Since our support table for browsers [1] is wildly out of date, we should come up with something better. Oliver generated some statistics for us from the last 30 days from logs for text/html requests (see attachment).
I think we could divide browsers into Grade A and Grade B categories, similarly to desktop. Grade A would be full support, Grade B would be basic support for reading (non-JS version). Two additional suggestions:
* Don't care about anything below < 0.1% * Drop support for JS for any problematic browser with < 0.5% (mark them as Grade B)
I think coming up with a generic metric like "support last N versions of X and last M versions of Y" for all browsers would be hard because the browser landscape changes pretty fast. I'd rather reevaluate our support table every few months. For now, I propose the following:
Grade A: * Mobile Safari 5-7 (that includes Chrome for iOS since it uses Safari's engine) * Android Browser 2.3+ (drop 2.3 to grade B as soon as it's < 0.5%) * Chrome for Android 18+ * Firefox for Android, latest version (since it's not very popular, but still a good browser) * IE Mobile 9+ (drop 9 to grade B as soon as it's < 0.5%) * Blackberry Webkit 7+
Grade B: * lower versions of browsers in Grade A * Opera Mini 4+ * NetFront 3+ * Ovi Browser 2+ * Nokia Browser 7+
When it comes to Grade B browsers, I don't think we should test on them very regularly, but accept bugs that come from their users.
Comments?
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Browser_support#Mobile_browsers
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!]
Windows Phone 8 (IE 10) devices should be all upgradable to Windows Phone 8.1 (IE 11) sometime in the next few months, so IE 10 shouldn't linger as long as 9 has... hopefully.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
-- brion
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Since our support table for browsers [1] is wildly out of date, we should come up with something better. Oliver generated some statistics for us from the last 30 days from logs for text/html requests (see attachment).
I think we could divide browsers into Grade A and Grade B categories, similarly to desktop. Grade A would be full support, Grade B would be basic support for reading (non-JS version). Two additional suggestions:
- Don't care about anything below < 0.1%
- Drop support for JS for any problematic browser with < 0.5% (mark them
as Grade B)
I think coming up with a generic metric like "support last N versions of X and last M versions of Y" for all browsers would be hard because the browser landscape changes pretty fast. I'd rather reevaluate our support table every few months. For now, I propose the following:
Grade A:
- Mobile Safari 5-7 (that includes Chrome for iOS since it uses Safari's
engine)
- Android Browser 2.3+ (drop 2.3 to grade B as soon as it's < 0.5%)
- Chrome for Android 18+
- Firefox for Android, latest version (since it's not very popular, but
still a good browser)
- IE Mobile 9+ (drop 9 to grade B as soon as it's < 0.5%)
- Blackberry Webkit 7+
Grade B:
- lower versions of browsers in Grade A
- Opera Mini 4+
- NetFront 3+
- Ovi Browser 2+
- Nokia Browser 7+
When it comes to Grade B browsers, I don't think we should test on them very regularly, but accept bugs that come from their users.
Comments?
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Browser_support#Mobile_browsers
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Interesting. And sad. Thanks for tracking that down.
On 04/24/2014 04:34 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Juliusz, did this get posted to a wiki yet?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Interesting. And sad. Thanks for tracking that down.
On 04/24/2014 04:34 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does
this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Where should I post this? Should I just edit https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Browser_support#Mobile_browsers directly?
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Arthur Richards arichards@wikimedia.org wrote:
Juliusz, did this get posted to a wiki yet?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting. And sad. Thanks for tracking that down.
On 04/24/2014 04:34 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does
this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
-- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687
That looks like a good place to me and I like that it's not a mobile-specific page. We used to have a separate page documenting mobile browser support way back in the day, but I think it's since been deleted. It might be worthwhile to link to wherever this gets published from the Extension:MobileFrontend page.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Where should I post this? Should I just edit https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Browser_support#Mobile_browsers directly?
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Arthur Richards arichards@wikimedia.org wrote:
Juliusz, did this get posted to a wiki yet?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting. And sad. Thanks for tracking that down.
On 04/24/2014 04:34 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does
this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
-- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687
I updated https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility/Software_for_using_MediaWiki#Mo... and linked to it on Extension:MobileFrontend.
Feel free to edit and improve it. I didn't make the compatibility table as specific as the desktop one because I don't think we have all that information (when we dropped/added support for specific browsers). I assumed that reading/navigation was supported since the first release (1.15, as it was stated previously) and that we decided which modern browsers to support around 1.22.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Arthur Richards arichards@wikimedia.org wrote:
That looks like a good place to me and I like that it's not a mobile-specific page. We used to have a separate page documenting mobile browser support way back in the day, but I think it's since been deleted. It might be worthwhile to link to wherever this gets published from the Extension:MobileFrontend page.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Where should I post this? Should I just edit https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Browser_support#Mobile_browsers directly?
