In article <c3e552f7.0307020122.712ec1cf@posting.google.com>,
Jerry Mead <jerrym@meadroid.com> wrote:
The various browsers I have access to *are* standards compliant
and I think it denigrates them unfairly to suggest otherwise.
Just because they aren't up with the bleeding edge you seem to
be discounting them out of hand. That sounds remarkably similar
to the "upgrade or lump it" attitude I abhor.

Why can't you arrange for your content management system to include
equivalent content in the <noscript> portion of each page?

--
James Taylor, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK. PGP key: 3FBE1BF9
To protect against spam, the address in the "From:" header is not valid.
In any case, you should reply to the group so that everyone can benefit.
If you must send me a private email, use james at oakseed demon co uk.

James Taylor <spam-block-@-SEE-MY-SIG.com> wrote in message news:<ant032003313fNdQ@oakseed.demon.co.uk>...

OK, one last response from me on this topic.

To support your original criticism you posted screenshots of a
browsing device identified solely as 'ANT'. A very quick check on
Google throws up references to the 'ANT Fresco browser' which --
according to that company -- has "been developed specifically for TVs,
STBs, DVD players and other consumer electronic devices and industrial
appliances".

No doubt it is an excellent device for its target market. But it's not
OUR target market.

Maybe you did check our sites in a current version of one of the
'majority' browsers for which they are built and tested ... but if you
did, then you didn't balance your original post by saying so.

That would be a time-consuming and near-zero-return exercise for us.
As I have already explained at (excessive) length, MeadCo's use of the
web is deliberately selective. I'm afraid that you and I are just
going to have to agree to disagree on the commercial wisdom of that.

Jerry
MeadCo

James Taylor <spam-block-@-SEE-MY-SIG.com> wrote in message news:<ant071851bc8fNdQ@oakseed.demon.co.uk>...
More of an attempted explanation than a defence ... I didn't seem to
be making myself very clear.

As far as your 'small subset' and 'narrow target audience' comments
are concerned, though, it would be very useful for us if you could
substantiate those. I tend to get my 'feel' of the market from stats
such as those in the right-hand column here:

http://www.reinvigorate.net/system/

but if you have access to more accurate or more global figures, I'd be
most grateful if you could point me at them.

Thanks

Jerry
MeadCo

In article <c3e552f7.0307071456.51220f1@posting.google.com> ,
Jerry Mead <jerrym@meadroid.com> wrote:
They were qualitative remarks, but I think you already knew that.
If it helps, read them as "smaller subset" and "narrower audience", etc.
Sigh... These disagreements always seem to degenerate into semantic
quibbling. Such arguments are not useful to us or anyone else reading.
I only hoped to point out how *unnecessary* it was to limit your
audience when the technology exists to make your site available to
everyone. I accept, without reservation, that you can't be bothered
to do that, I just think your justifications are rather weak. I hope
we can respect each other's opinion and move on. Each to their own...

Nice page, but how do you think it separates the real MSIE hits
from the increasing number of browsers that fake as MSIE in order
to avoid being fed different material by browser detection code?
My guess is that it doesn't. If people believe the lies in their
logs, a viscous circle is set up where it seems ever more
acceptable to target sites at MSIE, ever more browsers have to
fake as MSIE and, in turn, this makes it seem ever more acceptable
to target sites at MSIE, etc. Let's be more intelligent about it.

Of course, there's a deeper ethical discussion to be had about
whether the Microsoft monopoly is a good thing and, therefore,
whether it is morally correct to construct sites that
disadvantage other browsers thus reinforcing that monopoly.
However, I think such a discussion is beyond the scope of this
thread and I'd rather not get drawn into it. I have work to do.

--
James Taylor, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK. PGP key: 3FBE1BF9
In any case, you should reply to the group so that everyone can benefit.
If you must send me a private email, use james at oakseed demon co uk.