Mr. Purist goes grocery shopping
William G. Schlake
It was a rough week. Mr. Purist got harpooned repeatedly in his
favorite newsgroup. Being in a particularly bad mood from the beating
he took, he started yelling at his wife, who obviously wears the pants
in the family and didn't take that kind of crap for a second and
promptly directed Mr. Purist to go sleep on the cot in the den. After
a restless night dreaming of W3C standards and waking up in a cold
sweat because of the same recurring nightmere were Billy G. kept
saying "Where do you want to go today?" Falling on the floor with a
loud thud he decided he may as well get up in spite of the fact it was
only 6 AM on Saturday morning.
To get out of the dog house, he decided to do the grocery shopping.
This would be a new adventure since he hadn't seen the inside of a
supermarket for well over a decade, since of course he's much too
important to bother with such everyday things.
Pulling into the parking lot of the supermarket, he noticed right away
that if they would redo the parking stripes, more cars could fit in
the 500 car lot. He pulled out his notepad that's always present and
noted the non-standard distance of the parking spaces. Width too short
by half inch he wrote. Mumbling too himself about such inefficiency
he failed to notice his right side of his car was extending several
inches into the next parking place. A rather plump lady pulled in
alongside, and in getting out, her door lightly touched Mr. Purist's
car. He squealed, watch what you're doing. She said, sir, you're way
over the line and this was the last spot! Mr. Purist retorted the
parking stripes are off. I parked according to where they should have
been, instead of where they are, so I parked correctly, you didn't.
Hurrying into the store, Mr. Purist heard music. It wasn't music he
liked. In fact, Mr. Purist doesn't like any music. He demanded they
turn it off.
Grabbing a shopping cart, he headed down the first isle. Spotting a
large display of apples he saw the two he wanted near the bottom of
the pyramid display. All the apples were about the same, but a couple
had a yellow blush. Mr. Purist liked apples with that trait. Most of
the other two hundred apples fell on the floor and rolled down the
isle. Mr. Purist protested that the apples were displayed in a
non-standard way and not according to specs. So, just because he
reached at the bottom of the pile it wasn't his fault the rest of the
apples got bruised. Mr. Purist looked at the bananas. They were
mostly green. That bothered Mr. Purist because he liked very ripe
bananas, never mind hardly anyone else does. Mr. Purist wants what he
wants, because it suits him. What the rest of the world likes and
accepts as standard means nothing to Mr. Purist, if he likes
something different even if he's a tiny minority he thinks that's the
way things should be.
After managing to put a few items in his cart without further
problems, Mr. Purist stopped at the delicatessen counter and took a
number. He got double zero. Mr. Purist said there is no such number
and made another note reminding himself to fire offer a letter
protesting to the store's headquarters. While waiting for his number
to be called, he picked out a loaf of bread. Finally his number came
up and he ordered half a pound of ham. Mr. Purist said make it 1/64th
of an inch per slice. The clerk said, what? You can have your ham
thin, regular or thick, that's it. Hearing audible laughter, he took
it regular. Inspecting the package, he protested, this ham is
rectangular in shape and I'm having it on this round bread so it's not
up to specs, you need to cut off the excess and then weigh it again.
The delicatessen clerk threw the ham hitting Mr. Purist on the right
side of his head. He got the message and moved to the hot dog section.
Having his ever present tape measure in his pocket he quickly noted
every hot dog he measured was at least an inch shorter then the buns.
Not wanting to cause another scene, he decided to try hamburgers. He
found the beef patties were square and looked too big for the round
buns, but he took them anyway.
Mr. Purist has several more misadventures stumbling his way through
the rest of the store and two hours later did manage to put 20 items
in his cart. Already running very late, he headed for the 10 item or
less checkout. The store was busy, the line long. The couple in front
were loudly talking about installing version 4 of Netscape that
afternoon. Mr. Purist tapped the man on the shoulder and said Netscape
is crap demanding they instead use Opera. The man said, what makes you
think you get to tell me not to use Netscape? Where I work they have
hundreds of copies of Netscape, I like it, why can't I use it at home?
Mr. Purist said nothing further, since Mr. Purist is a puny little
runt and way out of shape and the other guy looked like a double to
Hunk Hogan. The woman behind Mr. Purist expressed her displeasure for
him horning in on the wrong line and forcing her to wait. Mr. Purist
babbled something about his items really just adding up to less than
10 because he grouped them according to food groups which of course is
the correct way to count. While waiting he pulled out his notepad
which was now full with things that were non-standard and not up to
specs in the store. The lady shoved her cart into Mr. Purist's heels
as she yelled you odd ball! Causing his fifth commotion, the store
manager had enough, threw Mr. Purist's items in a bag, grabbed him by
the shoulders pushing him out the door and loudly saying don't come
back.
Walking to the parking lot, he noticed a cop writing a ticket as the
tow truck was just backing up to Mr. Purist's car. Of course Mr.
Purist protested, but the cop didn't buy the parking stripes excuse
for parking in a handicap only parking space.
It was a long walk home and after four miles the ice cream was mostly
melted which caused the bag to break which caused some of the ground
beef to fall out the bag which did not go unnoticed to the big hungry
dog who had been following Mr. Purist for the last couple blocks.
After running for a mile, being badly out of breath from spending way
too much time sitting in front of his computer, Mr. Purist decided the
dog could have what was left of the ground beef...in fact he let the
dog have all the groceries. Two blocks later, Mr. Purist was turning
the corner where he found Mrs. Purist waiting in the doorway with her
arms folded, tapping her foot, since she was already thirty minutes
late for her weekly beauty parlor visit.
What happened to you and where's the car she asked? Mr. Purist started
to explain, but didn't get very far. Well, that cot isn't that lumpy
and it's in the same room as Mr. Purist's home PC, so about now he's
probably almost ready to logon and dispense some more "expert" advice
I guess. That is after he emails the grocery store, attaching his
strongly worded demand for bringing the store up to specs and
standards. I mean come on, rectangular ham, round bread, short hot
dogs and such, what kind of a grocery store was it? Certainly not one
that matched Mr. Purist's idea of how a grocery store should be which
probably explains why he thinks we don't get his distorted view of
how HTML should be to please him.
Bill
Craig Antill
In article <344e244c...@news.enteract.com>, "William G. Schlake"
<w...@enteract.com> writes
[snip]
>What happened to you and where's the car she asked? Mr. Purist started
>to explain, but didn't get very far. Well, that cot isn't that lumpy
>and it's in the same room as Mr. Purist's home PC, so about now he's
>probably almost ready to logon and dispense some more "expert" advice
>I guess. That is after he emails the grocery store, attaching his
>strongly worded demand for bringing the store up to specs and
>standards. I mean come on, rectangular ham, round bread, short hot
>dogs and such, what kind of a grocery store was it? Certainly not one
>that matched Mr. Purist's idea of how a grocery store should be which
>probably explains why he thinks we don't get his distorted view of
>how HTML should be to please him.
So what's your point ? :-)
--
Craig Antill - Titan Garden Buildings Ltd
<SHAMELESS PLUG>
The UK's premier manufacturer of quality timber garden buildings!
URL: http://www.titan.uk.com/
</SHAMELESS PLUG>
(All replies to no_spam...@titangb.demon.co.uk will be discarded, unread.
Please reply to craig [at] titan [dot] uk [dot] com if you wish to email me!)
Andrew McCormick
The most interesting thing about this story was that it focused so much on
the layout of the parking spaces...which is interesting, because folks
like Mr. Schlake seem intent on making the parking spaces on the web _as
small as possible_, so that only certain cars can fit into them. Guess he
doesn't want me and my land rover shopping at his store. Or maybe I'll
just park on top a few of his cars...
Andrew McCormick
opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily my own
William G. Schlake
I see your reading comprehension skills need improvement. The parking
spaces were but the beginning of the story. See what happens as Mr.
Purist works his way through the store and can't seem to relate to
every day limitations the rest of the world takes for granted.
Of course the whole point of me writing my little drama was to
illustrate what those attempting to follow rigid guidelines and impose
them on others look like to people in the "real world" which is after
all where most of us live. ;o)
Bill
Andrew McCormick
In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:50:55 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
>McCormick) wrote:
>
>>The most interesting thing about this story was that it focused so much on
>>the layout of the parking spaces...which is interesting, because folks
>>like Mr. Schlake seem intent on making the parking spaces on the web _as
>>small as possible_, so that only certain cars can fit into them. Guess he
>>doesn't want me and my land rover shopping at his store. Or maybe I'll
>>just park on top a few of his cars...
>>
>I see your reading comprehension skills need improvement. The parking
>spaces were but the beginning of the story. See what happens as Mr.
>Purist works his way through the store and can't seem to relate to
>every day limitations the rest of the world takes for granted.
>
>Of course the whole point of me writing my little drama was to
>illustrate what those attempting to follow rigid guidelines and impose
>them on others look like to people in the "real world" which is after
>all where most of us live. ;o)
You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised by this.
As for rigid guidelines...well, I don't want to have to use MS/NS 4 to
view web sites. I don't want to have to have a big browser windows.
Sometimes, I want to look at sites with the Newton browser, because all I
have with me is a Newton. Or the summer that I only had a dial-up shell
account, and thus had to do all my web-browsing with lynx (that was
educational...thank god for the sites that *were* navigable).
You're trying to tell me that "Use the latest and greatest web browser or
you suck" isn't a rigid standard? I develop web pages (and get paid for
it) in the real world. Guess what? My sites are functional and
attractive with NS and MS's browsers. They're functional in Lynx. They
scale down to ~250 pixels wide and are still functional. You're telling
me that all that was pointless? It's pointless for a person with a 14"
monitor to be able to compare two software products side by side?
And...imagine this...one of my web sites even validates! (The other one
isn't done yet, so I haven't gotten around to checking.)
http://www.esm-software.com/
By the way, Mr. Schlake...maybe I got into this thread a little late, but
I've yet to see you post examples of your web sites. Or are we simply
preaching from an ivory tower.
Andrew McCormick
In article <344a2b49...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:10:26 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
>McCormick) wrote:
>
>>In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
>>(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>>
>>You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
>>shouldn't be surprised by this.
>No, I'm not the one that isn't surprised. Obviously, you missed the
>entire point of the story, so I guess I'll have to spell it out for
>you because you couldn't figure out the metaphors in the context of
>the Net which of course was the whole point of the story.
>
[blah blah blah snipped]
And you *still* haven't answered the fact that my LandRover (say, browsing
with Lynx or Newton) won't fit in your parking spaces (be able to view
your web site)
Of course, that doesn't really matter, since apparently *no* browser can
view your web site, http://www.hobsonsquare.com/
William G. Schlake
>The most interesting thing about this story was that it focused so much on
>the layout of the parking spaces...which is interesting, because folks
>like Mr. Schlake seem intent on making the parking spaces on the web _as
>small as possible_, so that only certain cars can fit into them. Guess he
>doesn't want me and my land rover shopping at his store. Or maybe I'll
>just park on top a few of his cars...
>
>Andrew McCormick
>
>smi...@sprintmail.com
>
>opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily my own
I see your reading comprehension skills need improvement. The parking
spaces were but the beginning of the story. See what happens as Mr.
Purist works his way through the store and can't seem to relate to
every day limitations the rest of the world takes for granted.
Of course the whole point of me writing my little drama was to
illustrate what those attempting to follow rigid guidelines and impose
them on others look like to people in the "real world" which is after
all where most of us live. ;o)
Bill
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Control: cancel <344911de...@news.enteract.com>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Path: ...!news.rediris.es!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.ecrc.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news.misty.com!news.uwa.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!southpower.co.nz!nobody
From: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Subject: cmsg cancel <344911de...@news.enteract.com>
Approved: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Message-ID: <cancel.34491...@news.enteract.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake)
X-Cancelled-By: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Organization: Southpower Ltd
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:50:32 GMT
Lines: 2
The article was canceled on 10/19/97 at 2:40:46 AM with the Usenet Cancel Engine (UCE).
Andrew McCormick
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:50:55 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
>McCormick) wrote:
>
>>The most interesting thing about this story was that it focused so much on
>>the layout of the parking spaces...which is interesting, because folks
>>like Mr. Schlake seem intent on making the parking spaces on the web _as
>>small as possible_, so that only certain cars can fit into them. Guess he
>>doesn't want me and my land rover shopping at his store. Or maybe I'll
>>just park on top a few of his cars...
>>
>I see your reading comprehension skills need improvement. The parking
>spaces were but the beginning of the story. See what happens as Mr.
>Purist works his way through the store and can't seem to relate to
>every day limitations the rest of the world takes for granted.
>
>Of course the whole point of me writing my little drama was to
>illustrate what those attempting to follow rigid guidelines and impose
>them on others look like to people in the "real world" which is after
>all where most of us live. ;o)
You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised by this.
As for rigid guidelines...well, I don't want to have to use MS/NS 4 to
view web sites. I don't want to have to have a big browser windows.
Sometimes, I want to look at sites with the Newton browser, because all I
have with me is a Newton. Or the summer that I only had a dial-up shell
account, and thus had to do all my web-browsing with lynx (that was
educational...thank god for the sites that *were* navigable).
You're trying to tell me that "Use the latest and greatest web browser or
you suck" isn't a rigid standard? I develop web pages (and get paid for
it) in the real world. Guess what? My sites are functional and
attractive with NS and MS's browsers. They're functional in Lynx. They
scale down to ~250 pixels wide and are still functional. You're telling
me that all that was pointless? It's pointless for a person with a 14"
monitor to be able to compare two software products side by side?
And...imagine this...one of my web sites even validates! (The other one
isn't done yet, so I haven't gotten around to checking.)
http://www.esm-software.com/
By the way, Mr. Schlake...maybe I got into this thread a little late, but
I've yet to see you post examples of your web sites. Or are we simply
preaching from an ivory tower.
Andrew McCormick
opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily my own
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Control: cancel <smileyy-1810...@sdn-ts-001ohcincp16.dialsprint.net>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Path: ...!spring.edu.tw!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news.misty.com!news.uwa.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!southpower.co.nz!nobody
From: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Subject: cmsg cancel <smileyy-1810...@sdn-ts-001ohcincp16.dialsprint.net>
Approved: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Message-ID: <cancel.smileyy-...@sdn-ts-001ohcincp16.dialsprint.net>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew McCormick)
X-Cancelled-By: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Organization: Southpower Ltd
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:50:24 GMT
Lines: 2
The article was canceled on 10/19/97 at 2:40:38 AM with the Usenet Cancel Engine (UCE).
