I was trying to find the employment section on this site :
www.pfizer.com and found a page with only a couple of graphics that
didn't really go anywhere.  I figured out that the navigation appeared
when I changed over to IE (I was using Firefox).

I contacted the media guy and he was told by their web designers that
"the global standard they seek to meet is that our sites are viewable
by 95% of traffic. I'm sorry that Mozilla Firefox users fall into the
5%."  -- I also assume it won't work in screen-readers/text-only.

Is this an acceptable practice, especially for a big business?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:25:41 +0800, <sskett@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I was trying to find the employment section on this site :
> www.pfizer.com and found a page with only a couple of graphics that
> didn't really go anywhere.  I figured out that the navigation appeared
> when I changed over to IE (I was using Firefox).
>
> I contacted the media guy and he was told by their web designers that
> "the global standard they seek to meet is that our sites are viewable
> by 95% of traffic. I'm sorry that Mozilla Firefox users fall into the
> 5%."  -- I also assume it won't work in screen-readers/text-only.
>
> Is this an acceptable practice, especially for a big business?


Of course not, silly. The page is absolutely horrible in Lynx. Sadly,
though, it still is prevalent. When I access certain sites I need to go
to, I have to use IE or I run into trouble. It's not that I like it, but
when you need to go there and noplace else will do, they kinda have you by
the short hairs.

Of course, if there is someplace else to go, I normally will, and fast. If
you find a site of similar value which is more usable and accessible,
might want to drop them a line letting them know that this other site will
get your traffic and recommendations from here in based on the fact that
they don't ignore a portion of their users.

sskett wrote:

> "the global standard they seek to meet is that our sites are viewable
> by 95% of traffic. I'm sorry that Mozilla Firefox users fall into the
> 5%."

Less than 95%...

http://news.com.com/IE+usage+drop--..._3-5267858.html
| Recent numbers from analytics company WebSideStory revealed a steady
| downward trickle in market share over the past month. Since June 4, IE
| witnessed a 1 percent change from 95.48 percent of all Internet users in
| the United States to 94.16 percent on July 9.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

In message <pan.2004.08.17.06.51.54.442257@tobyinkster.co.uk>, Toby
Inkster <usenet200408@tobyinkster.co.uk> writes
>sskett wrote:
> 
>
>Less than 95%...
>
>http://news.com.com/IE+usage+drop--..._3-5267858.html
>| Recent numbers from analytics company WebSideStory revealed a steady
>| downward trickle in market share over the past month. Since June 4, IE
>| witnessed a 1 percent change from 95.48 percent of all Internet users in
>| the United States to 94.16 percent on July 9.
>

So WebSideStory interviewed "......all Internet users in the United
States .......", did they? Must have been quite a task to get all that
done within one month ......... ;-)

regards.
--
Jake

sskett@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> www.pfizer.com
>
> "the global standard they seek to meet is that our sites are viewable
> by 95% of traffic. I'm sorry that Mozilla Firefox users fall into the
> 5%."

So what percent of traffic browse with JavaScript disabled? Most sources
guess it's at least 10%, so they are probably falling short of their
goal even if these guys do only attempt to support WinIE.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

jake wrote:

> So WebSideStory interviewed "......all Internet users in the United
> States .......", did they? Must have been quite a task to get all that
> done within one month ......... ;-)

Bas phrasing perhaps, though compare and contrast: survey / census.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact