K-Meleon :: Announcements

Announcements : K-Meleon Forum

Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log In

Your Name:
Subject:

Help information

[quote=Terry]
@kko "My philosophy is to include the fewest number of features to garner the best results." You are now playing with semantics. The reason that User Agents are included is as a workaround. guenter claims that he has fixed his browser by putting in a new plug-in. I have the latest plug-in. Unfortunately, for both K-M and Seamonkey, it does not work. I am certain that with a lot of trial and error I could find the one that will work, but since having User Agents gives me the convenience of a workaround, I won't have to bother. That's what I mean by "widest number of user agents to garner the best result". With a couple of clicks to change the user agent, I can continue browsing the page in K-M; whereas if I were using Seamonkey, I would have to stop everything, go out and find a plug-in that would work for Seamonkey (which could take hours or several minutes or no solution at all). That's why people abandon browsers.

kko says, "That may be true for the particular websites you mentioned, but that doesn't proof that it's true for all websites that are sniffing user agents. When a particular site doesn't work with the default user agent, it's not said that it will work with all or even any of the offered substitutes... " With this piece of logic you have a hard time even justifying the reason User Agents are included in the first place. Yes, I have given you two sites where default and Seamonkey don't work. Whether you like it or not, the fact is, that User Agents are included precisely because Webmasters are often short-sighted and are often biased in the way they code a site. Both of these websites are visited frequently; it is not like they are located in some backwater of the net or that it is the first time a webmaster has coded his experimental webpage. User Agents give to K-M a flexibility that it would not otherwise have. I shouldn't have to "prove that it works for all sites" since that has nothing to do with my assertion. Did I ask you to prove that the Seamonkey user agent could let me into a site that default wouldn't?

kko says, "My question was: If the Netscape user agent works where Firefox' will, why include it?" But, why leave something out that works? Here's the reason why you don't - if you were to go to Disney using the IE user agent, then to UsaToday using the smae IE user agent, the flash coding works. But, the minute you go to MSNBC using the same IE agent, the flash coding doesn't work. In this scenario Netscape works for all three. My point is that 2 out of 3 times IE works. It is not unreasonable to conclude that FF may not have any better a track record than 2 out of 3, so why not include a User Agent that might work for that third one? If, on the contrary, FF works in all cases, why not make it the de facto default and exclude all the other user agents and do away with User Agents altogether? At least that is the logic of this assertion.

kko, you are the one whose choices decide what this browser acts like, not me. But, your individual choice becomes the choice of everyone who uses this browser, so I would think that you would listen to feedback, since your choice is that weighty. I don't really care if Netscape 8 is outdated or not. To me that whole debate is a red herring. We are talking about spoofing a site - and a great number of sites look for Netscape. It comes as almost second nature to many webmasters to include that code. I have given you concrete cases, not theory, that show that the inclusion of a particular User Agent has not lost its merit and should not be abandoned for the near future. I would hope that you would consider it on its practical merit not on the theoretical opinion that "Netscape 8 is outdated."[/quote]

K-Meleon forum is powered by Phorum.