Andrew McCormick
The most interesting thing about this story was that it focused so much on
the layout of the parking spaces...which is interesting, because folks
like Mr. Schlake seem intent on making the parking spaces on the web _as
small as possible_, so that only certain cars can fit into them. Guess he
doesn't want me and my land rover shopping at his store. Or maybe I'll
just park on top a few of his cars...
Andrew McCormick
opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily my own
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Rogue cancel from Michael Enlow, X-Cancelled-by etc. are forged.
Control: cancel <smileyy-1810...@sdn-ts-002ohcincp06.dialsprint.net>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
Path: ...!newsfeed.orst.edu!128.101.135.70.MISMATCH!newshub.tc.umn.edu!fu-berlin.de!nntprelay.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news.misty.com!news.uwa.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!southpower.co.nz!nobody
From: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Subject: cmsg cancel <smileyy-1810...@sdn-ts-002ohcincp06.dialsprint.net>
Approved: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Message-ID: <cancel.smileyy-...@sdn-ts-002ohcincp06.dialsprint.net>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Sender: smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew McCormick)
X-Cancelled-By: r...@eyrie.org,s...@eyrie.org,r...@eyrie.org
Organization: Southpower Ltd
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:50:39 GMT
Lines: 2
The article was canceled on 10/19/97 at 2:40:54 AM with the Usenet Cancel Engine (UCE).
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew McCormick) wrote:
> I've yet to see you post examples of your web sites.
http://www.hobsonsquare.com/, which was pulled from another post. He
hasn't finished the site yet. Prepare to be blown out of your seat.
;)
B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNElKhTht+nuXAiYfEQJx/QCffgS6nkx9sI14/A0B0Kg6Cxo1bN8AoNrh
kEa3lHsBIJq5Nueu/QurF7+G
=zS6d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
: : : : ::::;;:s;;ss;sssnnsnnmmmmnnsnnsss;ss;;s:;;:::: : : : :
b...@benturner.com, http://www.benturner.com/, PGP key: 0x9702261F
"Quarrels would not last long if the fault were only on one side."
: : : : ::::;;:s;;ss;sssnnsnnmmmmnnsnnsss;ss;;s:;;:::: : : : :
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
> I see your reading comprehension skills need
> improvement.
Drop it already, man. Obviously you're having an argument with people
who have had good educations. But you ignore that. Just as you
ignore finding any evidence for your claims and ignore using good
arguments instead of childish insults.
> the "real world" which is after all where
> most of us live. ;o)
Obviously you're doing well for yourself, having time to post long,
drawn-out analogies about people you hate so much. :)
Without the "purists", would you have anything to do?
B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNElKMzht+nuXAiYfEQIn5QCeOdB8kuVlAZx4oXu56aHc8QyQxKwAniUm
B6WUIdPLpIi+zUpb0IFI4UvI
=I2oM
Andrew McCormick
>Geez, are some people dense.
This is the first thing you've said that I'll agree with.
>As far as me answering, I did explain...twice. Since posting, I've
>received about 40 emails. Upon reading those messages it's clear to me
>those people understood. Again you didn't, but you choose to blame me
>for your ignorance. I'm just sitting here shaking my head.
>
>Your LandRover "question" has no merit if you're applying it to my
>site since for the forth time now I've said it isn't finished and
>providing for the few lamers who just got to paddle upstream, comes
>way down on my list.
I'm not applying it to your site. I'm applying it to the type of HTML
that you seem to think its fine to generate. I suppose it's okay to think
its fine to generate. I suppose its okay to generate that kind of HTML.
But to denigrate "purists" (which, by the way, is the strangest way I've
seen to spell "good web designers") for espousing HTML that *simply works
better*...I don't see the point here.
The reason I question your site is because I really wonder if you've
developed anything of consequence for the real world, and the resulting
power and flexibility that comes about due to proper use of HTML.
Your idea of the WWW (remember that "It's a Windows World post?) wants to
tie everybody to a high-bandwidth connection, a Pentium 200, and a 15"
monitor. Sorry...that's an awful lot to carry around, when I could view
the Web pretty well with a 1-4 lb. handheld/notebook instead. Mobile
computing is paddling upstream? Information anywhere is paddling
upstream? Maybe for people who "surf" the web simply to "surf" the web,
these high-resource HTML-trick sites are fine...but for those of us who
want information, who need to get to information...who want *content*,
there's a lot better ways to do it.
I mean, yeah...there's room for this sort of thing, but you have to
recognize that you *are* going to leave out some viewers that you might
not want to leave out.
HTML is like a horse with four legs. Some people want to cut off two of
those legs just because they think a horse with two legs is cool.
Andrew McCormick
(gee...it'd be neat if someone quoted that somewhere else, but I'm not
holding my breath. It'll never be as cool at that Tim Berners-Lee quote
that I want to design some artwork around.)
Abigail
William G. Schlake (w...@enteract.com) wrote on 1510 September 1993 in
<URL: news:344a2b49...@news.enteract.com>:
++ On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:10:26 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
++ McCormick) wrote:
++
++ >In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
++ >(William G. Schlake) wrote:
++ >
++ >You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
++ >shouldn't be surprised by this.
++ No, I'm not the one that isn't surprised. Obviously, you missed the
++ entire point of the story, so I guess I'll have to spell it out for
++ you because you couldn't figure out the metaphors in the context of
++ the Net which of course was the whole point of the story.
++
++ In my story when Mr. Purist enters the parking lot instead of simply
++ parking his car like everyone else, he wants to CHANGE the parking lot
++ so a few more cars will fit. This is the purists demanding that every
++ page be made accessible to every visitor. You should have paid
++ particular attention to my pointing out it was a 500 car parking lot.
++ At a simple level I'm saying there's plenty of places to park. For the
Oh yeah? Then how come the lady parking next to him said that was
the last spot?
++ Web, there's all kinds of browsers. In the parking lot, if possible
++ most people will park as close to the store as they can since it makes
++ sense. That symbolically illustrates that most people have chosen
++ either Netscape or IE. In the parking lot, the purists being usually
++ tilted somewhat off center prefer to park elsewhere for a variety of
++ reasons even if there is room closer to the store just like they pick
++ "different" browsers.
++
++ At a deeper level, Mr Purist found fault in that the spaces were too
++ narrow by only half and inch. I assume you can do simple math. That
++ means if the lot was re striped, only a few more cars would fit. What
I can so simple math; but you can't. By making the spaces wider, you can
park *less* cars. Of course, there will be more cars that fit, and it's
easier to park as well.
++ am I saying here? Most people have chosen Netscape or IE. While for
Bull. People haven't chosen Netscape or IE. It's being forced upon
them. It's like making a parking garage with a low ceiling, so noone
with a 4x4 or other high vehicle will park there, and then proudly say:
"Look, every one uses low cars anyway, so we don't need higher ceilings".
Abigail
--
Anyone who slaps a "this page is best viewed with Browser X" label
on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the
Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on
another computer, another word processor, or another network.
[Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996]
William G. Schlake
On 19 Oct 1997 04:05:28 GMT, abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>William G. Schlake (w...@enteract.com) wrote on 1510 September 1993 in
><URL: news:344a2b49...@news.enteract.com>:
>++ On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:10:26 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
>++ McCormick) wrote:
>++
>++ >In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
>++ >(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>++ >
>++ >You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
>++ >shouldn't be surprised by this.
>++ No, I'm not the one that isn't surprised. Obviously, you missed the
>++ entire point of the story, so I guess I'll have to spell it out for
>++ you because you couldn't figure out the metaphors in the context of
>++ the Net which of course was the whole point of the story.
>++
>++ In my story when Mr. Purist enters the parking lot instead of simply
>++ parking his car like everyone else, he wants to CHANGE the parking lot
>++ so a few more cars will fit. This is the purists demanding that every
>++ page be made accessible to every visitor. You should have paid
>++ particular attention to my pointing out it was a 500 car parking lot.
>++ At a simple level I'm saying there's plenty of places to park. For the
>
>Oh yeah? Then how come the lady parking next to him said that was
>the last spot?
What?
>++ Web, there's all kinds of browsers. In the parking lot, if possible
>++ most people will park as close to the store as they can since it makes
>++ sense. That symbolically illustrates that most people have chosen
>++ either Netscape or IE. In the parking lot, the purists being usually
>++ tilted somewhat off center prefer to park elsewhere for a variety of
>++ reasons even if there is room closer to the store just like they pick
>++ "different" browsers.
>++
>++ At a deeper level, Mr Purist found fault in that the spaces were too
>++ narrow by only half and inch. I assume you can do simple math. That
>++ means if the lot was re striped, only a few more cars would fit. What
>
>I can so simple math; but you can't. By making the spaces wider, you can
>park *less* cars. Of course, there will be more cars that fit, and it's
>easier to park as well.
Hey your right! I goofed. Let's check the score board:
Bill 46 Purists 2
>++ am I saying here? Most people have chosen Netscape or IE. While for
>
>Bull. People haven't chosen Netscape or IE. It's being forced upon
>them. It's like making a parking garage with a low ceiling, so noone
>with a 4x4 or other high vehicle will park there, and then proudly say:
>"Look, every one uses low cars anyway, so we don't need higher ceilings".
Oh no, not that silly story again. I didn't check were you live. In
the states, we don't have any browser police saying here use this if
your want to surf the Internet. Nobody forced anybody to use Netscape
or Microsoft. Of course making their browsers "free" don't hurt. Still
as usual you fail to consider that nobody else bothered to make a
serious marketing effort with browsers so really what choice did
people have? Let's see some shareware nobody heard of, or oh, I
forgot, why not use AOL's or CompuServe's browser. Sure, right!
Where's the browsers from any of the name software houses, and don't
insult me saying Web TV. Geez.
>
>Abigail
William G. Schlake
>>Geez, are some people dense.
>
>This is the first thing you've said that I'll agree with.
>
>>As far as me answering, I did explain...twice. Since posting, I've
>>received about 40 emails. Upon reading those messages it's clear to me
>>those people understood. Again you didn't, but you choose to blame me
>>for your ignorance. I'm just sitting here shaking my head.
>>
>>Your LandRover "question" has no merit if you're applying it to my
>>site since for the forth time now I've said it isn't finished and
>>providing for the few lamers who just got to paddle upstream, comes
>>way down on my list.
>
>I'm not applying it to your site. I'm applying it to the type of HTML
>that you seem to think its fine to generate. I suppose it's okay to think
>its fine to generate. I suppose its okay to generate that kind of HTML.
>But to denigrate "purists" (which, by the way, is the strangest way I've
>seen to spell "good web designers") for espousing HTML that *simply works
>better*...I don't see the point here.
As Roland Regan was found of saying, there you go again. What I said
was most people use Netscape and Microsoft browsers so why shouldn't
Web sites be slanted in a direction that supports it's likely
audience? On the other hand you seem to be saying if you were having a
Jewish picnic, you'd be sure to include ham on the menu, because some
nonconformist may show up. I'd be sure a Rabbi showed up which I think
would be more appreciated. You confuse what I'm saying. My "beef" is
the pushing of our way or no way BS. That's all. I'm not saying anyone
should make a site only viewable by MS/NS, however if someone wants
too, that's their right and the message I object to here is the
constant painting of "your a dummy" if someone does that. That's
wrong.
>The reason I question your site is because I really wonder if you've
>developed anything of consequence for the real world, and the resulting
>power and flexibility that comes about due to proper use of HTML.
One small favor. Wait till it's finished then take a look. After that
feel free to knock it all you want. I think many will be amazed at how
the site changes in it's final version. Like I said before, most of
what's there now is markup and lots of bloated FP code. I know.
>Your idea of the WWW (remember that "It's a Windows World post?) wants to
>tie everybody to a high-bandwidth connection, a Pentium 200, and a 15"
>monitor. Sorry...that's an awful lot to carry around, when I could view
>the Web pretty well with a 1-4 lb. handheld/notebook instead. Mobile
>computing is paddling upstream? Information anywhere is paddling
>upstream? Maybe for people who "surf" the web simply to "surf" the web,
>these high-resource HTML-trick sites are fine...but for those of us who
>want information, who need to get to information...who want *content*,
>there's a lot better ways to do it.
It is a Windows world. Ask Apple. Geez, even Billy G, felt sorry for
them and gave them some walk-around money before they went belly up or
laid off most of their employees. The question I've got for the Mac
crowd is if Mac's are so superior why is it they now have less than 5%
market share and never had more than around 10% and that includes
dumping them in our schools if I remember correctly? My reply to your
earlier question was more towards your palm toy you mentioned. Using
such a thing to surf the Web is kind of silly. Like using a VW Bug to
tow your 40 foot trailer up a steep hill. Sure, you could I guess, the
question is why the heck would you want to?
>I mean, yeah...there's room for this sort of thing, but you have to
>recognize that you *are* going to leave out some viewers that you might
>not want to leave out.
Don't you think I know that? Again...wait. That's all I ask.
Andrew McCormick
In article <344c7e52...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com (William
G. Schlake) wrote:
>Wow, you really are going off the deep end. I have seen little
>expertise here. I have seen no civility. However I have seen much
>blustering, posturing, chest beating and strutting around. I have seen
>great amounts of "is too" "is not" and for sure I've seen many lose
>their cool simply because they can't handle the mirror being held up
>to help them see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
>Finally, for a bunch that supposedly (as you suggest) have good
>educations, I find the typical post lacking any originality,
>createivity, and totally absent any humor, kindness or anything
>approaching what one would expect. I see only anger, resentment and
>attacks on outsiders and newbies whom you view as your roudy and
>misguided subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
>royalists.
Whereas Bill is always right and never passes up a chance to point it out...
Expertise? I know that some of us are professional web designers. I know
that its rare that there's a question about HTML/http that Alan Flavell
doesn't know the definitive answer for.
Civility? I don't really see manners, either, from the people who post
here, and don't read the FAQs. From the people who ask (basically) "How
do I get precision layout on every browser?", and hear the answer "You
can't.", but they go on to say..."Well, okay, how do I do it anyway for
MS/NS?" I see plenty of generosity when the same questions are asked and
answered over and over again, correctly, for that matter.
Does Mr. Flavell really care how the most of the people on ciwah see him?
I don't know - I can't answer that question for him. It's apparent that
he does care about HTML and the *World Wide* Web, and how he hates to see
how people are trying to cripple it into the Netscape Wide Web.
Creativity? Originality? How creative can you get when someone asks, for
the 500th time, "How can I hide my source code? (even though I learned
HTML from looking at other people's source)" Me? I save my creativity
for my web pages.
