going on safari: the search for version numbers
Q: When is a simple question not a simple question? A: When you need to get the answer out of Apple's website.
My simple question was this: what is the latest version of Safari? It sounds like a stupid question really, but bear with me here (and keep in mind I didn't happen to have a Mac handy).
My starting point: Friends who use Macs inform me that there are different versions according to which dot-point version of OSX a person is using. I know it's at least up to 1.2; and I've seen people talking about "Safari 2.0" so I'm pretty sure that exists.
So, needing an official source for the definite answer, I hit the Apple site. Being a geek, I make an educated guess at a URL.
http://www.apple.com/safari/ redirects to http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/safari/, which is all marketing fluff with one mention of 1.2 which I'm then told is out of date.
Having dealt with Apple Australia before, I try http://www.apple.com/au/safari/. I discover this loads with broken images and doesn't appear to have version advice anyway.
Somewhere along the line I try http://www.apple.com/safari/download/ ...well, at least I can confirm v1.2. But, like I said, our resident Machead has already assured me 1.2 is not the current version. Confusion reigns. Perhaps the only way to get the latest version is to install 1.2 and patch/update/whatever it's called on OSX. I still don't have the info I need, so onwards...
http://www.apple.com/support/safari/ lists versions of OSX but does not specify which version of Safari they contain. Even the update pages themselves are vague - eg. http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosxupdate1045.html just says it includes fixes ... [for] Safari rendering of web pages.
The detailed information page (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303179) still doesn't mention versions.
At this point I give up on Apple and try a straight up Google search for "safari versions". The first two results we've already seen; the fourth is a beautiful moment in nomenclature: Safari Experts: About Web Browsers (yes, a company that does Safaris has a page about browsers).
I try the third result, 'Safari Developer FAQ' (developer.apple.com/internet/safari/faq.html). It appears to be far too detailed, but out of idle curiosity I happen to click on a question about Safari user-agent strings. Then I notice this: As the list of historical build version information for Safari and WebKit indicates, both version numbers may contain a minor version and possibly a sub-version number as well.
Could it be? I click historical build version information and discover a page with the title "Historical User Agent strings"; and the heading "Safari and WebKit Version Information". I hardly dare hope, yet here is detailed information on versions. For the record: the latest version(s) are 1.3.2 on OS 10.3.9 and 2.0.3 on OS 10.4.5.
That wasn't hard at all! :-]
So what's the moral to the story? Well, first off, dealing with Apple's website gives me a headache - not to mention you shouldn't bother with the website, just go straight to Google. Second, websites need to state information which may seem horribly obvious to the author; because that information may not be obvious or available to the user.
If Safari is managed via OS patches, that's fine - but Apple needs to put that information on the Safari product and download pages. It doesn't have to be front and centre, it just has to be mentioned somewhere; after all I did find the (inaccurate) 1.2 version info way down the bottom of the product page.
Apple is a repeat offender on this one. They seem to assume at all times that you already have detailed knowledge about the product they're talking about (and, in the case of hardware, that you already own at least one). They assume you know their exact terminology for things; for example you don't "update the name attribute" or "change the volume label" on an ipod, in fact you're looking for the article "naming your ipod". As if it's a kitten.
The main Safari product page does not actually state the latest version number, despite talking about Tiger. Nor does it mention the fact that it's an entire version ahead on OS 10.4 compared with OS 10.3. If you don't happen to know your Tigers from your Panthers, there's no reason you'd suspect that people with OS 10.3 can't just upgrade to the latest Safari - but that's the deal, apparently.
So next time you're writing some documentation, remember to state the obvious. You might keep someone from needing a couple of paracetamol and a lie down.
Labels: apple, safari, version numbers
This is just an observation, so don't take it personally, but you do seem to beat on Apple a bit. :)
But anyway. I would argue that while version numbers are important to geeks like you and me to know about, your average user doesn't know or really care what browser version they use. This is borne out time and again in the user labs I have been involved with.
Maybe they should be: after all, most of the surfing population are using a browser that is so insecure it makes my hair hurt and whose adherence to standards is less than stellar.
