[nerys]

>>>>Five years to get back from 2% to 30% is not "fickle" by any remotely sane definition.

I don't disagree but your still wrong. The reason your wrong is the 2% to 30% figure is wrong.

Many people who record statistics for their sites show nearly 50% usage of firefox.

While this may not be super accurate it does show that 30% is wrong. Plain and simple.

If you ignore the users who DO NOT CARE what browser they are using and therefore use whatever browser is already on the system the figures come out QUITE differently.

For example. what are the statistics if you IGNORE ie6 and just compare Ie7 just before it was INTEGRATED into windows with firefox. Why THAT specific comparison? simple really. neither at that time could "come" fully integrated into your computer from the factory. you had to make a CHOICE to pick IE7 or Firefox. ie "active" choice. Passive choices don't count since they are determined by corporate decision ie monopoly control and not by END USER decisions ie a valid comparison of the browser.

when you entrenched as the "default" the only time a passive user will make a change is if the default is broken enough to DRIVE them to make a choice. Otherwise they WILL USE whatever is in front of them.

that would be like me forcing all manufacturers to ONLY make cars "black" and then proclaim black is the best color because the majority of the cars out their are black.

False Logic.

while that number would also be inaccurate (since there is likely to be a very small userbase who simply preferred IE6 over IE7) I think it would be far far more accurate than what they are using now ie GLOBAL numbers ignorant of intent.

IE the difference between an ACTIVE user base and a PASSIVE user base.

>>>Of course it is. It's trivial, even. Here's one way - while the odd app might pop up IE, you measure page request volumes alongside users. Or you count only browsers which request two or more pages. Or... wait, you claim to be a web designer? It really IS that trivial...something doesn't add up there.

Then why does no one do this? clearly its not so TRIVIAL as you make it out to be.

>>>>>How self-centred. You're simply talking your criteria and projecting them onto everyone else. IE6 still has a 20% market share. That's significant. A site is broken if it doesn't display properly in the browsers with significant market share (I'm prepared to accept 5%, although that seems high - 2.5% maybe) used by it's visitors, and working if it does. There is no other criteria.


My contention is that IE6 DOES NOT have a 20% market share of "active" ie RELEVANT users. For example all my IE statistics show up as IE6 but I DO NOT USE IE6.

I used firefox and opera exclusively. but guess what.? take a guess as to what version of IE is on my system and I can NOT remove it (well I can but other things BREAK if I do that so I can not if I wish to use those other things) and I have zero interest in wasting hard drive space with a new version of something I will never use. So the version that is "their" stays.

IE6 why? because that is what comes "built into" my version of windows xp. No other reason. its a PASSIVE entry of ie6 usage statistics and those entries are NOT VALID ENTRIES when your trying to make a "success" comparison or "usage" comparison between browsers.

Not self centered of me at all. Its called reality.

>>>>As to the rest, you're clearly a troll. *plonk*

WOW I have not seen PLONK used in years. Your either an old net user or a wannabe newb.

My point stands. you have shown ZERO of anything to validly contradict anything I said.

Simply "your say so" and how "dare me" contradict your edict.

This is a discussion you can not win because it is one where you are simply not correct.

The most you can do is delude yourself into believing it. Reality does not care.