And yeah, I'd resent people who want to shoot two legs off a horse, simply
because they think a horse with two legs is cool. But only the ones who
should know better. The people who ask a question in this forum, get a
curt, but proper response, and go on to write better HTML, or build better
web pages because of it...no, I don't resent them at all.
It's the people who attack the people that are helping other that I resent.
Andrew McCormick
Andrew McCormick
In article <344e8cf9...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com (William
G. Schlake) wrote:
>As Roland Regan was found of saying, there you go again. What I said
>was most people use Netscape and Microsoft browsers so why shouldn't
>Web sites be slanted in a direction that supports it's likely
>audience? On the other hand you seem to be saying if you were having a
>Jewish picnic, you'd be sure to include ham on the menu, because some
>nonconformist may show up. I'd be sure a Rabbi showed up which I think
>would be more appreciated. You confuse what I'm saying. My "beef" is
>the pushing of our way or no way BS. That's all. I'm not saying anyone
>should make a site only viewable by MS/NS, however if someone wants
>too, that's their right and the message I object to here is the
>constant painting of "your a dummy" if someone does that. That's
>wrong.
Most people can walk up steps. Yet, there's something called the
Americans with Disabilities Act that means the other 1% or .1% or whatever
can go up ramps, etc.
The way I see it, web sites are designed to present content. Now, there
are a couple of ways you can go about it.
(1) You can deploy this content in ways that are attractive, dynamic, and
effective that are accessible to 50%, maybe 75%, maybe 90%, maybe 95% of
browsing environments.
or
(2) You can deploy this content in a way that is attractive, dynamic, and
effective that is accessible to 100% of browsing environments.
You seem happy with #1. That's fine. Yet, you knock people for espousing
#2. Why? I don't know. It seems plain to me that #2 is the better, more
flexible way to go about things.
>One small favor. Wait till it's finished then take a look. After that
>feel free to knock it all you want. I think many will be amazed at how
>the site changes in it's final version. Like I said before, most of
>what's there now is markup and lots of bloated FP code. I know.
Fine. Actually, I had a look at your site, and at least the front page
was fine - I have no quibbles with it. Of course, I haven't looked past
the 1 rendering I saw of it, but...there weren't any glaring problems.
The Java animation was annoyingly slow, but ...
>It is a Windows world. Ask Apple. Geez, even Billy G, felt sorry for
>them and gave them some walk-around money before they went belly up or
>laid off most of their employees. The question I've got for the Mac
>crowd is if Mac's are so superior why is it they now have less than 5%
>market share and never had more than around 10% and that includes
>dumping them in our schools if I remember correctly? My reply to your
>earlier question was more towards your palm toy you mentioned. Using
>such a thing to surf the Web is kind of silly. Like using a VW Bug to
>tow your 40 foot trailer up a steep hill. Sure, you could I guess, the
>question is why the heck would you want to?
From http://www.planetcast.com/mac-ammo/ammo/fast-facts.html
* The Macintosh is the #1 World Wide Web authoring machine, and 41
percent of Web graphics are created on the Mac (Mirai Consulting).
* The Mac is the second most popular computer for World Wide Web
servers; over 20 percent are Macs (Georgia Institute of Technology).
* 25 percent of all Web browsing is done from a Macintosh (META Group).
Now then, I'm not going to start a Mac vs. PC debate here, but...on the
WWW, Macintoshes are present disproportionate to their Marketshare.
Would that "palm toy" be better if I said it was a Windows CE device? You
see, it's only in *your world* that the WWW is a 40-foot trailer. A good
web site does not require major processing power to be viewed. A good web
site does not require a large-screen display to be viewed. A good web
does not need *color* to be viewed. HTML can display an enormous amount
of data on things that scale from cell phones to speaking machines to
palmtop browsers to NS 4.03 on 275 Mhz PPCs with 24" monitors - that is,
if you let it. In fact, it can display that data just as well with a
presentation that scales up and down like I just mentioned as it can with
a presentation that doesn't. Capice?
I will be happy if:
You can give me (1) one good reason to limit the scalability of a web document.
Dan McGarry
William G. Schlake wrote in message <344c7e52...@news.enteract.com>...
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:45:59 GMT, bt-usenet*REMOVE*@benturner.com (Ben
>Turner) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>> improvement.
>>
>>Drop it already, man.
>
>>Obviously you're having an argument with people
>>who have had good educations. But you ignore that. Just as you
>>ignore finding any evidence for your claims and ignore using good
>>arguments instead of childish insults.
>
>expertise here. I have seen no civility. However I have seen much
>blustering, posturing, chest beating and strutting around. I have seen
>great amounts of "is too" "is not" and for sure I've seen many lose
>their cool simply because they can't handle the mirror being held up
>to help them see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
>Finally, for a bunch that supposedly (as you suggest) have good
>educations, I find the typical post lacking any originality,
>createivity, and totally absent any humor, kindness or anything
That's because, rather than re-write _An Enemy of the People_, _Brave New
World_ and/or numerous other visions of a world ruled by the same blind
conformity and fundamental timidity that you so glibly and thoughtlessly
espouse, the majority of those to whom you have given the title "purists"
are a little too busy trying to achieve some use for HTML beyond the
creation of pale imitations of TV commercials.
(I know I'm going to have nightmares about that soulless female voice
whispering "Welcome..." every time I backed out to the Hobson *CUBE* main
page, vainly hoping that there might be *some* tiny hint of originality.)
And while we're on the subject of creativity: You're no Johnathan Swift, and
that was no "Modest Proposal". [Sound of William G. Schlake emitting puzzled
grunt, trying to remember whether Swift writes for Marvel or DC comics....]
>approaching what one would expect. I see only anger, resentment and
>attacks on outsiders and newbies whom you view as your roudy and
>misguided subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
>royalists.
Sounds like you're the one spouting manifest destiny to me. If the so-called
purists stand for anything, they stand for freedom and democracy: a web
which is not bound to the whims of an oligarchy whose sole purpose is profit
and self-aggrandisement, a web which is instead accessible to everyone and
anyone, no matter where.
It's easy for us to talk (write) about this in the abstract. I'm writing
this right now from home, on the end of a dedicated connection larger than
the one I once used to connect an island larger than the state of Texas to
the rest of the world. Try to imagine for once, how your glib assertion that
it's okay to leave a few marginal browsers out of the picture must feel to
those for whom the Web is an invaluable and extremely tenuous resource.
Not that a human rights worker trying to get resource information into
Cambodia before the thought police show up at the door will give a flying
^H^H^H^H that Hobson CUBE offers good ol' down home "...old fashion [sic]
service."
Did you cheer during "Birth of a Nation," or are you waiting for Ted Turner
to release the, uh, colourized version?
----
Dan McGarry
OverByte Software
http://www.moodindigo.com/
Dan McGarry
Dan McGarry
Alan J. Flavell
Organization: speaking for myself and not for CERN
X-spam-hater: definitely
Comment: I hate unsolicited commercial email - boycott companies that use it
Content-language: en-GB
Followup-to: comp.infosystems.www.misc
X-say-it-again-spam: hate it!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Andrew McCormick wrote:
> * The Mac is the second most popular computer for World Wide Web
> servers; over 20 percent are Macs (Georgia Institute of Technology).
I have no idea what this number is supposed to mean. The most
popular web server, last time I looked, was Apache, and that rarely
runs on a Mac.
Of course Apache runs on quite a number of different architectures and
OSs, and quite a large number of different computer models, each one
accounting for a tiny fraction of the whole. But "the Mac" isn't just
one machine, either.
What's your opinion on the "top servers" table at
http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/
The percentage of Macintosh specific servers,
.. is now 2.62 (from 2.69 last month).
(Obviously, anyone who did statistics at college will shudder
at the specious accuracy implied by those numbers.)
[This isn't really on-topic for ciwah, I'm suggesting f'ups
to a misc group.]
William G. Schlake
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:36:50 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
McCormick) wrote:
>In article <344c7e52...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com (William
>G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>>Wow, you really are going off the deep end. I have seen little
>>expertise here. I have seen no civility. However I have seen much
>>blustering, posturing, chest beating and strutting around. I have seen
>>great amounts of "is too" "is not" and for sure I've seen many lose
>>their cool simply because they can't handle the mirror being held up
>>to help them see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
>>Finally, for a bunch that supposedly (as you suggest) have good
>>educations, I find the typical post lacking any originality,
>>createivity, and totally absent any humor, kindness or anything
>>approaching what one would expect. I see only anger, resentment and
>>attacks on outsiders and newbies whom you view as your roudy and
>>misguided subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
>>royalists.
>
>Whereas Bill is always right and never passes up a chance to point it out...
Where have I ever posted I'm right? I merely express my opinion. Maybe
because I write in a manner that's readable and use common sense, my
message comes through louder than those that continue to spout
superiority. There is no so-called "right" way to do things. There's
merely choices. Yes, for sure I have repeatedly reminded that it is
indeed a Windows world and 9 out of 10 people use either Netscape or
IE as their browser and that many pages use an accept the extensions.
Because DUH, that's the way things are. In contrast, the purists
snarl, whine, and engage in endless arguments over the most trivial of
issues and call everyone that won't follow W3C standards to the letter
a dummy or far worse. I merely hold up the mirror. Clearly, many don't
like what they see.
>Expertise? I know that some of us are professional web designers. I know
>that its rare that there's a question about HTML/http that Alan Flavell
>doesn't know the definitive answer for.
As far as being professional, I'm afraid that's far too broad a brush
to use. One definition of the word relates to one's skill level and
experience. Accordingly, many teens and even younger could be called
professional and some of the pages they crank out put those whom you
define as professional's to shame. And so it goes in the real world.
As far as Alan, my gripe is his attitude. Someone should explain to
him you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. While I'm sure
there's some exceptions, the typical Alan post is sarcastic, snobbish,
and even dictating. Not my idea of how an "expert" should conduct
himself in a public newsgroup and not a proven method for winning
converts.
>Civility? I don't really see manners, either, from the people who post
>here, and don't read the FAQs. From the people who ask (basically) "How
>do I get precision layout on every browser?", and hear the answer "You
>can't.", but they go on to say..."Well, okay, how do I do it anyway for
>MS/NS?" I see plenty of generosity when the same questions are asked and
>answered over and over again, correctly, for that matter.
>
>Does Mr. Flavell really care how the most of the people on ciwah see him?
>I don't know - I can't answer that question for him. It's apparent that
>he does care about HTML and the *World Wide* Web, and how he hates to see
>how people are trying to cripple it into the Netscape Wide Web.
Nor can I. I'd say he enjoys playing the role of some self-elected
authority figure in this newsgroup and simply can't control his
dislike of Microsoft and Netscape which colors most of his posts.
Ditto for many purists, they can't either. In my book, that
automatically disqualifies anyone doing that since they only
demonstrate they can't really be objective.
>Creativity? Originality? How creative can you get when someone asks, for
>the 500th time, "How can I hide my source code? (even though I learned
>HTML from looking at other people's source)" Me? I save my creativity
>for my web pages.
Nobody makes anyone answer any question. You seem confused over how
newsgroups work. It isn't your job to answer questions. You may if you
wish. You may also ignore posts or posters. Simple. It may come as a
shock to you, but all newsgroups have the same problem where questions
are asked for the 500th time. For sure it is annoying, and yes I have
expressed my displeasure from time to time over it as well. Your
point?
>And yeah, I'd resent people who want to shoot two legs off a horse, simply
>because they think a horse with two legs is cool. But only the ones who
>should know better. The people who ask a question in this forum, get a
>curt, but proper response, and go on to write better HTML, or build better
>web pages because of it...no, I don't resent them at all.
And I resent some constantly suggesting they are professional, others
aren't. I resent the snobbish I'm right, your wrong. I resent the all
to frequent smart-ass answers. I resent the constant ranting over the
browsers most people use and the endless silliness where you think
every web page should be made accessible to every browser. Funny, the
theme song of the purists is choice. Shame you can hum the melody but
remain clueless to the words.
>It's the people who attack the people that are helping other that I resent.
I suggest you read the First Admendment. Amazing, I thought you
supported choice, so how can you object to free speech?
Bill
Andrew McCormick
In article <Pine.A41.3.95a.971019122309.73122E-100000@sp049>, "Alan J.
Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Andrew McCormick wrote:
>
>> * The Mac is the second most popular computer for World Wide Web
>> servers; over 20 percent are Macs (Georgia Institute of Technology).
>
>I have no idea what this number is supposed to mean. The most
>popular web server, last time I looked, was Apache, and that rarely
>runs on a Mac.
>
>Of course Apache runs on quite a number of different architectures and
>OSs, and quite a large number of different computer models, each one
>accounting for a tiny fraction of the whole. But "the Mac" isn't just
>one machine, either.
Geez...I wish I could remember the URL - I looked at it about a month
ago. It listed WebSTAR as the second most popular server. And, yeah,
there is *one* port of Apache to the MacOS (WebTen from Tenon). But
WebSTAR is the most frequently used web server for the Mac OS.
>What's your opinion on the "top servers" table at
>http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/
>
> The percentage of Macintosh specific servers,
> .. is now 2.62 (from 2.69 last month).
After looking at that page, we're both right. It depends on how you want
to measure the numbers. Basically, my statistic is saying that "20% of
the copies of web server software running are on the Mac OS". The
netcraft numbers are saying "2.62 % of hostnames are being hosted on Mac
OS web servers". With the fact that a large number web sites are being
hosted on "hosting farms" usually running Apache or some server for NT,
with tens or hundreds of hostnames on one machine (and one copy of the
server software) its clear how these numbers vary so much.
Andrew McCormick
In article <344b1852...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com (William
G. Schlake) wrote:
>Where have I ever posted I'm right? I merely express my opinion. Maybe
>because I write in a manner that's readable and use common sense, my
>message comes through louder than those that continue to spout
>superiority. There is no so-called "right" way to do things. There's
>merely choices. Yes, for sure I have repeatedly reminded that it is
>indeed a Windows world and 9 out of 10 people use either Netscape or
>IE as their browser and that many pages use an accept the extensions.
>Because DUH, that's the way things are. In contrast, the purists
>snarl, whine, and engage in endless arguments over the most trivial of
>issues and call everyone that won't follow W3C standards to the letter
>a dummy or far worse. I merely hold up the mirror. Clearly, many don't
>like what they see.
And I have pointed out that it's not a Windows world.
9 out of 10 use Netscape or IE. Which version? I know some folks at NASA
are still using NN 1.1. How many people are on the web? What's 10% of
that? Do you really want to make it difficult for that 10% (your number)
to access your site?
