Tuesday January 8th, 2002
A few of you have asked for us to post a news item taking your suggestions for the site, so here it is. Tell us all your ideas for what we can do to improve the site. Anything you want we'll think about, but try to keep it realistic.
Just to keep you updated, one of the things we're planning on working on is getting the ChromeZone up again, if we can find some volunteer editors to help organize themes. If you're interested, please email me and I'll get back to you sometime this week.
UPDATE! Right now we're working on dumping all the tables and other old HTML within the site to both show off Mozilla's skills, and to get our file sizes smaller. If you're using Communicator to view the site, you'll notice everything looking pretty ugly, thanks to the poor CSS support it offers. If you're using IE, it'll look a bit better, but thanks to IE's lacking CSS2 support, the sidebar will show up incorrectly. We've completely redone the homepage and talkback code, and we'll be working on the forums next.
UPDATE 2! We discovered Google's great "Search Site" feature, and have added it. Right now it has most areas of the site indexed except news item talkback pages. It will start indexing talkback today, and will hopefully add all of the old items, in addition to picking up the new ones.
UPDATE 3! We've been working hard to get as many of your suggestions as possible implemented, and we encourage you to continue the feedback. You can check this article's responses for what items we have fixed, or are working on.
#161 Re: What is yours?
Tuesday January 15th, 2002 11:23 AM
You are replying to this message
> > "People *will* use what they are given despite better alternatives" > Dead wrong
Well, actually, it's true quite often. But.. The typical conversation I have with people is this:
Someone: "I tried that URL you sent but it didn't work for some reason.." Me: "Oh? What browser did you use?" Someone: "Netscape 4.x" Me: "Oh, that could be it.. Do you have IE?" Someone: "I don't want to use IE.. [insert story about MS world domination, security risks or similar here]" Me: "That's ok, do you have Mozilla or Netscape 6.x?" Someone: "No, that REALLY sucks!"
I see this pattern repeating a lot.. I was completely unsurprised when I saw NS 6.0 get such bad feedback. I'm completely unsurprised that 6.1 and 6.2 have failed to regain any significant marketshare. I'm really positively surprised by the development of Mozilla lately. Most, if not all of the performance problems are gone (thanks to the Mail & News performance work and conversion to use outliner instead of trees), I don't have any stability issues, execpt for the usual nightly build quirks every once in a while.. There are still some problems with basic things like bookmarks (STILL - can you believe it!!??! after all this time!!) but I'm pretty confident now that a Mozilla 1.0 some months from now will be a really great product. A potential Netscape 6.5 or 7.0 based on Mozilla 1.0 will probably get really good reviews and public feedback.
But to say that the current Mozilla or Netscape versions are "better quality" than IE and to cite CNET reviews or similar as proof is just being blind to what the big masses out there are saying. Really.. talk with some people that work in web design houses that use browsers for a living and talk to clients who use the web sites with a wide range of browsers.. I'm pretty sure that you'll find, on average, that people aren't even taking Mozilla or Netscape seriously right now. The few Netscape users I know are all still using 4.x - and that includes my friend who works at AOL. They have all tried 6.x (including 6.2) but they have all gone back to 4.x.
So how would one measure the general public opinion on something like this? I really don't know.. maybe a telephone interview with 1000 randomly picked people? All I have to go on is my first hand experience and web site statistics of various sites and those are all saying that Mozilla & Netscape 6.x are currently completely marginal.
I have great hopes for 1.0 & Netscape 6.5/7.0 tho.. That's something I didn't have three years ago.. or two.. or even one.