If you figure out a set of 1000 short words that are not too close to each other and easy to pronounce, four of them gives you a trillion possible combinations. If you window it so that the first word is always the same on a given day and keep a record of that list, you can differentiate a billion combinations in a day and have a good check that the information was gathered recently (or else is a thousand or more days old.) http://www.manythings.org/vocabulary/lists/l/ will get you common words, as a start.
Our version is at http://www.browser-details.com. When you sign up you get your own subdomain - or you define a CNAME under your own domain [premium]. You can upload your logo, define a list of recipients, and your clients can send the browser details directly to one of those recipients/departments.
We still need to change the color scheme (I wanted to launch at the end of the week, so it's straight Bootstrap for now) and finish the translation to German. Also: Premium version!
Feel free to be a beta tester! Also: all the best to the OP, great idea! ;-)
I didn't feel up to doing the parsing myself...
Edit: suggestion - allow the subdomian feature to work with www in front. A lot of the type of people who will be going to these pages will automatically type www dot in front and it bounces to the homepage. Still of course works, but removes the nifty send button.
Great suggestion, by the way! I added this feature so now adding "www." will go to the subdomain as well.
No worries. No contest here :) Love seeing how others approach the same problem
The only significant usability change I'd make to both sites would be have the one who wants to know the details send a link to a setter URL of a known key (e.g. '/set/foo') which would both display the information to the user and send the information to the server so that '/foo' now persistently displays the same information. That way, any potential user (say, an IT helpdesk person) doesn't require any expectations of the person whose details they want other than the ability to click a link.
Using this link makes "Send details" pop up immediately on opening. All the receiver has to do is click "Send".
Screen Width 2560
Screen Height 1440
Browser Width 1932
Browser Height 1271
Browser Top 22
Screen Resolution 2560x1440
Window Size 2560x1366
"Thanks for reporting the issue. Would you mind following this link so that we can get some information about your web browser? https://aboutmybrowser.com/?to=mysite.com/browserhook
Or better, let me sign up for an account and register a named webhook with you, as in, https://aboutmybrowser.com/mysite, that would automatically forward information from anybody hitting it to the webhook url I'd configured at mysite.com.
That would rock.
The same idea works well for us with http://mysite.com/team pointing to a TeamViewer session.
More of the similar products out there focus on users who want to find out their info (basically savvy users). This is for support agents who want to find out their users' browser info without asking them to go through so much trouble
So a support provider has to send the user to your site. The user then has to copy the URL, paste it in to a message, lookup the person making the request for the details and forward them. The requester has to then go to your site and enter the URL in order to retrieve the details.
Compared with the support supplier sending an email with a link to http://supportdetails.com/?sender_name=Example&sender=em... and the user clicking "send details" and the requester getting the details in their email.
All to protect the company offering the service from getting your email address?
It has allowed us to troubleshoot issues quicker without having to do the back and forth of trying to get our customer to figure out what OS or browser they are running.
For comparison, here's the official Firefox branding page: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/brand/identity/
IANAL, but i believe that creative reproductions like the ones you are using violate the trademark of the actual icon owner, and they certainly violate the branding guidelines of all the browsers in question.
Just use the official icons: it's clearer for your users, and it is what the browser vendors want you to do.
Also, why are you using (ugly) unofficial icons for some of the browsers (Opera for example)? :)
Iceweasel 15 (rebadged Firefox) on Linux.
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.0.4; cm_tenderloin Build/IMM76L) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.166 Safari/535.19
Lynx 2.8.8dev.2: https://aboutmybrowser.com/4027520259
Links 2.1pre32: https://aboutmybrowser.com/3138479085
ELinks 0.11.1: https://aboutmybrowser.com/3604611808
(Text-based browsers deserve love, too.)
Seamonkey 2.3.3 on Linux:
Konqueror 3.5.5 on Linux (yes, this is ancient):
Epiphany 3.4 (GNOME's browser): https://aboutmybrowser.com/3704839315
We'll work on the urls. As such the layout scales down on phones (thanks to Bootstrap 2.0)
I viewed the site with Chrome for iOS (on an iPad 2), and it detected "Safari on OS/2". Is that correct?