*My* Web sites are accessible to at least 9.9 out of 10 browsing
situations. And they can be just as attractive, effective and informative
as those that aren't. If not more. I don't lop off hundreds of thousands
if not millions of users just because I can, or because its a little
easier.
It won't always be a NS/MS world. It used to be an IBM World. It used to
be a Lotus 1-2-3 world. There's a lot of software that used to be
standard that isn't any more. My web pages will work in 1 year, 5 years,
10 years. Will yours?
>As far as being professional, I'm afraid that's far too broad a brush
>to use. One definition of the word relates to one's skill level and
>experience. Accordingly, many teens and even younger could be called
>professional and some of the pages they crank out put those whom you
>define as professional's to shame. And so it goes in the real world.
>As far as Alan, my gripe is his attitude. Someone should explain to
>him you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. While I'm sure
>there's some exceptions, the typical Alan post is sarcastic, snobbish,
>and even dictating. Not my idea of how an "expert" should conduct
>himself in a public newsgroup and not a proven method for winning
>converts.
Professional? I suppose what I mean by that is that its my job. I would
have no income, if not for web development.
Hm. Your gripe with Alan is his attitude. So you're saying that he's right?
>Nor can I. I'd say he enjoys playing the role of some self-elected
>authority figure in this newsgroup and simply can't control his
>dislike of Microsoft and Netscape which colors most of his posts.
>Ditto for many purists, they can't either. In my book, that
>automatically disqualifies anyone doing that since they only
>demonstrate they can't really be objective.
They (and I) dislike what MS/NS has done, because its bastardized the
web. Have you seen the discussions of <OBJECT> and <FIG> that have
floated around. And <LINK>? And instead we got <BLINK> and <SPACER>?
I'd be upset too. The HTML 3.0 spec would have been *so* much more useful
to me as a designer, and to my audience as browsers than 3.2 is. So yeah,
I'm upset. As so we warn against future downgrade - we encourage people
to choose alternate, more powerful client software so that the so-called
"gods" of the web get the idea that people want better products. It's a
losing battle(*), but hey...I'm just out of college. Don't ask me to sell
out my principles just yet.
(*)Not really...HTML 4.0 is taking some steps.
>And I resent some constantly suggesting they are professional, others
>aren't. I resent the snobbish I'm right, your wrong. I resent the all
>to frequent smart-ass answers. I resent the constant ranting over the
>browsers most people use and the endless silliness where you think
>every web page should be made accessible to every browser. Funny, the
>theme song of the purists is choice. Shame you can hum the melody but
>remain clueless to the words.
Choice? MS or NS, right? Country or Western? How come I want the choice
to view web pages over a palmtop or via dialup, because that might be the
only thing I have. And you tell me to get rid of that wimpy browser.
Choice. Yeah...sit in the back of the bus, or don't ride at all.
>I suggest you read the First Admendment. Amazing, I thought you
>supported choice, so how can you object to free speech?
I'm trying to limit your freedom of speech now. Hm. I've yet to censor
one of your posts. I've yet to snip your connection to the Internet. At
best, I've merely pointed out that you're espousing some misguided
development philosophies.
And you've yet to answer the challenge:
Name (1) one good reason to limit the scalability of the web page.
Dan Johnson
William G. Schlake wrote:
>
> Yes, for sure I have repeatedly reminded that it is
> indeed a Windows world and 9 out of 10 people use either Netscape or
> IE as their browser and that many pages use an accept the extensions.
> Because DUH, that's the way things are.
Hi Bill,
I have heard that ratio a lot and do not doubt that data is out there to
support it. Yet when I look at my local free-net and see a vast user
base that is surfing on Lynx and know that there are countless more such
users on countless more free access sites I begin to ponder about the
stats.
Say I was a user on a system that only supported Lynx. When surfing from
there I come across a site that is not very friendly to my browser. I
would be much less likely to book mark it and return. Nor would I pass
the URL along to another user at my site. So the stats could be
deceptive if gathered from un-text browser friendly sites. They should,
naturally, show that most of their clients are GUI browsers; as the rest
will turn away at the door and not return.
I would be interested to be pointed at any hard data on the subject.
- Booner
--------------------------------------------------------------
email : boo...@bilby.com
Home Site : http://www.bilby.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew McCormick
>>Name (1) one good reason to limit the scalability of the web page.
And yet this simple statement goes unanswered.
Andrew McCormick
William G. Schlake
>In article <344b1852...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com (William
>G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>>Where have I ever posted I'm right? I merely express my opinion. Maybe
>>because I write in a manner that's readable and use common sense, my
>>message comes through louder than those that continue to spout
>>superiority. There is no so-called "right" way to do things. There's
>>merely choices. Yes, for sure I have repeatedly reminded that it is
>>indeed a Windows world and 9 out of 10 people use either Netscape or
>>IE as their browser and that many pages use an accept the extensions.
>>Because DUH, that's the way things are. In contrast, the purists
>>snarl, whine, and engage in endless arguments over the most trivial of
>>issues and call everyone that won't follow W3C standards to the letter
>>a dummy or far worse. I merely hold up the mirror. Clearly, many don't
>>like what they see.
>
>And I have pointed out that it's not a Windows world.
Well I guess you think the sky isn't blue and the sun rises in the
West. Think it so if you must. I prefer to accept reality.
>9 out of 10 use Netscape or IE. Which version? I know some folks at NASA
>are still using NN 1.1. How many people are on the web? What's 10% of
>that? Do you really want to make it difficult for that 10% (your number)
>to access your site?
So? The computers are junk too. You know NASA has been having their
funding cut back heavily. Your point? I wish you could be more
original. You assume...incorrectly I want to make it difficult for the
10% (or whatever the number is), and it simply isn't so. Instead I
prefer to design for what people use first. I'll fill in later with
alternate pages.
>*My* Web sites are accessible to at least 9.9 out of 10 browsing
>situations. And they can be just as attractive, effective and informative
>as those that aren't. If not more. I don't lop off hundreds of thousands
>if not millions of users just because I can, or because its a little
>easier.
I see you're an accomplished ego stroker. Sorry, I'm not impressed.
>It won't always be a NS/MS world. It used to be an IBM World. It used to
>be a Lotus 1-2-3 world. There's a lot of software that used to be
>standard that isn't any more. My web pages will work in 1 year, 5 years,
>10 years. Will yours?
I know you and others here would love to see NS/MS drop market share.
They may, but I wouldn't bet on it. You know you've said you didn't
even see my site, except for the first page. Aren't you being a tad
bit premature in judging my site, especially when I've told this bunch
repeatedly it is currently only in a mock-up stage?
>>As far as being professional, I'm afraid that's far too broad a brush
>>to use. One definition of the word relates to one's skill level and
>>experience. Accordingly, many teens and even younger could be called
>>professional and some of the pages they crank out put those whom you
>>define as professional's to shame. And so it goes in the real world.
>>As far as Alan, my gripe is his attitude. Someone should explain to
>>him you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. While I'm sure
>>there's some exceptions, the typical Alan post is sarcastic, snobbish,
>>and even dictating. Not my idea of how an "expert" should conduct
>>himself in a public newsgroup and not a proven method for winning
>>converts.
>
>Professional? I suppose what I mean by that is that its my job. I would
>have no income, if not for web development.
You mean you didn't have gainful employment five years ago? I bet your
one of those college dreamers who thinks he's the greatest thing to
come along since sliced bread. I got news for you. You're not the
first and you sure won't be the last to see the world through rose
colored glasses.
>Hm. Your gripe with Alan is his attitude. So you're saying that he's right?
What I've read of Alan's posts and other's here, it's hard to judge
what the knowledge of the author is because it's most often submerged
under hostility, insults and newbie bashing. You think that's
professional?
>>Nor can I. I'd say he enjoys playing the role of some self-elected
>>authority figure in this newsgroup and simply can't control his
>>dislike of Microsoft and Netscape which colors most of his posts.
>>Ditto for many purists, they can't either. In my book, that
>>automatically disqualifies anyone doing that since they only
>>demonstrate they can't really be objective.
>
>They (and I) dislike what MS/NS has done, because its bastardized the
>web. Have you seen the discussions of <OBJECT> and <FIG> that have
>floated around. And <LINK>? And instead we got <BLINK> and <SPACER>?
>I'd be upset too.
It's much deeper than that. It's no secret that many here HATE
Netscape and Microsoft. Seems you do too. Like I have said several
times, I don't like what Netscape or Microsoft done either. I simply
accept it. You and the W3C hot heads can't.
Understand a simple concept. It's not their Web. It's not your Web or
my Web, it's simply THE WEB. Public. Like other things, it evolves
over time. You, others, don't like the direction it is evolving in.
You said you design Web pages for a living. Fine. Got a question for
you then. If it were not for Netscape and Microsoft opening the Web to
Mr. Public, who the hell do you think you would be designing Web pages
for? You should be thanking Netscape and Microsoft, not bashing them.
The heart of the problem is easy to see. Many here are royally pissed
off "their" Web has be taken over and is no longer their private play
thing they get to hog for their own selfish reasons. I laugh.
>The HTML 3.0 spec would have been *so* much more useful
>to me as a designer, and to my audience as browsers than 3.2 is. So yeah,
>I'm upset. As so we warn against future downgrade - we encourage people
>to choose alternate, more powerful client software so that the so-called
>"gods" of the web get the idea that people want better products. It's a
>losing battle(*), but hey...I'm just out of college. Don't ask me to sell
>out my principles just yet.
I though so. You have a LOT of growing up to do. You still don't
understand how the real world works. Not to worry, you will in time
learn. The sooner you see the world as it is, the better off you will
be. It's ain't pretty at the time, but it's workable.
>(*)Not really...HTML 4.0 is taking some steps.
>
>>And I resent some constantly suggesting they are professional, others
>>aren't. I resent the snobbish I'm right, your wrong. I resent the all
>>to frequent smart-ass answers. I resent the constant ranting over the
>>browsers most people use and the endless silliness where you think
>>every web page should be made accessible to every browser. Funny, the
>>theme song of the purists is choice. Shame you can hum the melody but
>>remain clueless to the words.
>
>Choice? MS or NS, right? Country or Western? How come I want the choice
>to view web pages over a palmtop or via dialup, because that might be the
>only thing I have. And you tell me to get rid of that wimpy browser.
>Choice. Yeah...sit in the back of the bus, or don't ride at all.
No, you have a right to get on the bus if you have the correct fare.
You have a right to sit down if you find an empty seat. You have a
right for the bus to stop at it's appointed stops. You on the other
hand demand to sit where you want. You expect someone to give you
their seat and the bus to stop in the middle of the block. The real
world don't work that way. It's MY bus. You want things your way, form
your own bus company.
>>I suggest you read the First Admendment. Amazing, I thought you
>>supported choice, so how can you object to free speech?
>
>I'm trying to limit your freedom of speech now. Hm. I've yet to censor
>one of your posts. I've yet to snip your connection to the Internet. At
>best, I've merely pointed out that you're espousing some misguided
>development philosophies.
Nope. Choice means choice for everyone. You get to choose your
browser. You get to choose your PC. You get to choose your provider.
You get to choose your modem, when you dial in and where your surf.
I, as the developer of Web sites get to choose how I design them. If
you're smart, you use what the majority of people use to surf the Web.
You rather be different. Fine, your choice, be different. You do not
get to tell me I got to change because that interferes with my choice.
That's real life. That's real choice. Learn.
>And you've yet to answer the challenge:
You have yet to understand.
Bill
William G. Schlake
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:10:26 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
McCormick) wrote:
>In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
>(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
>shouldn't be surprised by this.
No, I'm not the one that isn't surprised. Obviously, you missed the
entire point of the story, so I guess I'll have to spell it out for
you because you couldn't figure out the metaphors in the context of
the Net which of course was the whole point of the story.
In my story when Mr. Purist enters the parking lot instead of simply
parking his car like everyone else, he wants to CHANGE the parking lot
so a few more cars will fit. This is the purists demanding that every
page be made accessible to every visitor. You should have paid
particular attention to my pointing out it was a 500 car parking lot.
At a simple level I'm saying there's plenty of places to park. For the
Web, there's all kinds of browsers. In the parking lot, if possible
most people will park as close to the store as they can since it makes
sense. That symbolically illustrates that most people have chosen
either Netscape or IE. In the parking lot, the purists being usually
tilted somewhat off center prefer to park elsewhere for a variety of
reasons even if there is room closer to the store just like they pick
"different" browsers.
At a deeper level, Mr Purist found fault in that the spaces were too
narrow by only half and inch. I assume you can do simple math. That
means if the lot was re striped, only a few more cars would fit. What
am I saying here? Most people have chosen Netscape or IE. While for
sure some don't, they are insignificant as far as marketing to them is
concerned. You don't have to reach every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a
successful or useful Web site.
The point with Mr. Purist not liking the music and demanding it be
turned off illustrates how stubborn Purists tend to be. The point here
was the "we hate all extension" mindset of the purists while clearly
they're embraced by millions and do have some value and are already
part of Web Culture. So, like it's unreasonable to demand the music be
turned off because a few don't like it, it is equally unreasonable to
squeal loudly about the extensions where many are not as bad as the
purists would have you believe and most people like at least some of
them.
The part with the apples drives home the constant drum beat of do it
my way or your wrong which is heard so often in this newsgroup. You
see, in the story Mr. Purist didn't care he bruised 200 apples,
because he got the two he wanted, again a narrow view that could
symbolically represent many things the Purists keep whining about and
wishing for when many have a very limited use and can already be done
other ways.
The bananas? The constant bashing of frames, Java, Java
script...anything and everything in Mr. Purist's narrow view he
labels unacceptable. At a deeper level, saying most everyone preferred
to take their bananas "green" was metaphorically saying people
understand Java and other such things aren't quite ready for prime
time, but shortly will be. Mr. Purist demanding over ripe bananas
again illustrates Mr. Purist wants nothing to do with anything new and
prefers old "over ripe" things instead, like <pre> and rejects,
frames, tables, etc..
I think the best part of the whole story was Mr. Purist at the
delicatessen counter first getting the number double zero then yelling
there is no such number and later belly-aching that they should slice
his ham exactly 1/64 of an inch and finally making unrealistic demands
that the rectangular ham be trimmed to fit the round bread he
selected.
Of course getting double zero had nothing to do with getting served,
he was nit picking. Ditto for wanting a specific thickness on his ham
and then complaining the ham didn't conform to the bread he bought.
That is all that's ever "discussed" in this newsgroup: The fluff.
The parallels? The obsession of "I got to make my code pretty." I got
to be careful it validates. Ignoring the "meat" ... if the page works
or not on the browsers people actually use. The theme song of the
purist camp, and like was pointing out on my page, is constant
looking for something to argue about.
