Browesr stats

[fisicx]

Don't usally worry too much about browser stats but I did just notice this on three of my sites whilst investigating something else:

Technical Site: FF: 52% IE: 25%

Entertainment site: IE: 45% FF: 33%

Education site: IE 72%, FF 12%

I expect if you run any sort of a site in the public sector IE will be dominant but usage has dropped off elsewhere and mobile usage has certainly increased, 6% on the entertainment site.

 

[fisicx]

Following on from the observations on browser stats I noticed that over 75% of my visitors to one site were viewing with a browser resolution width of over 1024px. Over 40% were using a widescreen (1280%) and the largest was 2880px.

Since narrow sites can look pants on a high resolution screen I opted for a css max-wdth of 1200px to test the water. It meant I could now comfortably accomodate three good sized columns and use larger font sizes.

Bounce rate has dropped by over 10%.

So to follow on from Steve Gibson's thread about split testing, experiment with your own site. If you still have a 750 px wide site with teeny-weeny fonts then maybe you are driving away potential (and solvent) visitors with nice big monitors who just can't read your copy.

 

[Tom McClelland]

Don't usally worry too much about browser stats but I did just notice this on three of my sites whilst investigating something else:

Technical Site: FF: 52% IE: 25%

Entertainment site: IE: 45% FF: 33%

Education site: IE 72%, FF 12%

I expect if you run any sort of a site in the public sector IE will be dominant but usage has dropped off elsewhere and mobile usage has certainly increased, 6% on the entertainment site.

Business Site: IE 71% FF: 19% (Chr 4%, Saf 4%, everyone else nowhere)

 

[awebapart.com]

I noticed that over 75% of my visitors to one site were viewing with a browser resolution width of over 1024px. Over 40% were using a widescreen (1280%) and the largest was 2880px.

Were your stats reporting screen widths or browser widths, since not everyone with large screen widths run their browsers maximised, some may run them in a smaller window - after all it is that Window functionality which people are paying Microsoft big bucks for with the Windows operating system.

 

[KM-Tiger]

- after all it is that Window functionality which people are paying Microsoft big bucks for with the Windows operating system.

Psst!

No need to pay big bucks - Linux has windows functionality for free.

But good point, my browser windows are never maximised.

 

[blloyd]

Psst!

No need to pay big bucks - Linux has windows functionality for free.

You don't get the World's most popular browser bundled though

 

[fisicx]

It's showing screen resolution - but since the bounce rate has reduced it seems to be working.

Remember I'm using max-width so the site reduces along if the window isn't maximised.

 

[fisicx]

Time to blow my own trumpet (sort of). Many people on this forum advocate testing. A great number of others shy away from making any sort of changes as it might hurt their ranking or whatever.

If you read the above posts you will see that I increased my page width from 950 to 1200. It was a test to see what happened.

Bounce rate has now dropped to under 45%. Today it's 19% (but will no doubt increase once you all take a look).

The extra width has given me room to tweak the navigation and add a couple of extra features.

If you are worried about losing sales then don't be. It might be that the changes you make double your conversions. But you won't know until you try.

 

[cmcp]

just need to sort those colours out now eh

 

[Andy Walpole]

Since narrow sites can look pants on a high resolution screen I opted for a css max-wdth of 1200px to test the water. It meant I could now comfortably accomodate three good sized columns and use larger font sizes.

Narrow sites can indeed look quite pants on a large screen, however I'll still be sticking to creating websites that comfortably fits a resolution of 1024x768. If it's good enough for all the major newspapers and pretty much any site or importance on the web then it's good enough for me.

 

[Nathanto]

Narrow sites can indeed look quite pants on a large screen, however I'll still be sticking to creating websites that comfortably fits a resolution of 1024x768. If it's good enough for all the major newspapers and pretty much any site or importance on the web then it's good enough for me.

I agree, I have a dual monitor setup with both monitors running at 1680 wide but only have my browsers open at around 1024.

All my sites are set to 1000 as it really annoys me when I have to scroll sideways or expand the browser to see a web site.

It's showing screen resolution - but since the bounce rate has reduced it seems to be working.

Remember I'm using max-width so the site reduces along if the window isn't maximised.

If it's the aerin web site you're talking about then it's broken in my browser. I can just see that there's something (looks like a graphic with two lines of text, first line starts with an A and second line maybe an F) to the right of the main content under the header banner but there's no scroll bar so I couldn't scroll to see what it is even if I wanted to.