that means? maximise the number of potential
visitors perhaps. that's a marketing issue surely?
HTML is usable and accessible by default - the obstacles are generated by
the (sub?) human hand/mind.
>
> That's just daft. If you design a web site to last that long, then
> really you need to rethink how you market your site.
That's a marketing issue - in any event, there is a considerable
difference in cost/effect/planning/effort between continuously developing
a site and being forced to make changes because the original design isn't
robust enough to work in a new popular environment.
> WWW is moving
> along to fast. Browsers go through a generation about every two years.
yep - I learned that lesson when Microsoft released IE5.5
> You should be at least revisiting the design of your site way more
> often than that. That's when you can adjust your site for new abscure
> releases of browsers IF NEEDED. It's not as simple as that anyway;
> generally you design for a browser engine, which will generally render
> fine in all versions of the browser.
hrmm - because I had made my sites work in IE 5 - they were all broken (in
some way) in IE 5.5
never again.
--
William Tasso
virtue is its own punishment
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-10-28, 6:23 am |
| > > It's a myth anyway. Pixel perfection can (and often is) achieved. While
>
> hrmm - I think you'll find the whiners, whingers and general
> ne'er-do-wells, the foot-pads, scoudrels and wastrels are the smoke and
> mirror artists, the snake-oil merchants peddling the myth of cross-browser
> pixel perfection.
It can be done, for the the majority of user. Think about it - almost
everyone still uses IE6. You can design pixel-based sites that look
perfect in IE6, Fx and Opera to MOST users. Yes people can increase
their font size etc, but most DONT. That's the important bit. Yes they
can, but they DONT. While that's not a justification for pixel-based
design on it's own, it's reason enough to be flexible about what type
of design you use to achieve what a client wants for a particular
market; sometimes pixel-based design is just what they want or works
best for their market, other times it's not. If you argue one is better
than the other then you are in danger of being very closed about how
you achieve a solution to your clients needs.
>
> not one.
Not if you think about it; every site from bbc.co.uk to apple.com uses
elements of pixel based design. The columns on the BBC site are fixed
and look the same across all browsers. Pixel perfect. Yes the user can
enlarge their fonts, but as I already suggested above, how many people
actually DO change their font sizes? Not many. You're also completely
forgetting about the many 1000s of Flash sites out there.
You could argue in the future that this is likely to change, but I
think it could go one of two ways; With the launch of Vista next year
windows (all windows) become scalable. I think more people are likely
to "enlarge" a window (like the Opera zoom function) than increase
their font size. The other way is of course truly flexible design, but
even then I wonder how this will work with the likes of Metro around
the corner and Flash.
Flexible design (non-pixel based) is no more or less important than
pixel based design in the scheme of things. It's up to a designer like
you or I to build what's best for a particular project and not be boxed
in by these artificial constraints. After all when it comes down to it,
if people can use the site, it works, and achieve what the client is
after, who cares about how it's built, standards, or the technology
used? End users certainly dont give a poo until their fave site breaks.
And that's the only time clients start to worry you too.
m
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-10-28, 6:41 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote
>
> Tony wrote:
>
>
> It's a myth anyway. Pixel perfection can (and often is) achieved.
> While a lot of people whine about not trying for pixel perfection, go
> look at actual web sites out there. How many millions of commercial &
> popular sites have pixel-perfect designs? Of course some of them fall
> apart when you increase your font size or use less popular browsers,
> but so what? It really doesn't matter, so long as you are maximising
> your target audience.
Maximising the target audience? I would have thought it would have the
exact opposite effect.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
|
|
|
|
| Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |