On 9/16/11 11:12 AM, Jens Hatlak wrote: > PhillipJones wrote: >> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: >>> On 9/16/2011 2:44 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: >>>> I am very disappointed. However, there is still hope : how would >>>> you react to a proposal that the user preference >>>> >>>> Edit / Preferences / Advanced / HTTP Networking /User Agent String / >>>> Advertise Firefox compatibility >>>> >>>> default to<unchecked> ? >>> >>> I would be against it, we enabled it due to soo many (especially >>> popular) website being broken due to "bad" browser sniffing, that is >>> automatically fixed by enabling that. >>> >> I would be for it because the sites need to be fixed to sniff on the >> word Gecko instead of FF or SM. If they are no then we don't need to be >> visiting them. And they need to be told so. by the head of Mozilla by US >> Mail letter not just an email. > > Come on, that is a lost war. Once upon a time there was a menu item that > could be used to report UA-sniffing sites. Then finally someone at > Mozilla took a heart and told everyone who didn't know already that all > those reports were never processed. Subsequently the menu item was > removed. In reality, it's too easy to apply a quick fix (sniff for UAs > instead of features) and get to support, say, 80 percent of all clients. > > The default should be to make it "just work", which I would estimate is > what the average user expects. Average users don't know about UAs and > don't care that the site is broken, they just blame SM for not working > "correctly", while all the other major browsers work. Until SM 2.1, > which introduced the new option, people reported such issues again and > again, and the answer was to fake the UA or install an extension. Since > then the support requests in that direction have pretty much ceased. I'm > with Justin here; the pref default should stay as-is. > > SM is all about choice. It is your (everyone's) choice to change the > pref. But if you want to have the default changed, you need to provide > better arguments than your own use case. > > Just my 2c... > > Jens >
I have closed some Tech Evangelism bug reports on broken sniffing. I did this by first sent postal mail to the management of a company whose site had the problem and pointed out that they had a bug that was impairing the ability of potential customers to view their site. I also mentioned the fact that their site likely violated the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, a violation of which cost the Target Companies $6,000,000 to settle a lawsuit on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind. For U.S. government Web sites, I cite Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1986 (as amended in 1998), which contains the mandate for government Web sites to be accessible by the handicapped. I point out that broken sniffing generally also indicates a Web site that cannot be processed by audio browsers used by the blind. For California (where I live) government Web sites, I cite California Government Code §11135(d)(2), which has a meaning quite similar to Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1986 (as amended in 1998). If Mozilla management had only taken the time to send similar letters on Mozilla stationery, many more such problems would likely have been resolved without spoofing (LYING) about what browser is being used. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/>. Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
