Like I say, varies a lot per site but yeah, a lot of sites show FF at about 40%. And some show IE on 40%. Kinda weird but... yeah, these stats are fairly useless.

(By which I mean the stats are useless to use in absolute terms. But so long as the site measures the same thing each time, any trends are generally going to be indicative of the whole picture)

Yay, time for me to use my favourite picture!

 

And to be really boring and on topic - attached is an anonymised version of what I was trying to do, although it would then be extended/copy+pasted for multiple countries.

 

I like how it looks, but I'm sure that the coding is terribly inefficient and when actually extended for lots of countries would probably become unmanageable.

I think that's an oversimplification, but how substantial or not I cannot say. From personal experience, I moved away from IE when I moved to Mac since Microsoft dropped IE for that platform. I suspect the number of people who've dropped IE because it's Windows-only is relatively minor, but then there are others that have been scared off by security threats. While no browser is immune, IE's ties to the OS make it more of a liability, and once people have rid themselves of that, they may just be happy where they are.

All speculation, though. I have no stats to back this up.

Do you all think Chrome be as popular if Google didn't advertise it to IE users on their homepage, or if they were required to advertise other browsers as well?

Likewise would Firefox be any more likely to see a similar climb in usage to Chrome if Mozilla operated the world's favourite search engine instead of Google?

Me, I use Firefox and Chromium (specifically SRWare Iron). I had started to favour Chromium, but have since gone back to Firefox, specifically the 4.0 betas because they rock.

You're aware $t€v€ J¤b$ beloved Appl€ is now worth more than Microsoft, right?

dang, I thought we had a filter on that nonsense anyway. Time to go fix, perhaps.

If something can be copied+pasted to deal with multiple things, it's almost always better to write it once to handle multiple things instead, because as you said, it does indeed become unmanageable.

This sort of thing, repeated 20 (!) times:

//Check which checkboxes/options are selected
var f5 = (document.listofoptions.elements['Check5'].checked);
//Check if 'f5' is "true" and set to price, else set to zero
if(f5 == true)
{
var f5 = 50;
var w5 = 30;
}
else
{
var f5 = 0;
var w5 = 0;
}

Could be replaced with a loop like this:

// Checkbox values must be in the format: "normal,wholesale"
var checkBoxes = document.querySelectorAll("input[type=checkbox]"),
    max = checkBoxes.length, values,
    i, total = 0, totalWholesale = 0;
 
for (i = 0; i < max; i += 1) {
    if (checkBoxes[i].checked) {
        values = checkBoxes[i].value.split(",");
 
        // The + on the end is to convert the value to a number.
        total += +values[0];
        totalWholesale += +values[1];
    }
}

If you were using IE < 8, btw, querySelectorAll() would need to be replaced with a custom function to enumerate the checkboxes, which shouldn't be too complicated; probably something like this:

var getCheckboxes = function () {
    var i, elements = document.getElementsByTagName("input"),
        max = elements.length,
        result = [];
 
    for (i = 0; i < max; i += 1) {
        if (elements[i].type === "checkbox") {
            result.push(elements[i]);
        }
    }
    return result;
};

That's App£€, and no, I didn't know that.

i += 1? i++?

I wouldn't bother if I were you, it's trivially easy to circumvent.

I prefer i += 1 as I find it more readable, and easier to adjust.

well, it's quite easy to add most of the workarounds too. And why would anyone bother? I don't really know why anyone would type it in the first place mind you, so I maybe at an understanding-disadvantage here.

Oddly enough, I find i++ easier to read, although I agree it's less flexible.

To maintain freedom of speech, deny MOD MADNESS, and retain the original meaning. Except I'm not sure what it is.

So would that pull the values from the rows of the table, or would I have to rewrite the table to support the function?

Well as it is you'd have to rewrite the table, but this would take the values from the table itself:

var checkBoxes = document.querySelectorAll("input[type=checkbox]"),
    max = checkBoxes.length,
    i, total = 0, totalWholesale = 0;
 
for (i = 0; i < max; i += 1) {
    if (checkBoxes[i].checked) {
        // Get values directly from table cells.
        total += +checkBoxes[i].parentElement.
            previousElementSibling.innerHTML;
        totalWholesale += +checkBoxes[i].parentElement.
            previousElementSibling.previousElementSibling.innerHTML;
    }
}

edit: just realised the + should be at the start of the variable names, not the end. The + at the start is a forced type conversion; an alternative is to use:

total += parseInt(checkBoxes[i].parentElement.previousElementSibling.innerHTML, 10);

Edit again:
Another thing I thought of was that using jQuery needn't be any hassle - you can just include this line on your page somewhere before your current JS code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min.js"></script>

edit3: oo, jQuery 1.5 is out :O

Hooray. I wonder if it breaks as much stuff as 1.3 to 1.4 did.

So what you're saying is that I should remove all the 20 individual inspections of the checkboxes, and replace with just this code? And that it will produce the same page?

 

That doesn't work, and I'm not sure what else I'd need to do.

It's probably just me being anally retentive, but I bloody hate innerHTML, it's not part of the DOM and it's queer.

 

And by "queer" I mean gay and homosexual, not as in "by jove, that's a rum do and no mistake".

 

And by "gay" I mean queer and homosexual, not "having a gay old time, dahling".

 

It's a wonderful thing, this English language malarkey, isn't it?