The demanding the ham be trimmed to fit the bread is the constant high
noise level...the only "acceptable" way to code pages is to follow
strict W3C guidelines. The clerk throwing the ham at Mr. Purist
should not be lost either. Symbolically, I'm saying enough of the our
way or no way. There's more than one way to code HTML. If someone
wants to go beyond the limits of W3C that does not mean they're
stupid, or lazy. What it actually means is they are leaders. W3C
loyalists are followers tripping over each other trying to get new
drafts accepted to fan the flames of more arguing, which is what they
live for.
I'll stop here, since I hope you get by now what I'm saying.
Bill
William G. Schlake
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:34:30 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
McCormick) wrote:
>In article <344a2b49...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
>(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:10:26 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
>>McCormick) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
>>>(William G. Schlake) wrote:
>>>
>>>You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
>>>shouldn't be surprised by this.
>>No, I'm not the one that isn't surprised. Obviously, you missed the
>>entire point of the story, so I guess I'll have to spell it out for
>>you because you couldn't figure out the metaphors in the context of
>>the Net which of course was the whole point of the story.
>>
>[blah blah blah snipped]
>And you *still* haven't answered the fact that my LandRover (say, browsing
>with Lynx or Newton) won't fit in your parking spaces (be able to view
>your web site)
>Of course, that doesn't really matter, since apparently *no* browser can
>view your web site, http://www.hobsonsquare.com/
Geez, are some people dense. Since several asked I posted my URL after
explaining several times it's not even open to the public yet. In
another thread I also reported my provider had just undertaken a major
move after installing a T3 from a new backbone which resulted in
physically moving much of their hardware several miles. While this was
going on, during the past couple days their upstream and my provider
directly have come under several denial of service attacks which so
far they have traced to Germany. Obviously under such conditions many
people will have trouble connecting to my site. I'm sorry you remain
clueless on how the Net works and need to blame me for things beyond
my control. Seems very petty to me, but not unexpected.
As far as me answering, I did explain...twice. Since posting, I've
received about 40 emails. Upon reading those messages it's clear to me
those people understood. Again you didn't, but you choose to blame me
for your ignorance. I'm just sitting here shaking my head.
Your LandRover "question" has no merit if you're applying it to my
site since for the forth time now I've said it isn't finished and
providing for the few lamers who just got to paddle upstream, comes
way down on my list.
Bill
>Andrew McCormick
William G. Schlake
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>> I see your reading comprehension skills need
>> improvement.
>
>Drop it already, man.
>Obviously you're having an argument with people
>who have had good educations. But you ignore that. Just as you
>ignore finding any evidence for your claims and ignore using good
>arguments instead of childish insults.
Wow, you really are going off the deep end. I have seen little
expertise here. I have seen no civility. However I have seen much
blustering, posturing, chest beating and strutting around. I have seen
great amounts of "is too" "is not" and for sure I've seen many lose
their cool simply because they can't handle the mirror being held up
to help them see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
Finally, for a bunch that supposedly (as you suggest) have good
educations, I find the typical post lacking any originality,
createivity, and totally absent any humor, kindness or anything
approaching what one would expect. I see only anger, resentment and
attacks on outsiders and newbies whom you view as your roudy and
misguided subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
royalists.
Bill
Dan McGarry
>Turner) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
>>
>>> I see your reading comprehension skills need
>>> improvement.
>>
>>Drop it already, man.
>
>>Obviously you're having an argument with people
>>who have had good educations. But you ignore that. Just as you
>>ignore finding any evidence for your claims and ignore using good
>>arguments instead of childish insults.
>
>Wow, you really are going off the deep end. I have seen little
>expertise here. I have seen no civility. However I have seen much
>blustering, posturing, chest beating and strutting around. I have seen
>great amounts of "is too" "is not" and for sure I've seen many lose
>their cool simply because they can't handle the mirror being held up
>to help them see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
>Finally, for a bunch that supposedly (as you suggest) have good
>educations, I find the typical post lacking any originality,
>createivity, and totally absent any humor, kindness or anything
That's because, rather than re-write _An Enemy of the People_, _Brave New
World_ and/or numerous other visions of a world ruled by the same blind
conformity and fundamental timidity that you so glibly and thoughtlessly
espouse, the majority of those to whom you have given the title "purists"
are a little too busy trying to achieve some use for HTML beyond the
creation of pale imitations of TV commercials.
(I know I'm going to have nightmares about that soulless female voice
whispering "Welcome..." every time I backed out to the Hobson *CUBE* main
page, vainly hoping that there might be *some* tiny hint of originality.)
And while we're on the subject of creativity: You're no Johnathan Swift, and
that was no "Modest Proposal". [Sound of William G. Schlake emitting puzzled
grunt, trying to remember whether Swift writes for Marvel or DC comics....]
>approaching what one would expect. I see only anger, resentment and
>attacks on outsiders and newbies whom you view as your roudy and
>misguided subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
>royalists.
Abigail
++ It is a Windows world. Ask Apple. Geez, even Billy G, felt sorry for
++ them and gave them some walk-around money before they went belly up or
++ laid off most of their employees. The question I've got for the Mac
++ crowd is if Mac's are so superior why is it they now have less than 5%
++ market share and never had more than around 10% and that includes
++ dumping them in our schools if I remember correctly? My reply to your
++ earlier question was more towards your palm toy you mentioned. Using
++ such a thing to surf the Web is kind of silly. Like using a VW Bug to
++ tow your 40 foot trailer up a steep hill. Sure, you could I guess, the
++ question is why the heck would you want to?
Because maybe the VW bug is all they have.
Why would you want to place a steep hill in their way?
Liam Quinn
Conformity rules, eh?
--
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Charles Gimon
Andrew McCormick <smi...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
: HTML is like a horse with four legs. Some people want to cut off two of
: those legs just because they think a horse with two legs is cool.
: Andrew McCormick
: (gee...it'd be neat if someone quoted that somewhere else, but I'm not
: holding my breath. It'll never be as cool at that Tim Berners-Lee quote
: that I want to design some artwork around.)
See .sig.
--
HTML is like a horse with four legs. Some | gim...@skypoint.com
people want to cut off two of those legs | Minneapolis MN USA
just because they think a horse with two | http://www.skypoint.com/~gimonca
legs is cool. --Andrew McCormick | A lean, mean meme machine.
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
> I see only anger, resentment and attacks on outsiders
> and newbies whom you view as your roudy and misguided
> subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
> royalists.
While I agree that the tone of this newsgroup is not very conducive to
good debate and objective discussion, I do think that the reason you
think it's so hostile here is because the only threads you're reading
are the ones in which you argue against the rest of the newsgroup.
I think this newsgroup could be a bit more forgiving to those who
don't know as much about HTML, and could give more down-to-earth
answers to questions, appropriate to the knowledge the questioner has
of HTML. However, I do not think that c.i.w.ah. should baby its
readers.
But that's beside the point. All I was saying was you insult and
condescend people here, even though they KNOW what they're doing and
deserve to be treated with SOME respect.
You are, in effect, by flaming the shit out of people who know quite a
lot about HTML and the Web, doing exactly what I HATE. And seemingly,
what you hate as well (flaming those who deserve to be treated
better).
I don't know why you group me with the "purists" you hate so much.
Your doing so only shows how much you are blinding yourself to
objectivity -- I know you have visited my site and I know mine exceeds
the visual quality of YOUR site.
And I'm just an amateur. Seems like you don't know much about HTML OR
style/design/layout. Why don't you eat some humble pie and learn from
people who know more than you about a specific subject instead of
stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference between the attitude
of the regulars (what you are attacking) and the knowledge they
possess?
B, incoherent as ever. Hemingway, in his style, he is not. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNErDOTht+nuXAiYfEQICLwCbB6ZTIQLUxhs0JjfZHCpRwvDyG7UAoNLO
oM5a5fPQ5Z7x4eiMx+vcDGv7
=BTZV
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
> Yes, for sure I have repeatedly reminded that it is
> indeed a Windows world and 9 out of 10 people use
> either Netscape or IE as their browser and that many
> pages use an accept the extensions.
I use MSIE 4.0 as my main browser. I don't use Opera or Lynx or the
other browsers you probably haven't even tried yet speak against
intimately. :) Most of my hits to the main page come from NN and MSIE
3.0+ and their variants. I provide content using RealAudio and frames
and a little bit of DHTML and stylesheets and Javascript.
However, I DO only implement them if they degrade gracefully. Why?
Because sometimes people don't WANT to download all that junk.
Sometimes they just want to see the raw HTML. Sometimes people don't
want to hear sound. Sometimes people have problems running Java (like
me) and whatnot, regardless of how good their computer is. Sometimes
people disable frames (if they can) because they don't want their
screen cluttered or whatever.
The point is that all those latest and greatest features do NOT make
my site. My site does not RELY on silly tricks and features to make
it a good site. People come and return to my site for the written
content, the words and ideas I express. I give my reader as much
choice as is feasibly possible so he can determine how he wants to
view my site. Granted, I do some things which "purists" would
disdain, but I have thought about each and every single case
separately and have decided to use this or that for a reason.
You seem to think that using the latest and greatest tags
automatically make a site stunning and fresh and wonderful.
Otherwise, you would take the small amount of time to add an
alternative to whatever new tag or whatever you're using. It's NOT
that hard, but you make it out to be.
I would be interested to see how many return visitors you get to your
site. How many times will they come back to see a Javascript effect
sweeping through all the pages on the 'Net? How many visitors are
coming back to read fresh content?
The message and content are the important things -- the style is
there, basically, to dress up the content. And since no one has
anything to say, it's all in the presentation these days. :)
B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNErGbDht+nuXAiYfEQJj+gCgr4wRNFO42+CLn8CdQUQ2UFzfV50AoPOv
Hxlde7aDB/1DY5TgejS0FxsS
=b4jS
William G. Schlake
On 20 Oct 1997 13:52:56 +0200, gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson)
wrote:
>In article <344e244c...@news.enteract.com>,
>William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Question: Why didn't he at this point realize that this
>wasn't a supermarket which wanted to serve customers of
>all kinds and just leave for another, better run and more
>customer friendly?
> It couldn't be because he knew this was the only one which
>had bananas of the sort he likes.
> Mr P. wanted to see what it was like to be a sheep in
>flock? Probably not a lifestyle which would fit him very
>well...
Shame, you missed the entire point of the story. Not surprising, some
here now need to tell the author who wrote the story, what it's about.
Typical example of what I'm saying. It's call arrogance, which flows
in this newsgroup like a mighty river.
Mr. Purist wandered into one situation after another in my fictional
grocery store. He tried to impose his rigid view of things on the
majority, only to be rejected time after time.
He simply couldn't understand why there was a number double zero, why
he couldn't get his ham sliced exactly like he wanted. Why they
wouldn't trim the rectangular slices to conform to the round bread he
had chosen. He didn't like the hot dogs where shorter than the buns.
Why the hamburger patties were square and didn't quite go with the
round buns, etc., etc..
The parallels seem lost on those that enjoy preaching the "right" way
to do things in this newsgroup. Mr. Purist, while well meaning, has a
distorted view of how the real world works. Mr. Purist is a
nonconformist that likes to demand others do things his way. Mr.
Purist can't understand why all his blustering and constant nit
picking isn't seen as help like he imagines it to be, but rather
mostly noise.
Mr. Purist while he may be smart is at the same time very dumb for not
understanding. No, Mr. Purist isn't a sheep, a mule would be closer.
Bill
Timothy R Prodin
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
[preface to the tale snipped]
You will note, however, the (not so) subtle ad hominim
attacks contained throughout this story.
>Pulling into the parking lot of the supermarket, he noticed right away
>that if they would redo the parking stripes, more cars could fit in
>the 500 car lot. He pulled out his notepad that's always present and
There are standards (building codes, local ordinances, zoning
regulations) that control the width of parking lot stripes. So, this
really isn't up to debate. Either a parking lot is layed out to code,
or it isn't.
>Hurrying into the store, Mr. Purist heard music. It wasn't music he
>liked. In fact, Mr. Purist doesn't like any music. He demanded they
>turn it off.
The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
music is presented in a standard way.
The proper analogy would be if the music were critical to getting
groceries; and the shopper had to bring their own equipment to hear the
music, that there were two different standards for that equipment, and
the shopper doesn't know until after they are in the store which one
they needed.
Of corse, the rest of this goes on, and on, and on; failing
to make comments on point and failing to properly connect
the analogies to the web.
Dave Williams
In article <344a2b49...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com (William
G. Schlake) wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:10:26 -0400, smi...@sprintmail.com (Andrew
> McCormick) wrote:
>
> >In article <344911de...@news.enteract.com>, w...@enteract.com
> >(William G. Schlake) wrote:
> >
> >You've failed, however, to respond to my assertions. I suppose I
> >shouldn't be surprised by this.
> No, I'm not the one that isn't surprised. Obviously, you missed the
> entire point of the story, so I guess I'll have to spell it out for
> you because you couldn't figure out the metaphors in the context of
> the Net which of course was the whole point of the story.
>
> In my story when Mr. Purist enters the parking lot instead of simply
> parking his car like everyone else, he wants to CHANGE the parking lot
> so a few more cars will fit. This is the purists demanding that every
> page be made accessible to every visitor.
I would think think the purists want to fit in the space that was there
(HTML) rather than trying to make their own space ("extensions," etc.). Are
you really asserting that it's the purists who refuse to accept
limitations?
The "parking lot" of HTML fit lots of cars originally (all of them,
actually). Then the "extensions" crowd came along and re-drew the lines to
create a parking lot holding fewer cars. Let's not put the cart before the
horse here.
And Mr. Purist wouldn't try to change the lot back himself, but if the
store manager asked his advice, he might point out that the store could
handle more business if the lot held the original number of cars, rather
than the reduced number.
Dave Williams "A burro is an ass. A burrow is a hole in the
IN Jersey ground. As a journalist, you are expected to
www.injersey.com know the difference." - UPI Stylebook
Patti Barbiero
William G. Schlake wrote:
> Actually, my first post (10/6) to this group was very mild. One of the
> reasons I decided to post here was because the HTML Princess (who also
> likes to hang out here) and has been strangely and totally out of
> character by her silence, invaded alt.hmtl where I post frequently
> committing what I consider a capital offense. Namely, telling someone
> they had no business putting up their page since there were already
> many like it and it wasn't needed and not well done and of course it
> didn't validate which she ranted on and on endlessly. She was in MHO
> extremely rude and did nothing but cause a distruption. I don't need
> to wonder where she picked up such an attitude!