Generally, Apple focuses on building a better experience for the end user, not the geek, so not having the version number on the download page kinda/sorta makes sense. Combined with the fact that the software update in Mac OS X does all the work for you, it makes it sort of irrelevant for the website.
Having only read the excerpt of your entry in my feed reader, I went to try and find that info, but (being the geek that I am) went straight to the developer docs (which you ended up doing anyway) and had to hunt a little, but got it pretty quick.
Anyways, I guess my point is this: Apple take a different view towards computing in general than other companies and the open source guys. The details that don't really matter to your everyday user are generally put in with the geek docs, rather than displayed up front. This keeps the focus on what is important to them, which is the user experience.
From my personal point of view, I find the user-centric approch taken by Apple (and developers who make software for them) to be leaps ahead of the PC/Linux crowd. So much so that I've become a pretty vocal advocate for their products (which also means that my comments are heavily biased, so the usual disclaimers apply... take it with a large grain of salt, etc).
@Cam: Sure, I beat on Apple sometimes - but only when they deserve it! ;)
I think at least a minimum level of version information should be placed on the product and download pages. As I said it doesn't have to be front and centre but surely it doesn't need to be buried in developer resources. Plus, they supply incorrect data on their product page.
Imagine the reaction people would have if Microsoft tried to pull that crap ;)
I do think users should be aware of browser versions to some degree - I realise they are not - since total ignorance can put them (and their data) at serious risk. Masking such basic information does not improve the end user's long-term experience, in my opinion.
Your approach to the question was based prior knowledge and you still had to 'hunt around'!
Besides that, Apple doesn't really keep versions away from users. If they did that, how would they ever convince people to pay for a dot-point upgrade to OSX? It seems Apple are quite happy to ram geek stuff in peoples' faces if they think it will make them money.
I guess a large part of my objection comes back to the fact that people in general seem to let Apple get away with bad stuff. They're willing to explain things away when they should be giving Apple the same treatment as any other company. Microsoft's website is shit, Apple's website is shit.
I'm not saying Apple's products are shit, hey I just joined the iPod cult. But their methods and communications (especially documentation and support, eg. for iPods) really aren't up to much.
You make good points.
The difference between Apple and Microsoft hiding their version numbers is that MS version numbers mean the differece between a giant security hole and one that is merely massive.
> "how would they ever convince people to pay for a dot-point upgrade to OSX?"
Maybe because a point upgrade to OS X contains more increase in functionality thant a version upgrade to Windows? ;)
Thx for the article. I found your notes whilst attempting to determine the latest Safari version! I had assumed I would spend 30 seconds on this matter (I have 24Mbps ADSL). After 15 min at Apple I gave up hope and used Google. The only coherent info I found was your article. My experience and reaction is identical to yours. The Apple site feels more like a toy-shop or content-free weekend tabloid/supplement. What's more, there are no date-of-publication on most pages, even the RSS version of Safari! This experience confirms the view that Apple is a technological ghetto which dumbs down technology to kindergarten level. As an indication of this dumbing-down, in this age of the web, Apple users fail to appreciate that at least 90% (possibly 95%) of web sites are NOT TESTED on Apples by the developer or owner, and most people paying for web-site construction will not pay the extra to have the site target Safari as well. Given the poverty of professional-level documentation for Apple PC products, I charge a extra 100% on IT fees if Apple products are involved. Apple should stick to iPod and leave IT to others.
I'm not a geek, so I guess I'm part of the population that enjoys Mac's because we don't have to know much to fully enjoy the computer experience. BUT, I will tell you I was relieved to read this complaint on Apple, because I have searched high and low for this information on Safari. My only complaint with my ibook is there are many sites I can't seem to go to and items I can't open, because apparently, I don't have the "latest version" of Safari. Well, I have 2.0.4 (419.3) - but i don't know what that means and when I go for updates, it tells me that I'm up to date. So why can't I open these x#@Z!! files or go to these websites???????
Exactly----what is the latest build for windows?
love safari and would like to keep it up to date--but dont want to download 18mb every day to see if I have the latest build (hypothetically speaking about every day downloads )
:)