Sent by Martin Alderson on 4 December 2004 13:01
Or you could just test in Safari. Seriously, I haven't seen Mac usage
stats over 1% on mainstream sites for a long long time, and onestat
agree's with me "Safari has a global usage of 0.91 percent."
I think any other Mac browser will be much less than 0.5% apart from
perhaps IE which will hover around the 0.5% mark.
Martin
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:28:00 +0100, liorean [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:34:20 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
> [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
> > In search of the elusive site that works everywhere, I've now set up PearPC and installed OS X
Panther on it. The resulting install runs slowly but usably on my Athlon 64 3000+. As it turns
out, this was a very good idea; Safari has some minor bugs, and IE/Mac and iCab have some
not-so-minor ones.
>
> Note: There is a world of difference between Safari 1.0 and Safari
> 1.2. Jaguar users are stuck with 1.0, so if you have the possibility,
> test in both.
>
> > The fact that iCab is a problem brings up an important question: which Mac browsers should I
care about? A quick-'n-dirty log analysis suggests that IE 5 and Safari are the important
ones--but in that order, which isn't my understanding of the Mac world, so I kind of
> > question their accuracy. On the other hand, Safari and IE 5 are the only ones I knew to look
for, so I could be missing something big.
>
> > So, my questions for the list are:
> > - Which Mac browsers should I code for?
>
> OS9: Ie5.17m and op6 are the ones you'll be seeing.
> OSX Jaguar: Saf 1.0, ie5.23m
> OSX Panther: Saf 1.2
> OSX <any cat>: Ow5, Shiira (should be level with Safari since it uses
> WebKit), Camino, Firefox, Op7.5/7.6
>
> > - Are there big version differences? Which versions are important?
>
> - Saf 1.0 for Jaguar, and the most recent one (ATM 1.2.4) for Panther.
> - Ie5.23m. (Msn/osx has a newer version of the Tasman engine, but I
> don't think you have any users of note for that one...)
> - Firefox and Mozilla are essentially the same and shouldn't be an issue.
> - Camino is out of synch with moz, though so that one I would test,
> though you can do that testing later in the development cycle than
> most other testing.
> - Opera is a little slow at releasing new versions for Mac at the
> moment, but their codebase is now shared between all platforms, so
> there should be very little testing needed in that area. Test 7.50.
> When 7.60 is out, test that one instead. Opera users are typically
> fast upgraders, and this is a significant upgrade since it'll be the
> one that enables for example GMail.
> - OmniWeb is somewhat behind Safari in rendering. It's worth testing in.
>
> If you split them over development phases:
>
> Every-itty-bitty-fiddling-testing:
> - Moz 1.7/Ff 1.0 on any platform
> - Ie6w
> - Ie5.5w
> - Saf1.2
> - Ie5m (if OS9 support necessary, otherwise I wouldn't bother)
> - Op7.6 on any platform
>
> Every-major-feature-change-testing:
> - Saf1.0
> - Ow5
> - Ie5m
> - Ie5.0w
> - Op7.5m (for now)
>
> End-of-development-just-to-make-sure-testing:
> - Op6 (Not really necessary, but this is the major alternative device
> (mobile phone, PDA, other small screen devices) browser, so it's worth
> testing). Preferably on a Symbian powered phone, but the desktop
> platforms can be worth testing too. Especially for OS9 support, since
> this is a major iem alternative there.
> - Cam
> - Msn/osx if you care
> - iCab if you care
> - Netscape 7 if you care
> - Netscape 4 for OS9 support. (Buggy, but different bugs from the
> Windows version, which in turn has different bugs from the Linux
> version.) This is again an if-you-care browser.
>
> > Are there any tricks to installing old versions?
>
> - Safari: no, it uses OS built in technology.
> - Moz/ff/nn7: as long as you have different profiles for each, there
> should be no problem having multiple.
> - Op7: see moz.
>
> > - Do any of the browsers use similar enough code that I can ignore one if I test with
another? (For example, it looks like Omniweb and Safari use the same engine.)
>
> Essentially, OmniWeb renders somewhere in between Saf1.0 and Saf1.2.
> This will probably be a consistent lag, so you it's worth testing, but
> not as frequently.
> Camino lags behind moz as well, and because it uses native widgets is
> worth testing.
> Netscape is known to break some moz things, so it might be worth a final check.
>
> Oh, and sorry for saying things three things over, but I answered your
> questions as they came...
> --
> David "liorean" Andersson
> <uri:http://liorean.web-graphics.com/>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/