Screen Width 1440
Screen Height 900
Browser Width 2560
Browser Height 1368
I think this corresponds to the display which holds the backing store for the window, but I'm not sure -- if you drag a window between a HiDPI display and a normal display, for example, it's rendered as a HiDPI window if it's mostly on the HiDPI display, and vice versa.
I agree that I don't know if it's possible to do the "right" thing, or even exactly what the "right" thing would be.
A nice extension to this would be to add some kind of database of popular mobile devices, so you can detect the device type from the reported attributes. I think you coud extract some interesting device usage statistics out of it.
I've often had family and friends ask me why some site or service doesn't work but they don't know if their browsers are up to date. I would love to start by directing them to a site like this and telling them to upgrade if they aren't using the latest version of their browser.
I also wonder whether it's possible to detect whether Flash is actually enabled. I disable the Flash plugin on Chrome by default, but tools like this generally don't pick up on that.
You should be able to try to actually do something with a tiny embedded flash application and have that flip a "yes, flash is really on" bit.
I'm trying to track down an IE issue and would love for our support team to get customers to use something like this. But we need more info to make it easier to reproduce the problem.
Windows XP on Virtuabox
The app is primarily for people doing customer support to understand if their users are using supported browsers and right plugins (like flash etc).
Info link - https://aboutmybrowser.com/?nr (no-redirect since we want it to be zero click for your users)
konqueror: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/4.6; Linux) KHTML/4.6.5 (like Gecko) Fedora/4.6.5-8.fc14
seamonkey: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
dillo: dillo/0.8.6 < -- wouldn't worry about that one too much :)
epiphany: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-ie) AppleWebKit/534.16+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0 Safari/534.16+ Epiphany/2.30.6
midori: Midori/0.2 (X11; Linux; U; en-ie) WebKit/534.7+
I mean.. Sure there's probably quite a bit of remnants from the Windows NT codebase here and there, but it's probably not very useful for reporting to support etc.
You don't need it most of the time, but it saves so much time to not have to bother asking for it.
There are a number of firefox add ons that do the same, this one has site specific settings which is exactly what I needed and it works great:
Mind their (new) license tho if you plan to use them specifically.
Seems like a great fit so the user does not have to perform their own cross-referencing.
https://aboutmybrowser.com/47523742 is an example where I used User Agent Switcher in Firefox with the UA string
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/4.5; FreeBSD) KHTML/4.5.4 (like Gecko)
Would be cool if it could tell that I use pentadactyl, stylish, ad-block plus etc. etc.
EDIT: I am on ArchLinux if that helps.
We are working on adding more browser icons. Thank you for your patience
(Actually, Chrome os iOS, but close enough.)
I'm browsing on a second monitor
My multi monitor setup reports even wilder results:
"We're sorry, but something went wrong."
Is it a bug in the browser recognition, or is the site simply down due to its exposure to HN?
This is an error page and I am requesting the page using Chrome (18.0.1025123) on Android ICS (4.0.4 on a Galaxy Nexus).
Something to note - if i check the "request desktop site" setting in chrome it seems to work, but that may be because chrome pretends to be running on linux in that case.
Really, guys? It's mothereffing lynx!
This is a genuine question, I have no idea why this seems important/interesting enough to be No 1 on HN.
What am I missing?
Trying to find out what browser and version a user has can often be like pulling teeth if they're not an experienced internet users; being able to link them to a page and get all the info you need without a miscommunication is a godsend.
Would be brilliant if it ran the browser through a battery of capability tests (like HTML5test.com).
"We're sorry, but something went wrong."
Lynx on Linux: https://aboutmybrowser.com/1909674851
w3m on Linux: https://aboutmybrowser.com/1942341369
links on Linux: https://aboutmybrowser.com/3183933151
elinks on Linux: https://aboutmybrowser.com/3918182904
Maybe not, though.
Yeah, woeful indeed.