Brainspill

I test in old browsers. Browsers so old there’s no expectation I’ll ever receive a visit from one.

At present, here’s a sampling of popular browser statistics:

IE 6	65.5%
IE 5	4.4%
O 7	1.9%
Ffox	19.2%
Moz	4.0%
NN 4	0.3%
NN 7	1.1%

(These stats were leeched from w3schools.com, since they get more traffic than I do, I’m sure)

IE4 and IE3 don’t even make the list. So why test in them? Easy: I’m obsessive/compulsive. And curious.

While I don’t care whatsoever if IE3/4/5 don’t get the visual goodies on a cool, simple, clean, wysiwyg editor, I do care if I’m writing sloppy JavaScript code. So I reported an error on that page that occurs in IE4, just to be thorough.

If it’s an easy fix, great: The Man In Blue can claim it’s backwards compatible all the way back through IE3.
If it’s not an easy fix, who cares? Nobody uses that browser anyway.

But still, I’d want to know about the error. Unlikely, it’s still possible some legacy software somewhere has an old imbedded component in it that would break on my code. If I can avoid that with minimal care, I’ll do it.

So to those who give crap to testing in old browsers: Go right ahead. I don’t mind.
But as I see it, professionalism incorporates at least looking at the extra mile, if not going there.

Forget that iRiver device I mentioned. This one’s cooler (no, not the iPod Shuffle).

I wondered why, when the iPod Shuffle came out, people were excited about a sub-par piece of equipment with fewer features and a higher price than existing devices had. Seems I wasn’t alone – I just didn’t recognize the best alternative.

iPod Shuffle vs Sandisk MP3 @ Dave’s iPAQ

I’ve never been a big fan of Apple – seems all they’ve ever wanted to do is limit your options on a thing, then tell you how much that simplifies your life. But this is brazen cashing in on a past success with an crappy succesor.

The PEW Internet & American Life Project released its “Search Engine Users” Report January 23rd, 2005. I’ve printed it and given it a quick read today.

Interesting:

• The average user spends about 43 minutes a month doing 34 searches, viewing 2 pages per search (I search way more than that)
• 92% of searchers feel “confident” in their searching abilities. Only 27% of them actually find what they’re looking for every time. Is that a mistake of finding something, not the thing?
• 44% of searchers stick to a single search engine. Only 7% use more than 3 search engines – they tend to be the most confident of finding things, take their searching more importantly than others, and search multiple engines deliberately, knowing some engines are better at different tasks than others (I’m squarely in this group).
• That single-engine 44% sticks with (usually Google) because it’s usable to them, without them necessarily knowing so. Stated reasons include speed/accuracy/comprehensive results. They don’t know better. Or they might suspect, but don’t care.
• “92% of users demonstrated that if they were unsatisfied with results from a search, they would rather launch another search at the same engine than switch to another search engine[.]” This suggests a willingness to accept responsibility for not finding something at an engine due to “not asking the question correctly” instead of considering first, “the answer may not be here”. Trust or Laziness?
• 68% of users think search engines are “fair and unbiased”. 60% of users (in a different study?) didn’t know some listings in search results are paid ads. Only 1 in 6 users can tell an ad from a result. 54% of those users who recognize ads click on them anyway. So go ahead and advertise in the biggest search engines. The users just assume it’s really what they’re looking for.