John Foliot wrote:
semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support
JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php]
Granted, this appears to be more reliable than 99.9% - but isn't
javascript required in order for thecounter.com to gather stats, or do
they use web bugs?
good point...
btw that "99.99%" was never intended to be used as some kind of reliable
statistic!
so please don't quote it as such!
- it was only a guess about something - perhaps I should have just said
something like "most"... :-)
I think it is (semi) safer to say 4% of visitors to sites using
thecounter.com counters do not have javascript enabled =)
I think I was talking about mobile phone users who in total would probably
only barely be noticed by such web counters...
(if they work by loading an image not all mobile browsers would display it
on a page load and if it needs javascript then it would be a lot less
again!)
btw it seems that there are quite a few people out there who browse on their
phones but do not often browse on a PC...
so I don't think we can expect them all to be familiar with many of the
conventions we might take for granted!
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