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Arthur Richards <arichards@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Juliusz, did this get posted to a wiki yet?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting. And sad. Thanks for tracking that down.
On 04/24/2014 04:34 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices > have > no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of > the > market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users > could > run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard! >
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; > does > this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on > their > phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or > is there > something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and > Firefox > on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs... >
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
-- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687
-- Arthur Richards Team Practices Lead [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687
Awesome, thank you Juliusz :D
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
I updated https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility/Software_for_using_MediaWiki#Mo... and linked to it on Extension:MobileFrontend.
Feel free to edit and improve it. I didn't make the compatibility table as specific as the desktop one because I don't think we have all that information (when we dropped/added support for specific browsers). I assumed that reading/navigation was supported since the first release (1.15, as it was stated previously) and that we decided which modern browsers to support around 1.22.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Arthur Richards arichards@wikimedia.org wrote:
That looks like a good place to me and I like that it's not a mobile-specific page. We used to have a separate page documenting mobile browser support way back in the day, but I think it's since been deleted. It might be worthwhile to link to wherever this gets published from the Extension:MobileFrontend page.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Where should I post this? Should I just edit https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Browser_support#Mobile_browsers directly?
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Arthur Richards < arichards@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Juliusz, did this get posted to a wiki yet?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Juliusz Gonera jgonera@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting. And sad. Thanks for tracking that down.
On 04/24/2014 04:34 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
From: https://github.com/bestiejs/platform.js/issues/29 "the new S4 stock browser is actually using a bastardized version of Chrome Mobile, but locked at version 18.0.1025.308".
they quote the ua as: "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.2.2; en-au; SAMSUNG GT-I9500 Build/JDQ39) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Chrome/18.0.1025.308 Mobie Safari/535.19"
This UA might easily be mistaken for the vanilla version of Chrome.. There might be more browsers like that. Thank you manufacterers.
DJ
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Juliusz Gonera < jgonera@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote: > >> Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices >> have >> no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of >> the >> market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users >> could >> run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is >> hard! >> > > I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already > pretty low. > When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of > showing > banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll > push more > for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should > not be > too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox > metrics. > > > I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; >> does >> this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on >> their >> phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or >> is there >> something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome >> and Firefox >> on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs... >> > > I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it > changes in > the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome > Mobile > 18 and not any other old version is that popular. > > > -- > Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > Mobile-l mailing list > Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l >
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
-- Arthur Richards Software Engineer, Mobile [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687
-- Arthur Richards Team Practices Lead [[User:Awjrichards]] IRC: awjr +1-415-839-6885 x6687
Hi, one main issue on android 2.3 devices might be space to put firefox onto it. Additionally there are regions where mobile traffic is expensive.
Rupert Am 23.04.2014 19:59 schrieb "Juliusz Gonera" jgonera@wikimedia.org:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does
this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Thanks for kicking off this conversation Juliusz and for the analysis you've done so far. Let's get this up on a wiki, have some more conversation around it, and coalesce this into reality.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:06 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
Hi, one main issue on android 2.3 devices might be space to put firefox onto it. Additionally there are regions where mobile traffic is expensive.
Rupert Am 23.04.2014 19:59 schrieb "Juliusz Gonera" jgonera@wikimedia.org:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Just a quick note: Android 2.3 and Windows Phone 7.5 (IE 9) devices have no software upgrade path; we can only wait for them to fall out of the market as devices get replaced. [Well technically Android 2.3 users could run Firefox, but getting people to switch browsers on mobile is hard!
I know, but I'm not too worried about IE9. Its usage is already pretty low. When it comes to Android 2.3 a few months ago I had an idea of showing banners to its users suggesting that they upgrade to Firefox. I'll push more for it so that we find some time to actually get it done. It should not be too difficult and I'd be curious to see if it improves Firefox metrics.
I'm also a little worried to see old versions of Chrome in there; does
this mean there's a lot of people who aren't turning on updates on their phone and are using an old version that shipped with the phone? Or is there something else holding back updates on some devices? With Chrome and Firefox on fast release cycles, it can be a pain to support old bugs...
I'm also not sure where this comes from. I'd wait and see if it changes in the next few months. If it doesn't, we could investigate why Chrome Mobile 18 and not any other old version is that popular.
-- Juliusz
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l