Also the site completely breaks if I add rare unicodes at the end of the user agent:
(I honestly don't know and would love to learn about this. Thanks)
The fix is to parse inputs, and replace < and > with html entities. You can see this fix if you read the source for the page.
The one we use, when we need to, is this: http://supportdetails.com/
All they have to do is put a recipient email address in the top, and hit "send details", and we receive an email letting us know what they're using.
You can even pre-populate the form:
Making it a single click function.
Although I agree with other comments in this thread, that this is something your app should log, there are scenarios in which this type of tool is really useful. Namely: Registration/Sign-in errors, in which it's going to be extremely difficult to identify from log files which tuple relates to the user having issues.
But it's very useful.
And we use Streak, so when we get such an email it is automatically assigned to the bug and the CRM for that user... for free... using Streak filters.
I've never had a single person I've asked for the extra info from, fail to be able to send it.
It's not a blocker.
But... trying to get them to figure out "cut and paste and send email to email@example.com" is a blocker. Then we're giving support for the support tools.
Midori as Safari: http://whatsmybrowser.org/b/PMWKUJZ
Chromium as chrome: http://whatsmybrowser.org/b/21ULSXJ
And you might want to be more specific on Dooble and Konqueror: http://whatsmybrowser.org/b/W3CJIKO http://whatsmybrowser.org/b/IHEV8VN
Konqueror has been at major version 4 for the past 7 years or so. Also, these operating systems are called "FreeBSD" and "Linux". "amd64" or "x86_64" is the arch they're running on here.
(Those were not the precise versions, but you get the idea)
I'm guessing it's because of the "trident" and "7.0" in the user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; Touch; rv:11.0) like Gecko
I've noticed a ton of sites that misdetect IE in this way. MS's attempt to 'improve' their UA string seems to have done more harm than good.
Can you check if that detects your IE11 correctly?
However, I get more information from whatsmybrowser.com
If someone could do a site that gives as much info as possible, including an Internet speed tests, I think it could become very popular.
More generally an embeddable 'contact us' form for people to use might be useful if it solves problems of having to setup captcha, email and so on that is hard to do correctly. On the back of the contact us form there could be all the useful support gubbins so that whomever is in support dealing with the 'complaint' sent on on the contact us does not have to ask the customer to go to some third party site to find out the browser/IP/screen size and so on.
"Google Chrome is generally considered the leader in supporting modern web standards, and can reliably handle most modern websites. It is also one of the fastest and most secure. "
Memorable url, shows ip address, shows user agent, and much more. As an added bonus, if you:
What's with that?
Every webapp I've ever written logs user agent in the audit trail because that's often useful both in support and detecting unwanted stuff. I'd have to assume that's a fairly common practise.
Barring an obvious use case I'm missing, it feels like a poorly written version of www.mybrowserinfo.com dressed up the theme de jour, minus the detail.
Them: "When I click the button, the menu shows up. But it disappears as soon as I hover over it.
Me: "What browser do you have?"
Them: "Google, I think."
Me: "Let's make sure. Could you go to whatbrowser.org and tell me what it says?"
Much simpler than having to fish through logs.
Me: What's your username?
$ mysql -e "SELECT useragent FROM login_audit WHERE user = 'firstname.lastname@example.org'"
| useragent |
| Mozilla/1.22 (compatible; MSIE 2.0; Windows 3.1) |
$ mysql -e "DELETE FROM users WHERE user = 'email@example.com'"
(Admittedly this is probably why they don't let me do support, but the point remains, it's trivial and you should have this info.)
In my own case the clients have multiple users using one account so you can never be sure who's user agent in the logs corresponds to what.
You're assuming a couple things about our hypothetical login_audit table, neither of which are neccesarily true and both of which would make our audit table functionally as useless (at least to me) as the OP's site
* That we only store the last useragent
* Only successful logins are recorded
And once you reach a certain size the person doing user-level support very likely doesn't have access to server logs.
Another nice benefit is that building out a quick internal tool can be a great afternoon hack to clear your mind. It doesn't have to be good, just something to remove some pain.
We're tagging pretty much every request & correlating it with a user, and are able to pull logs pretty quickly. It's not hands-off, but we've built tooling to make it pretty straightforward to dig whats up.
Ah, now there's your problem!
Seriously, no support person is ever going to need this information.
Or, alternately, have some stupid game change to other color depths (I'm looking at you UT), switch via Alt-Tab and kaboom.
It doesn't detect LightSpark as a Flash version.
> Share this now with your support team now!