[whatwg] Unbiased browser stats (semi-OT)
... or as unbiased as you're likely to get, anyway, from a top 10 website of very mainstream interest whose direct interest is serving the readers: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm The first shows HTML5-aspiring browsers (places 2 to 5 on the list) at just over 40%. The work here is having excellent real-world significance :-D - d.
Re: [whatwg] Unbiased browser stats (semi-OT)
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... or as unbiased as you're likely to get, anyway, from a top 10 website of very mainstream interest whose direct interest is serving the readers: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm The first shows HTML5-aspiring browsers (places 2 to 5 on the list) at just over 40%. Microsoft has indicated that they intend to support HTML5 in Internet Explorer as well, so I don't know why it's not HTML5-aspiring. Also, Wikipedia *editors* are probably represented very disproportionately in those figures, and they would certainly tend to use IE a lot less than the general population.
Re: [whatwg] Unbiased browser stats (semi-OT)
2009/11/8 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: ... or as unbiased as you're likely to get, anyway, from a top 10 website of very mainstream interest whose direct interest is serving the readers: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm The first shows HTML5-aspiring browsers (places 2 to 5 on the list) at Microsoft has indicated that they intend to support HTML5 in Internet Explorer as well, so I don't know why it's not HTML5-aspiring. I heartily support their statements, but I'm afraid I'll count them when I see action. YMMV, absolutely. Also, Wikipedia *editors* are probably represented very disproportionately in those figures, and they would certainly tend to use IE a lot less than the general population. Actually, no - readers have *way* outstripped editors since about 2006. It's not even the tech-savvy or web-savvy audience - Wikipedia is standard fare for people who can't work computers to look stuff up on. Wikipedia is stupidly mainstream and it's sometimes hard for those of us on the inside (you and me) to realise just how mainstream. But when I see a poster in Kings Cross train station advertising some pop culture museum exhibition as The Wikipedia of ... (whatever it was), it reminds me ... So I feel quite confident in stating that this is indicative of the actual Internet user base. - d.
Re: [whatwg] Unbiased browser stats (semi-OT)
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, no - readers have *way* outstripped editors since about 2006. It's not even the tech-savvy or web-savvy audience - Wikipedia is standard fare for people who can't work computers to look stuff up on. Granted, registered users are 5% of views last I heard, but there are biases in every sample. Regular Wikipedia readers tend to be disproportionately young, for instance, which means more browsing from home and fewer on corporate networks who are locked into IE. You can't really say what the most popular browser is on the whole web. (Well, you can: it's IE. But you can't really say by how much, exactly.)
