Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> [excessive quotation, always a useful indicator]
>
>> Absent any particular reason to think that the millions of otherwise
>> diverse people with IE6 have substantially different browsing habits
>> from the millions of otherwise diverse people with IE7, it's a
>> reasonably good estimate
>
> You verbosely try to put the burden of proof on anyone who asks what you
> base your statements on.
>
>> That isn't a gut
>> feeling, it's a statistically sound observation.
>
> You haven't expressed anything statistical. Just some babbling followed
> by a claim on being "statistically sound".

Then you don't understand anything I said and you don't understand
statistics.

> Everyday experience is enough here, naturally assuming that your world
> of experience contains so-called normal users.

Now you're *advocating* using gut feelings ("everyday experience",
which, for some reason, is better used unmeasured than measured or at
least sampled).

> We don't _need_ any statistics for deciding that we still have IE 6
> users with us. Still less we need off-topic pseudo-statistics.

You evidently don't understand statistics.

In article <DytCk.70808$_03.66709@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi> ,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> >> Lies, blatant lies, statistics, Internet statistics - do you really
> >> want to go that way?
> >
> > If, for example, the statistics for a government website that receives
> > over 40,000 visits a day show that 28% of the requests from IE are
> > currently from IE6 (as is the case), the actual usage may be 35% or
> > 25% or 20%
>
> Or something else. Moreover, which "actual usage"? Usage when accessing that
> site, or web access in general? One site's statistics, even if it were
> meaningful in its own context, says nothing about another site's usage.
>

So? If you were to employ a principle of charitable interpretation - not
your strong point, I know, - you would extend HM's point in a reasonable
rather than an unreasonable way to cover sites in general. The point is
this, if lots of stats were coming in for individual sites (say big well
known ones), and one made a rough average, then this rough average might
still be useful within a rough margin of error assessment. No, not
useless, useful. Useful. Enough for a rational person to think, "Hmm,
clearly better not ignore IE6's little peccadillos yet on this site I am
making; given that I see no special type of audience different to the
sorts that use the websites in the stats."

Look, the truth is not that you don't understand stats (as a justifiably
irritated HM said) but that you ... well.. you are just being you.

In As Good As It Gets, Helen Hunt, in exasperation says about Jack
Nicholson, who is one doozie of an awkward dude, that she wished he
would stop being himself for a moment.


> > So the
> > information is useful as long as one is aware of the margin of error
> > involved.
>
> please
> don't use pseudostatistical terms like "margin of error".

It is hardly *this* in the context of this audience.

--
dorayme

On Sep 24, 11:48-pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <DytCk.70808$_03.66...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi> ,
> -"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> > >> Lies, blatant lies, statistics, Internet statistics - do you really
> > >> want to go that way?
>
> > > If, for example, the statistics for a government website that receives
> > > over 40,000 visits a day show that 28% of the requests from IE are
> > > currently from IE6 (as is the case), the actual usage may be 35% or
> > > 25% or 20%
>
> > Or something else. Moreover, which "actual usage"? Usage when accessingthat
> > site, or web access in general? One site's statistics, even if it were
> > meaningful in its own context, says nothing about another site's usage.
>
> So? If you were to employ a principle of charitable interpretation - not
> your strong point, I know, - you would extend HM's point in a reasonable
> rather than an unreasonable way to cover sites in general. The point is
> this, if lots of stats were coming in for individual sites (say big well
> known ones), and one made a rough average, then this rough average might
> still be useful within a rough margin of error assessment. No, not
> useless, useful. Useful. Enough for a rational person to think, "Hmm,
> clearly better not ignore IE6's little peccadillos yet on this site I am
> making; given that I see no special type of audience different to the
> sorts that use the websites in the stats."
>
> Look, the truth is not that you don't understand stats (as a justifiably
> irritated HM said) but that you ... well.. you are just being you.
>
> In As Good As It Gets, Helen Hunt, in exasperation says about Jack
> Nicholson, who is one doozie of an awkward dude, that she wished he
> would stop being himself for a moment.
>
> > > So the
> > > information is useful as long as one is aware of the margin of error
> > > involved.
>
> > please
> > don't use pseudostatistical terms like "margin of error".
>
> It is hardly *this* in the context of this audience.
>
> --
> dorayme

Maybe the best approach would be to use an analysis system as Google
Analytics on the web site and check over time what browsers and even
screen size are the users using and how the evolution is for that web
site and then update the web site over time according to it ...

In article
<6f131dc4-3591-4511-80fc-f8968a749444@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
shapper <mdmoura@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe the best approach would be to use an analysis system as Google
> Analytics on the web site and check over time what browsers and even
> screen size are the users using and how the evolution is for that web
> site and then update the web site over time according to it ...

The best approach is to keep worrying about IE6 until it becomes obvious
that you should not. Never mind all this fine argy bargy.

Why would you need to update a website that satisfies IE6 if it already
satisfies other better browsers?

--
dorayme

On Sep 25, 1:21-am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <6f131dc4-3591-4511-80fc-f8968a749...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> -shapper <mdmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe the best approach would be to use an analysis system as Google
> > Analytics on the web site and check over time what browsers and even
> > screen size are the users using and how the evolution is for that web
> > site and then update the web site over time according to it ...
>
> The best approach is to keep worrying about IE6 until it becomes obvious
> that you should not. Never mind all this fine argy bargy.
>
> Why would you need to update a website that satisfies IE6 if it already
> satisfies other better browsers?
>
> --
> dorayme

You have a point there ...

I am just saying that many times when I post a problem I get an
solution that does not work with IE6 and other that works.

Usually the one that does not work with IE6 seems much more logic and
easier to code ...

But I got it ...

Thanks,
Miguel