SillyDog701

[Antony]

One website, Virtuelvis, has decided to dump the style support for Internet Explorer. They provided following reason:[quote]Those 30.1% still using Internet Explorer to access this site will notice something: The site is totally unstyled.

There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The top menu uses 24-bit PNGs with alpha channels. These don’t work in Internet Explorer.
2. There is a background on both the [tt]body[/tt] and [tt]html[/tt] element. MSIE doesn’t have terribly good support for this. It has terrible support.
3. There are rounded corners here. MSIE doesn’t support the [tt]::before[/tt] or [tt]::after[/tt] pseudo-elements.
4. To achieve columns, [tt]display: table[/tt] and related CSS properties are used - Internet Explorer don’t support these. The reason this is used, is that it provides much better control than floats when the width of the page changes.

I was, and am to some extent still is, tempted to give MSIE the “Netscape 4 treatmentâ€

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Don_HH2K]

I find nothing wrong with the fact that they've done that. As a matter of fact, when I redesigned HardwareHacks in XHTML and couldn't get pure XHTML support in Internet Explorer, I was truly considering leaving it like that. But, a few weeks went by and I then found that my PageRank status dropped quite a bit, since my main crowd was 76% Internet Explorer users. I think the other 24% was a mix of web bots and NS5 users, and I'm guessing the majority of those were web bots.

I couldn't offer a style-less version of my page anyway, since I'm still using XHTML attributes instead of CSS markup, although I am planning to make a global stylesheet for the site.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (Donzilla/0.1)

[Al]

That is low. 0 is really really low

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0