Very cool, congrats on the release. Looks fantastic, wish I had a G4 to test it on!
I've just added it to the Web Browser Directory (Corrections and additions welcome)
28 karma · joined October 27, 2015
I've just added it to the Web Browser Directory (Corrections and additions welcome)
It made it easy to help someone find their local ip address, without having to click around in settings or the command line:
https://www.whatismybrowser.com/detect/what-is-my-local-ip-a...
But I understand the fingerprinting/privacy concerns, so it's for the best that it's not available.
I started https://www.whatismybrowser.com 11 years ago to help me with my clients, and I'm always glad to hear it helps others too!
I'm always open for suggestions for more features too.
https://developers.whatismybrowser.com/api/
As per modern web dev standards: you should always use feature detection not agent sniffing to handle cross browser issues; however having accurate user agent detection is really handy for trouble shooting customer issues, bot detection, spotting trends etc.
another feature idea I just had: put a couple of ultra sonic sensors on the front and back.
on the back: to emulate the reverse parking "beep-beep" indicators.
on the front: to prevent collisions - if you rapidly get too close to something (a wall, another child), it cuts the power to the motor.
just drop me a line on the contact page with your mailing address
I run whatismybrowser.com and it's a perfect case of why user agents are useful information. It'll tell you what browser you've got, what OS, and whether you're up to date or not. It's extremely useful to know this info when helping non-tech users - you would not believe how many people still reply "I just click the internet" when you ask them what browser they're using. My site helps answer all those complicated "first" questions.
I completely agree that using User Agents for feature detection/brower compatibilty is a terrible idea, but apparently enough websites still do it to warrant having to keep all that useless, contraditory mumbo jumbo in it too - it isn't what they should be used for any more!
And also, I don't think there's any problem with including "too much" information in the user agent either - point in case: Firefox used to include the full version number of Firefox in the user agent, but now it only shows the major version number, not the exact revision etc. The problem is I can no longer perfectly warn users if they're actually up to date or not.
The reasoning for this is given as a security concern, which I still don't understand - if there's a security problem in a particular point-revision version of Firefox which can be exploited by a malicious web server - odds are they're just going to try that exploit for any version of firefox and it either will or won't work - how does the malicious site knowing the exact version make the situation any worse?!
When building API end points, I take a different approach by including both messages and message codes, as well as a general "result" code (to make it easy to determine if it's a basic success/error result (also including the right HTTP code)).
An example that I'm working on right at the moment:
{
"result": {
"code": "error",
"message_code": "too_many_user_agents",
"message": "You have sent %s user agents; this is more than the maximum allowed per batch (%s user agents). Please send fewer in each batch."
}
}
As well as this, the developer can easily check that the response code was an error, and there's the message_code - this will NEVER EVER change for this problem, so a developer could write code to specifically deal with that scenario.
However there's also a human readable message, which may potentially change (perhaps a grammar or punctuation fix, or if it included a URL it might change one day...)
I've found this approach is the best sort of middle ground.
It's the equivalent of writing out notes by hand from a school textbook instead of just photocopying the pages... some how the process of actually re-typing it out causes it to stick in my mind better. And then later, when you're really "in the zone", you don't break your focus by needing to keep referring back to the book, it's already embedded in your muscle memory and you just keep plowing away.
It's quicker to just use system fonts than have to have the user make a trip to Google's Font Servers.
but there are articles from 2016 about this!
...don't ask.
I get their desire to have a single unified system that manages everything, but our situation is: we use Mandrill to send the System Info emails on https://www.whatismybrowser.com to thousands of people per month. We have absolutely zero requirements for a mailing list.
If they're asking us to pay for a whole system we won't use; it's not even a discussion, we'll be leaving and they lose money.
Go figure.
MailChimp's competitors must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Personally, I don't blame them.
They got me on to monitoring EVERYTHING with statsd. Great stuff.