The message in question, was an advertisement of yet another "HTML
Tutorial" that did not represent even a slight resemblance to correct
HTML. I merely pointed that out, so that novices that read alt.html
would not be fooled into believing that such a self-proclaimed expert
was indeed that. I did not tell him he should not put up a page, or
rant or anything of the sort. You typically mischaracterize me, my
posts, and my behaviour.
I haven't had much net access lately, due to my computer being down. I
also rarely post when I see others already posting, in a much more
informed or eloquent fashion than I am capable of.
I have also pretty much decided it is pointless to argue with a troll
that has demonstrated more than once that his hard knowledge of HTML is
less than substantial.
You do not wish to have your work judged by objective standards - fine.
However your agenda is the eradication of standards - perhaps out of
fear of having your own work judged and found wanting?
Patti Barbiero - pa...@iname.com
Keith Baird
as a metaphor for Web browsing]
Read the sequel, "HTML Babbitt's Day Out"
H.Babbitt drove to the store one day. When he arrived at the parking
lot his way was blocked and he read a sign that said "Your vehicle is
aesthetically incompatible with this lot; we suggest you go off and buy
yourself a decent automobile _HERE_."
Imagine his frustration! He wrote an angry letter to the management
complaining about this arbitrary state of affairs. Within the week
they replied asserting their right to design a carpark as they like;
for those in H.Babbitt's situation, however, they had modified the
lot and hoped the new improved version would meet his needs.
Babbitt immediately hopped into his trusty conveyance, drove to the
store, and at the entrance to the parking lot found a new sign which
read "Your vehicle is incompatible with this lot; we suggest you go
off and buy yourself a decent automobile _HERE_. Alternatively, you
may wish to park in our new second carpark, which is more distant,
less convenient, and provides access only to limited areas of the
store where you will not receive full service."
-Fin-
--/<eith
William G. Schlake
On 20 Oct 1997 15:45:15 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
wrote:
>
>William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>[preface to the tale snipped]
>
>You will note, however, the (not so) subtle ad hominim
>attacks contained throughout this story.
>
>>Pulling into the parking lot of the supermarket, he noticed right away
>>that if they would redo the parking stripes, more cars could fit in
>>the 500 car lot. He pulled out his notepad that's always present and
>
>There are standards (building codes, local ordinances, zoning
>regulations) that control the width of parking lot stripes. So, this
>really isn't up to debate. Either a parking lot is layed out to code,
>or it isn't.
Nice try...but read that part again, carefully. Mr. Purist noted the
stripes were off by a mere half inch. I did make a typo and said too
short, where I meant to say they were too wide. Let's not quibble over
a typo. The point lost, was redoing the entire parking lot simply
because the stripes were off by half an inch. Could have just been the
stall Mr. Purist parked in! :o) Surely you don't support wasting tax
dollars for some inspector crawling around with a tape measure,
measuring 500 stalls, then finding minor irregularities, making them
do the entire row or geez the entire lot all over. Or do you? You
focused on fluff, not substance. A common pastime with purists.
>
>>Hurrying into the store, Mr. Purist heard music. It wasn't music he
>>liked. In fact, Mr. Purist doesn't like any music. He demanded they
>>turn it off.
>
>The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
>grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
>music is presented in a standard way.
Note again, Mr. Purist could not accept that. He demanded they turn
the music off. That was an unreasonable request since many shoppers
like the music and the store uses it to advantage to keep customers in
the store longer and in a good mood, hopefully so they buy more. You
need to learn more about how marketing works. :o)
>The proper analogy would be if the music were critical to getting
>groceries; and the shopper had to bring their own equipment to hear the
>music, that there were two different standards for that equipment, and
>the shopper doesn't know until after they are in the store which one
>they needed.
Not the purpose of the analogy. My point, a simple one. What Mr.
Purist was saying was my way or no way. Not a practical position. The
same one that's the purist's theme song here. You know, do it
according to W3C or you're a dummy. I reject that narrow thinking. I
let people choose how they make their Web pages since it is their
choice. The purists twist it around and demand everyone make their
sites so everyone can see them. That's not choice. If people choose to
do so, that IS choice. Choosing not to do so is just another choice.
Have I ever said people should choose to lock people out? No! I'm
simply saying let Web authors choose.
>Of corse, the rest of this goes on, and on, and on; failing
>to make comments on point and failing to properly connect
>the analogies to the web.
If you can't make the connections, it is more likely I was talking
over your head. Shame, of the now over 100 people that took the time
to email me, only 4 so far "didn't get it", so I'd say YOU missed it,
but in true purist fashion, it's my fault you don't understand.
Bill
Jamie Jones
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:35:40 GMT,
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com>
wrote in newsgroup comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
[ more rantings about car parks and store music ]
Sigh.... Silly Billy.
You're so tiring
*plonk*
Tero Paananen
In <344ba37...@news.infi.net> G...@Old-Hippy.com (Gil Harvey) writes:
> Well, I've stayed out of this one so far. Mainly
>because no one on either side has said anything really new,
>or even very interesting :-).
For once, I agree with the hippie :)
> But....
And again, damn twice a day...geez...
> Reading the above statement reenforced the fact of how
>little "some" know about marketing/retail sales, An
>Advertising Age Article sometime around the summer of '88 (I
>kept the pages, but not the cover), goes into great detail
>on this exact subject. To make a long story short (and less
>boring to those that do not care anyway) Bloomingdales spent
>over $100,000.00 that year on research to find what music
>had the greatest influence (positive) on shoppers.
>Winn-Dixie spent over 150 thousand.
Good points.
Then again, customers in a grocery store don't have to wait in
lines for the elevator music (replace with non-essential gimmicks
when analogy applies to web sites) to load and then come up in
so crappy quality that people say: "This is what I waited for??? I
could've been outta here already!"
-TPP - Next big thing in marketing: How To Smell To Sell, in
bookstores everywhere next spring, preorder yours while
they're still available!
PS. And don't even dare to read some of the sci-fi books about
"positive" marketing methods, hopefully the authors are wrong
(this time).
--
--
Nanoteknologia: Epämääräinen käsite, joka voi tarkoittaa
kotikielessä mitä tahansa ajattelu- tai muuta prosessia, johon
tiede ei vielä löydä selitystä. - Jussi Luukkonen (To The Point)
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
> Maybe you didn't start out being as I've seen you,
> however some of what I detest in the purists seems
> to have rubbed off on you.
I agree with some things the "purists" say and some things the anti
"purists" say. Both have valid points. I'm somewhere in the middle.
So say what you want...I probably agree with many things you say, as
well. It's just easier to group me against you, I suppose, instead of
perhaps trying to have a reasonable discussion.
> Geez, I guess your beyond the point of even
> trying to reason with. Every time I see that
> kind of self-serving boasting you just made, I
> just shake my head.
Excuse me? The reason I compared MY site to yours was to match YOUR
arrogant, boasting, juvenile tone. I treat people how they treat me.
I'm quite forgiving at first, to pick away at someone and see what
they're like, but then I treat them how they deserve as I know more
about them. And I saw your thread entitled "How Many Purists Actually
Have A Good Web Page?" and met your challenge. How cocky is THAT?
How humble is that?
Don't you even dare suggest that I started this.
Oh, another problem with insulting people who are known to be rather
intelligent (going back to another one of our little discussions) is
that they will answer in severe words to anything you dish out. There
is no shortage of vehemence on Usenet. :) So I would suggest you not
say that people are picking on you or pushing the issue or whatever:
it's you who originally started all this and it's you who pursue this.
B.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNEvJezht+nuXAiYfEQJP7gCeJapgh67u1f8PkkyfuwD6EHXAp+IAoNWB
WNbcz0zrkFpTW3EmiaFUlKG3
=7ePy
Boris Ammerlaan
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
: On 19 Oct 1997 04:05:28 GMT, abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
: >++ At a simple level I'm saying there's plenty of places to park. For the
: >
: >Oh yeah? Then how come the lady parking next to him said that was
: >the last spot?
: What?
"She said, sir, you're way over the line and this was the last spot"
I'm quoting directly.
: >I can so simple math; but you can't. By making the spaces wider, you can
: >park *less* cars. Of course, there will be more cars that fit, and it's
: >easier to park as well.
: Hey your right! I goofed. Let's check the score board:
: Bill 46 Purists 2
Nice arbitrary score. Apart from your "score" being near 42, I hardly think
writing random numbers is the answer.
: >++ am I saying here? Most people have chosen Netscape or IE. While for
: >
: >Bull. People haven't chosen Netscape or IE. It's being forced upon
: >them. It's like making a parking garage with a low ceiling, so noone
: >with a 4x4 or other high vehicle will park there, and then proudly say:
: >"Look, every one uses low cars anyway, so we don't need higher ceilings".
: Oh no, not that silly story again. I didn't check were you live. In
: the states, we don't have any browser police saying here use this if
: your want to surf the Internet.
Of course you do, in a way. Which browser did your ISP supply you with when
you got "on" the internet? And exactly _how_ much is your ISP charging you by
the hour/Mb? And when you decide you want another browser, do they give you
_any_ support?
I thought not.
: Nobody forced anybody to use Netscape
: or Microsoft.
Just like America Online does not _force_ its clients to use AOL.
: Of course making their browsers "free" don't hurt.
"Free"? Snicker.
: Still
: as usual you fail to consider that nobody else bothered to make a
: serious marketing effort with browsers so really what choice did
: people have?
Hm... ask their sysop?
: Let's see some shareware nobody heard of, or oh, I
: forgot, why not use AOL's or CompuServe's browser. Sure, right!
Although I have not had much (but still some) experience with either, I
would choose them over MSIE & NN any day.
--
Boris Ammerlaan * Mystery quote:
bo...@stack.nl * "An uzi precedes a bloody mess...
http://www.stack.nl/%7Eboris/ * even in China."
Urban Fredriksson
In article <344b5ae...@news.enteract.com>,
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Mr. Purist wandered into one situation after another in my fictional
>grocery store. He tried to impose his rigid view of things on the
>majority, only to be rejected time after time.
As I read it, it was the supermarket which did its best to
impose its view of what "normal" people are like upon
Mr P.
I can understand that you perhaps don't want to paint
lines wide enough to park Humvees everywhere, because then
there'll be fewer spaces to park. But Mr P. must have had
some sort of reason to think the parking spaces should be
at least a certain width, and they weren't. What reason
could he have had? It makes a whole lot of difference if
it was because he himself had thought up a nice width or
not, wouldn't it?
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se http://www.alfaskop.net/%7Egriffon/
Photos from my travels -> http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/travels/travels.html
To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.
William G. Schlake
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>> Maybe you didn't start out being as I've seen you,
>> however some of what I detest in the purists seems
>> to have rubbed off on you.
>
>I agree with some things the "purists" say and some things the anti
>"purists" say. Both have valid points. I'm somewhere in the middle.
>So say what you want...I probably agree with many things you say, as
>well. It's just easier to group me against you, I suppose, instead of
>perhaps trying to have a reasonable discussion.
>
>> Geez, I guess your beyond the point of even
>> trying to reason with. Every time I see that
>> kind of self-serving boasting you just made, I
>> just shake my head.
>
>Excuse me? The reason I compared MY site to yours was to match YOUR
>arrogant, boasting, juvenile tone. I treat people how they treat me.
>I'm quite forgiving at first, to pick away at someone and see what
>they're like, but then I treat them how they deserve as I know more
>about them. And I saw your thread entitled "How Many Purists Actually
>Have A Good Web Page?" and met your challenge. How cocky is THAT?
>How humble is that?
Funny, on my arrogance meter which is scaled from 0-10, you pin the
needle to the right and bend it on nearly every post. My "How Many
Purists Actually Have A Good Web Page" was HUMOR. It isn't surprising
you don't get it.
>Don't you even dare suggest that I started this.
I don't normally play "is too" "is not" which seems to be the only
type of post one finds in this newsgroup. I stooped the that level to
illustrate how stupid it is. Learning?
>Oh, another problem with insulting people who are known to be rather
>intelligent (going back to another one of our little discussions) is
>that they will answer in severe words to anything you dish out. There
>is no shortage of vehemence on Usenet. :) So I would suggest you not
>say that people are picking on you or pushing the issue or whatever:
>it's you who originally started all this and it's you who pursue this.
Oh please, I see nothing but self-appointed ego-strokers here. I see
only arrogance, that isn't intelligence, not even close. I pursue
nothing. I respond as people respond to me. Get a clue.
Bill
Dan McGarry
Andrew McCormick wrote in message ...
>In article <Pine.A41.3.95a.971019122309.73122E-100000@sp049>, "Alan J.
>Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Andrew McCormick wrote:
>>
>>> * The Mac is the second most popular computer for World Wide Web
>>> servers; over 20 percent are Macs (Georgia Institute of Technology).
[snip!]
>>What's your opinion on the "top servers" table at
>>http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/
>>
>> The percentage of Macintosh specific servers,
>> .. is now 2.62 (from 2.69 last month).
>
>After looking at that page, we're both right. It depends on how you want
>to measure the numbers. Basically, my statistic is saying that "20% of
>the copies of web server software running are on the Mac OS". The
>netcraft numbers are saying "2.62 % of hostnames are being hosted on Mac
>OS web servers". With the fact that a large number web sites are being
>hosted on "hosting farms" usually running Apache or some server for NT,
>with tens or hundreds of hostnames on one machine (and one copy of the
>server software) its clear how these numbers vary so much.
So your point is that Mac web servers can't handle nearly the same load as a
decent Apache server...?
8^)
Eric Bohlman
Veronica Karlsson (dr...@on.spammer) wrote:
: So far I haven't removed *anything* to make my homepage readable in
: lynx... (I have added some alt = "XX" to my images and some <br> to sort
: out my tables...) Sure lynx people won't be able to enjoy my java game
: collection but that's a different issue...
Actually, on appropriate platforms they may indeed be able to enjoy your
game collection. Lynx can be configured to fire up the Java applet
viewer as a helper application (just as it can be configured to fire up a
high-quality image viewer for viewing linked images).
William G. Schlake
On 20 Oct 1997 22:00:30 GMT, abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>Gil Harvey (G...@Old-Hippy.com) wrote on 1511 September 1993 in
><URL: news:344ba37...@news.infi.net>:
>++ On 20 Oct 1997 15:45:15 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R
>++ Prodin) wrote:
>++
>++ >The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
>++ >grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
>++ >music is presented in a standard way.
>++
>++ Well, I've stayed out of this one so far. Mainly
>++ because no one on either side has said anything really new,
>++ or even very interesting :-). But....
>++ Reading the above statement reenforced the fact of how
>++ little "some" know about marketing/retail sales, An
>++ Advertising Age Article sometime around the summer of '88 (I
>++ kept the pages, but not the cover), goes into great detail
>++ on this exact subject. To make a long story short (and less
>++ boring to those that do not care anyway) Bloomingdales spent
>++ over $100,000.00 that year on research to find what music
>++ had the greatest influence (positive) on shoppers.
>
>You'd think they spend $100.000 and then ignore any reactions
>of clients? Be them either positive or negative? And I bet they
>certainly considered the option of not playing music.
The idea of the music is to keep the customer in the store, make his
shopping a plesant experience. Same reason they give out samples. Same
reason you'll be hard pressed to find any clocks, they don't want you
to know how much time you're spending in the store.
>Of course, their motivation is to get as much money from your
>wallet. Perhaps you like that idea, but that's not something
>I fancy. Certainly not on the web.
Businesses are in business to make money! I know, it's the same old
tune. YOU DON'T LIKE the direction the Web is going in. Another reason
purists don't like Netscape and Microsoft. They opened the Web to real
people. No more private club. I bet you guys really hate Steve Case
too for his AOL. Millions and millions of green newbies surfing "your"
Web. How dreadful. Hordes putting up their personal home pages that
thumb their nose at the W3C and embrase the extensions. Why that
bothers some I don't know. It's called choice.
>
>The web is not a shop. Certainly, their might be sites selling
>something, but that still doesn't make the web a shop.
No, but those that want to put up a shop, can and have. Remember? It's
called choice. That OK? It's not YOUR Web. It's everyone's Web. You
can have your sleeply little corner with "perfect" syntax, everything
valadates. Others, want something else. I say there's room for both.
You say there a better way, that's fine. Stop preaching it's the only
way. That's wrong.
Bill
>
>
>Abigail
LoneWolf
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
> >You'd think they spend $100.000 and then ignore any reactions
> >of clients? Be them either positive or negative? And I bet they
> >certainly considered the option of not playing music.
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
> The idea of the music is to keep the customer in the store, make his
> shopping a plesant experience. Same reason they give out samples. Same
> reason you'll be hard pressed to find any clocks, they don't want you
> to know how much time you're spending in the store.
I had thought the giving away of samples was an effort to entice you to
buy a specific product, not a ploy to keep you in the store. But I
guess that's really irrelevant.
> >Of course, their motivation is to get as much money from your
> >wallet. Perhaps you like that idea, but that's not something
> >I fancy. Certainly not on the web.
>
> Businesses are in business to make money! I know, it's the same old
> tune. YOU DON'T LIKE the direction the Web is going in. Another reason
> purists don't like Netscape and Microsoft. They opened the Web to real
> people. No more private club. I bet you guys really hate Steve Case
> too for his AOL. Millions and millions of green newbies surfing "your"
> Web. How dreadful. Hordes putting up their personal home pages that
> thumb their nose at the W3C and embrase the extensions. Why that
> bothers some I don't know. It's called choice.
Why is it that you insist on putting words into other people's mouths?
Tell me, when was the last (first?) time you spoke with a self-acclaimed
"purist" and found out what he/she really felt?
> >The web is not a shop. Certainly, their might be sites selling
> >something, but that still doesn't make the web a shop.
>
> No, but those that want to put up a shop, can and have. Remember? It's
> called choice. That OK? It's not YOUR Web. It's everyone's Web. You
> can have your sleeply little corner with "perfect" syntax, everything
> valadates. Others, want something else. I say there's room for both.
>
> You say there a better way, that's fine. Stop preaching it's the only
> way. That's wrong.
Again, when were these sentiments ever said by a "purist?"
Later,
LoneWolf
EMail: mos...@wam.umd.edu
WWW: <URL:http://www.wam.umd.edu/%7Emoshman/>
William G. Schlake
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:34:43 GMT, bt-usenet*REMOVE*@benturner.com (Ben
Turner) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
>> I see only anger, resentment and attacks on outsiders
>> and newbies whom you view as your roudy and misguided
>> subjects while you see yourselves as some self-elected
>> royalists.
>
>While I agree that the tone of this newsgroup is not very conducive to
>good debate and objective discussion, I do think that the reason you
>think it's so hostile here is because the only threads you're reading
>are the ones in which you argue against the rest of the newsgroup.
No kidding, but they have been the ones I've responded too.
>I think this newsgroup could be a bit more forgiving to those who
>don't know as much about HTML, and could give more down-to-earth
>answers to questions, appropriate to the knowledge the questioner has
>of HTML. However, I do not think that c.i.w.ah. should baby its
>readers.
You seem to have a talent for understatement. This group needs to be a
bit more forgiving? Nobody needs to be babied, they don't have to be
bullied either, which was why I turned the tables. They sure don't
like it. Can they learn others don't like it either?
>But that's beside the point. All I was saying was you insult and
>condescend people here, even though they KNOW what they're doing and
>deserve to be treated with SOME respect.
Actually, my first post (10/6) to this group was very mild. One of the
reasons I decided to post here was because the HTML Princess (who also
likes to hang out here) and has been strangely and totally out of
character by her silence, invaded alt.hmtl where I post frequently
committing what I consider a capital offense. Namely, telling someone
they had no business putting up their page since there were already
many like it and it wasn't needed and not well done and of course it
didn't validate which she ranted on and on endlessly. She was in MHO
extremely rude and did nothing but cause a distruption. I don't need
to wonder where she picked up such an attitude!
Anyhow, I'm re posting the first paragraph of my first post here
again: "Now you've heard from three W3C flag wavers. In case nobody
noticed, none of them actually offered a solution. Typical. I'll
assume you'd actually like one which after all is the purpose of this
newsgroup!" I went on to offer an answer to the poster's question,
since what he got before was only three snotty replies.
As far as respect, people have to earn that. With a couple exceptions,
I've seen nothing from those that have engaged me deserving my
respect. Rather they have earned and received what they have deserved,
which is a good helping of my displeasure. Some deserve a second or
third helping for being so obnoxious. If that's what some think of me,
that's perfectly fine. Everyone has their opinion.
>You are, in effect, by flaming the shit out of people who know quite a
>lot about HTML and the Web, doing exactly what I HATE. And seemingly,
>what you hate as well (flaming those who deserve to be treated
>better).
You are correct. I am capable of exchanging flames. You forget I've
been on the receiving end of many. Those that I have flamed in return
in MHO certainly deserved it. I don't take "attacks" personally. I
don't get mad. I DO have a way with words or so I've been told many
times. :o)
>I don't know why you group me with the "purists" you hate so much.
>Your doing so only shows how much you are blinding yourself to
>objectivity -- I know you have visited my site and I know mine exceeds
>the visual quality of YOUR site.
I don't hate anyone. I simply see "purists" as loud and totally
incapable of budging an inch on ANYTHING. Their position is set in
cement.They argue merely for the sake of arguing and they do come
across as being superior and snobs. Take your last comment. You've
made several like it. For once, simply listen to what I'm saying.
"I know you have visited my site and I know mine exceeds the visual
quality of YOUR site."
Now tell me, how should I respond to that kind of boasting? If I
remember correctly, yours was indeed one of the better sites I looked
at quickly from those that did offer their URL. However, I've seen
better. Much better. So? What I'm trying to tell you Ben is the tone
is this newsgroup turns my stomach. It's not necessary. It's wrong. I
agree, right now your site IS visually more appealing then mine.
Again, I point out my isn't finished and in any case I'm not into
beauty contests. To me, content is king. Visit again in about a month.
Then, if you must. Judge.
As far as me calling you a purist, my answer is those they lie with
dogs run the risk of picking up fleas. Maybe you didn't start out
being as I've seen you, however some of what I detest in the purists
seems to have rubbed off on you. Your own comments are testimony to
it. Perhaps you should read again some of what you recently posted.
Better yet, have a friend that can tell you the truth read them to
you.
>And I'm just an amateur. Seems like you don't know much about HTML OR
>style/design/layout. Why don't you eat some humble pie and learn from
>people who know more than you about a specific subject instead of
>stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference between the attitude
>of the regulars (what you are attacking) and the knowledge they
>possess?
Geez, I guess your beyond the point of even trying to reason with.
Every time I see that kind of self-serving boasting you just made, I
just shake my head. If you could for just a moment see the others and
yourself as I so clearly see you, then it is you that better take two
slices perhaps three of that humble pie, because if you aren't
stuck-up and in love with yourself and what you've done, then there is
no such thing, but we both know there is.
Bill
>
>B, incoherent as ever. Hemingway, in his style, he is not. :)
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
>Charset: noconv
>
>iQA/AwUBNErDOTht+nuXAiYfEQICLwCbB6ZTIQLUxhs0JjfZHCpRwvDyG7UAoNLO
>oM5a5fPQ5Z7x4eiMx+vcDGv7
>=BTZV
Abigail
Liam Quinn (li...@htmlhelp.com) wrote on 1511 September 1993 in
<URL: news:344aa6b9...@news.golden.net>:
++ On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:22:11 GMT, w...@enteract.com (William G.
++ Schlake) wrote:
++
++ >If
++ >you're smart, you use what the majority of people use to surf the Web.
++
++ Conformity rules, eh?
Like sheep, many people prefer the closeness of a herd.
Only the most daring, bravest and those who realize there are more
and possible better ways climb out of the trees, sail west or fly
to the moon.
William G. Schlake
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:48:16 GMT, bt-usenet*REMOVE*@benturner.com (Ben
Turner) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
>> Yes, for sure I have repeatedly reminded that it is
>> indeed a Windows world and 9 out of 10 people use
>> either Netscape or IE as their browser and that many
>> pages use an accept the extensions.
>
>I use MSIE 4.0 as my main browser. I don't use Opera or Lynx or the
>other browsers you probably haven't even tried yet speak against
>intimately. :) Most of my hits to the main page come from NN and MSIE
>3.0+ and their variants. I provide content using RealAudio and frames
>and a little bit of DHTML and stylesheets and Javascript.
I do use Opera along with about a dozen others. It's fine for checking
what you would miss if you use it. No CSS. No Java. It is useful for
that. It's fast, I do like it for what it does. However most people
never head of it.
>However, I DO only implement them if they degrade gracefully. Why?
>Because sometimes people don't WANT to download all that junk.
>Sometimes they just want to see the raw HTML. Sometimes people don't
>want to hear sound. Sometimes people have problems running Java (like
>me) and whatnot, regardless of how good their computer is. Sometimes
>people disable frames (if they can) because they don't want their
>screen cluttered or whatever.
Works for me. I do the same, or to be more precise, I will. Remember
my site isn't open to the public...yet.
>The point is that all those latest and greatest features do NOT make
>my site. My site does not RELY on silly tricks and features to make
>it a good site. People come and return to my site for the written
>content, the words and ideas I express. I give my reader as much
>choice as is feasibly possible so he can determine how he wants to
>view my site. Granted, I do some things which "purists" would
>disdain, but I have thought about each and every single case
>separately and have decided to use this or that for a reason.
Same here! Again, wait till my site is finished before commenting on
what I've done.
>You seem to think that using the latest and greatest tags
>automatically make a site stunning and fresh and wonderful.
>Otherwise, you would take the small amount of time to add an
>alternative to whatever new tag or whatever you're using. It's NOT
>that hard, but you make it out to be.
Never said that. I did say if some want to go that route, let them!
Remember, it is about choice! Again you attempt to say I don't do
this and I don't do that. Wait. I could direct you to some client
sites I recently finished, but surely many would be picky which would
be unfair to the client. Once MY site is finished anyone may pick at
it as much as they wish. ;O)
>I would be interested to see how many return visitors you get to your
>site. How many times will they come back to see a Javascript effect
>sweeping through all the pages on the 'Net? How many visitors are
>coming back to read fresh content?
What are your suggesting, a pissing contest? Sorry, I'm way too busy
to play little boy games. Yes, I know I've found time (more than I
should have) to post here. Still, I spend 14 hours a day at the
keyboard, so in balance, not much posint here, but I do come several
times a day and it does recharge my batteries, so at least for that I
can say thanks! :o)
>The message and content are the important things -- the style is
>there, basically, to dress up the content. And since no one has
>anything to say, it's all in the presentation these days. :)
I agree with you. You know what? I looked at my server logs the other
day. Remember, I'm not open to the public yet, have not registered
with any Search Engine, yet I'm getting about 900 hits a day from a
few pages I threw up on newsgroups. Why? The content. I'll toot my own
horn and say I've gotten countless emails thanking me in spite of the
fact some of the material is outdated since I have not has time to
update it. What's available now is only about 2% of what will be.
Wait.
Bill
>B.
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
>Charset: noconv
>
>iQA/AwUBNErGbDht+nuXAiYfEQJj+gCgr4wRNFO42+CLn8CdQUQ2UFzfV50AoPOv
>Hxlde7aDB/1DY5TgejS0FxsS
>=b4jS
Urban Fredriksson
In article <344e244c...@news.enteract.com>,
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Pulling into the parking lot of the supermarket, he noticed right away
>that if they would redo the parking stripes, more cars could fit in
>the 500 car lot.
>Hurrying into the store, Mr. Purist heard music. It wasn't music he
>liked.
Question: Why didn't he at this point realize that this
wasn't a supermarket which wanted to serve customers of
all kinds and just leave for another, better run and more
customer friendly?
It couldn't be because he knew this was the only one which
had bananas of the sort he likes.
Mr P. wanted to see what it was like to be a sheep in
flock? Probably not a lifestyle which would fit him very
well...
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se Swedish railways
http://www.alfaskop.net/%7Egriffon/railways/
(Oct 09): More photos from my trip to Switzerland (Jungfraubahn)
Veronica Karlsson
Liam Quinn wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:22:11 GMT, w...@enteract.com (William G.
> Schlake) wrote:
>
> >If
> >you're smart, you use what the majority of people use to surf the Web.
>
>
What I don't understand is what people have against lynx. I only first
saw it in real life a couple of months ago. During the time I have been
"on the web" I have heard lots of arguments from the techno-high cool
bunch about how bad it is so I didn't expect much of it. Now I keep
getting surprised at how *good* it is every time I use it! It is soooo
cute! Like a little kitten, it just purrs at me :)
My conclusion is that those who say bad things about lynx don't just
know what they are talking about.
--
:)
Veronica Karlsson
( e93...@sm.luth.se http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/ )
Alan J. Flavell
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Veronica Karlsson wrote:
> My conclusion is that those who say bad things about lynx don't just
> know what they are talking about.
Sure, we've seen plenty of misrepresentations of what Lynx can and
cannot do, by people who clearly _need_ to believe those
misrepresentations.
Well, in this you are (as far as I'm concerned!) preaching to the
converted. Lynx is a respected member of my browser repertoire.
Look, as a _user_ of the web, nobody is expected to try the full
repertoire of browsers. A user is perfectly entitled, if they so
choose, to take the first browser that comes to hand (i.e presumably
some version of NS or of MS IE) and insist that they'll never need
anything else: only specialists or eccentrics would ever want to
look at specialist or eccentric browsers, they will say. And it is
their democratic right to believe so, if it suits them.
For us as _authors_, however, I say a different ruleset applies.
If we hope to reach all readers, then we need to know how to make
our documents accessible to them, whether or not we would ever choose
ourselves to use the browsers that they use.
And, mirabile dictu, HTML gives us the ability, if we choose to make
use of it, to design pages that work well on our own favourite browsers,
while still conveying our message accessibly to others.
The information highway is, in this sense, open to all vehicles. Some
people seem to want to put unnecessary obstacles in the way - claiming,
wrongly, that they could't reach their destination if they allowed
other kinds of vehicle onto the highway.
What a terrible analogy. Oh well.
Gil Harvey
>The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
Well, I've stayed out of this one so far. Mainly
because no one on either side has said anything really new,
or even very interesting :-). But....
Reading the above statement reenforced the fact of how
little "some" know about marketing/retail sales, An
Advertising Age Article sometime around the summer of '88 (I
kept the pages, but not the cover), goes into great detail
on this exact subject. To make a long story short (and less
boring to those that do not care anyway) Bloomingdales spent
over $100,000.00 that year on research to find what music
had the greatest influence (positive) on shoppers.
Winn-Dixie spent over 150 thousand. The list goes on, but
the point is if you do not know what you are talking about,
don't say it.
Aidan Fabius
Andrew McCormick wrote:
> HTML is like a horse with four legs. Some people want to cut off two of
> those legs just because they think a horse with two legs is cool.
>
> (gee...it'd be neat if someone quoted that somewhere else, but I'm not
> holding my breath. It'll never be as cool at that Tim Berners-Lee quote
> that I want to design some artwork around.)
I've got quite the collection of taglines and quotes from the newsgroups I
read, and that statement is now in it :-)
----
Aidan Fabius, Web Publisher and University Student
afa...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca.blah (you know the deal...)
http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~afabius/
** I speak for myself and not for Corel Corporation, blah blah blah. **
Veronica Karlsson
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Veronica Karlsson wrote:
>
> > My conclusion is that those who say bad things about lynx don't just
> > know what they are talking about.
>
> Sure, we've seen plenty of misrepresentations of what Lynx can and
> cannot do, by people who clearly _need_ to believe those
> misrepresentations.
>
I am perfectly willing to take a couple of "snapshots" of what some site
looks like in lynx and show them here if somebody were to suggest a site
to me...
> Well, in this you are (as far as I'm concerned!) preaching to the
> converted. Lynx is a respected member of my browser repertoire.
>
And the same to you :)
(wow! now somebody will complain that we pat each ohter's backs... :D )
> Look, as a _user_ of the web, nobody is expected to try the full
> repertoire of browsers.
> For us as _authors_, however, I say a different ruleset applies.
> If we hope to reach all readers, then we need to know how to make
> our documents accessible to them, whether or not we would ever choose
> ourselves to use the browsers that they use.
>
A _reader_ only needs one browser, a _writer_ needs more than one for
the purpose of checking that his material is readable on many different
browsers... (I don't assume that everybody who likes the stuff I like
also has the same browser that I have... especially since I personally
happen to like "ascii art"...)
It's the same with writing books, all a _reader_ needs is knowledge of
how to _read_, a _writer_ will also need all sorts of other knowledge,
like grammar, spelling, etc
> And, mirabile dictu, HTML gives us the ability, if we choose to make
> use of it, to design pages that work well on our own favourite browsers,
> while still conveying our message accessibly to others.
>
So far I haven't removed *anything* to make my homepage readable in
lynx... (I have added some alt = "XX" to my images and some <br> to sort
out my tables...) Sure lynx people won't be able to enjoy my java game
collection but that's a different issue...
> The information highway is, in this sense, open to all vehicles. Some
> people seem to want to put unnecessary obstacles in the way - claiming,
> wrongly, that they could't reach their destination if they allowed
> other kinds of vehicle onto the highway.
:(
>
> What a terrible analogy. Oh well.
:D
--
_ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ _| |__/ __ \| |_ _ __| |__| | | |_ _| |_| |_ ___ ___
\ V / / / / _` | | || / _` / _` |_| | || | _| ' \ _(_-</ -_)
\_/|_\_\ \__,_|_|\_,_\__,_\__,_(_)_|\_,_|\__|_||_(_)__/\___|
\____/ http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/news
Abigail
Gil Harvey (G...@Old-Hippy.com) wrote on 1511 September 1993 in
<URL: news:344ba37...@news.infi.net>:
++ On 20 Oct 1997 15:45:15 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R
++ Prodin) wrote:
++
++ >grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
++ >music is presented in a standard way.
++
++ Well, I've stayed out of this one so far. Mainly
++ because no one on either side has said anything really new,
++ or even very interesting :-). But....
++ Reading the above statement reenforced the fact of how
++ little "some" know about marketing/retail sales, An
++ Advertising Age Article sometime around the summer of '88 (I
++ kept the pages, but not the cover), goes into great detail
++ on this exact subject. To make a long story short (and less
++ boring to those that do not care anyway) Bloomingdales spent
++ over $100,000.00 that year on research to find what music
++ had the greatest influence (positive) on shoppers.
You'd think they spend $100.000 and then ignore any reactions
of clients? Be them either positive or negative? And I bet they
certainly considered the option of not playing music.
Of course, their motivation is to get as much money from your
wallet. Perhaps you like that idea, but that's not something
I fancy. Certainly not on the web.
The web is not a shop. Certainly, their might be sites selling
something, but that still doesn't make the web a shop.
Abigail
Phil Stripling
Dan McGarry posted:
> So your point is that Mac web servers can't handle nearly the same load
> as a decent Apache server...?
Isn't this where you jump in and say "You're probably better off posting
this to an Apache evangelism group instead of the html authoring group"?
--
Phil Stripling |Sorry for the inconvenience of the
The Civilized Explorer |munged reply, but you know what.
http://www.cieux.com/~philip/ |you need to remove.
LoneWolf
gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:
> >Question: Why didn't he at this point realize that this
> >wasn't a supermarket which wanted to serve customers of
> >all kinds and just leave for another, better run and more
> >customer friendly?
> > It couldn't be because he knew this was the only one which
> >had bananas of the sort he likes.
> > Mr P. wanted to see what it was like to be a sheep in
> >flock? Probably not a lifestyle which would fit him very
> >well...
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) spewed:
> Shame, you missed the entire point of the story. Not surprising, some
> here now need to tell the author who wrote the story, what it's about.
> Typical example of what I'm saying. It's call arrogance, which flows
> in this newsgroup like a mighty river.
I must admit, I fail to see the point of your story. Or rather, I know
what your intended point was but I fail to see how your story furthers
your point. It wasn't a good analogy and it was even a decent story.
> Mr. Purist wandered into one situation after another in my fictional
> grocery store. He tried to impose his rigid view of things on the
> majority, only to be rejected time after time.
Like I said, the analogy doesn't pass muster. Can you point to a sample
post where a "purist" did any such thing in this NG?
> The parallels seem lost on those that enjoy preaching the "right" way
> to do things in this newsgroup.
On the contrary, I'm sure they are not at all lost. The problem is that
your parallels are skewed.
> Mr. Purist, while well meaning, has a distorted view of how the real
> world works.
Again, to the contrary, the "purists" seem to know more about how the
real world works then those not preaching similar ideas. While they
usually talk about using valid code, many also talk about knowing how to
properly break the rules. Sounds like a lesson useful in the real world
as well.
> Mr. Purist is a nonconformist that likes to demand others do things
> his way.
Quite the opposite (I'm running out of ways to say that), the "purists"
are *the* conformists suggesting that others try to conform, or to at
least learn a safe way of practicing non-conformance.
> Mr. Purist can't understand why all his blustering and constant nit
> picking isn't seen as help like he imagines it to be, but rather
> mostly noise.
Au contraire (that's the absolute last one...), the "purists" have often
acknowledged that there are reasons that they answer the way they do and
that some people may not like it.
> Mr. Purist while he may be smart is at the same time very dumb for not
> understanding. No, Mr. Purist isn't a sheep, a mule would be closer.
I'd have to respond "better then a troll."
Veronica Karlsson
Eric Bohlman wrote:
>
> Veronica Karlsson (dr...@on.spammer) wrote:
> : So far I haven't removed *anything* to make my homepage readable in
> : lynx... (I have added some alt = "XX" to my images and some <br> to sort
> : out my tables...) Sure lynx people won't be able to enjoy my java game
> : collection but that's a different issue...
>
> game collection. Lynx can be configured to fire up the Java applet
> viewer as a helper application (just as it can be configured to fire up a
> high-quality image viewer for viewing linked images).
WOW! This gets better and better! (I just *love* that kitten! it has a
new nice surprise for me every day! I haven't actually tried... oops! I
see I have to do some editing to remove/modify little messages original
authors have written in those applet tags to people without java...) :)
Tina Marie Holmboe
In article <344BF285...@on.spammer>,
Veronica Karlsson <dr...@on.spammer> writes:
> WOW! This gets better and better! (I just *love* that kitten! it has a
> new nice surprise for me every day! I haven't actually tried... oops! I
> see I have to do some editing to remove/modify little messages original
> authors have written in those applet tags to people without java...) :)
It gets even better... :) If, again on the appropriate platform, you
have RealAudio installed, you can instruct Lynx to use it - and listen to
the transmissions from Ekot - like I do >:)
In short: there isn't any real limitation to what Lynx cannot access,
given the proper helper application....
--
"DTD did the job on me, now I am a real sickie. Guess I gotta break the news,
that I got no site to loose. All the geeks are in love with me, I'm a
twenty-something lobotomy... " - with apologies to 'The Ramones'.
Les Jones
In article <344ba37...@news.infi.net>, G...@Old-Hippy.com wrote:
> On 20 Oct 1997 15:45:15 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R
> Prodin) wrote:
>
> >The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
> >grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
> >music is presented in a standard way.
>
> Well, I've stayed out of this one so far. Mainly
> because no one on either side has said anything really new,
> or even very interesting :-). But....
> Reading the above statement reenforced the fact of how
> little "some" know about marketing/retail sales, An
> Advertising Age Article sometime around the summer of '88 (I
> kept the pages, but not the cover), goes into great detail
> on this exact subject. To make a long story short (and less
> boring to those that do not care anyway) Bloomingdales spent
> over $100,000.00 that year on research to find what music
> had the greatest influence (positive) on shoppers.
> Winn-Dixie spent over 150 thousand. The list goes on, but
> the point is if you do not know what you are talking about,
> don't say it.
The logic of having music in a store is that people tend to hang around
longer. My reaction to a web page with music is exactly the opposite.
+ Les Jones + 56K Modem Home Page + http://www.56k.com/ +
Gil Harvey
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:05:03 -0400, lesj...@usit.net (Les
Jones) wrote:
>The logic of having music in a store is that people tend to hang around
>longer. My reaction to a web page with music is exactly the opposite.
was about people in this newsgroup spouting off on subjects
they have no knowledge of....
Ben Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake) wrote:
> Funny, on my arrogance meter which is scaled
> from 0-10, you pin the needle to the right
> and bend it on nearly every post.
I can be arrogant and I am usually self-confident, but I DO admit when
I am wrong and I DO take things with a grain of salt and I DO remain
very respectful when in the presence of people who know more about a
topic than I do..
> My "How Many Purists Actually Have A Good
> Web Page" was HUMOR. It isn't surprising
> you don't get it.
There you go with belittling others again. You know nothing about me.
You know only what I post in response to your infantile tone.
Your "How Many Purists Actually Have A Good Web Page" post was just
HUMOR? I'm sure there was NO provocation or insult intended. ;)
> Oh please, I see nothing but self-appointed
> ego-strokers here. I see only arrogance, that
> isn't intelligence, not even close.
Hey, I admit when I don't know the details about something in HTML or
graphics design. I say what I know and then ask the experts to
clarify. You have yet to admit you're just a bad hack at both HTML
AND design. The best designers I know DO mark up their documents
rather well and know which techniques work on which browsers -- they
consider everything that goes into their sites. Say what you want,
but standard HTML and the latest and greatest multimedia features CAN
work together.
> I pursue nothing.
You pursue everything here. Obviously, your tone against practically
everyone else in this newsgroup will get you *nowhere*. You have no
intentions of settling any disputes or letting people have their own
opinions. I haven't seen you contribute much to this newsgroup beyond
insults and flames. When was the last time you answered an HTML
question? The reason you are here is to argue and fight and flame.
And you won't back down or admit that maybe you made an error in tact.
I'm getting bored of all this because it has gone far past HTML and
digressed to something completely different: tone and flames and
trading insults. Well, Bill, maybe you should go to a Mac advocacy
newsgroup and post, "Macs suck!" or do something else which is
completely brainless and pointless and only pisses off the regulars
who have earned respect on their newsgroup. :)
B, who has nothing more to say except through e-mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNE0YJjht+nuXAiYfEQKbLwCgq52Y2VisXEYE3p6A63M5a8J08OUAoI3P
E12voh5JHtsfGTDbWHSMMBpp
=BuCZ
Timothy R Prodin
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 1997 15:45:15 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
>wrote:
>
>>>Pulling into the parking lot of the supermarket, he noticed right away
>>>that if they would redo the parking stripes, more cars could fit in
>>>the 500 car lot.
>>There are standards (building codes, local ordinances, zoning
>>regulations) that control the width of parking lot stripes. So, this
>>really isn't up to debate. Either a parking lot is layed out to code,
>>or it isn't.
>Nice try...but read that part again, carefully. Mr. Purist noted the
>stripes were off by a mere half inch. I did make a typo and said too
>short, where I meant to say they were too wide. Let's not quibble over
>a typo. The point lost, was redoing the entire parking lot simply
>because the stripes were off by half an inch. Could have just been the
>stall Mr. Purist parked in! :o) Surely you don't support wasting tax
>dollars for some inspector crawling around with a tape measure,
>measuring 500 stalls, then finding minor irregularities, making them
>do the entire row or geez the entire lot all over. Or do you? You
>focused on fluff, not substance. A common pastime with purists.
No, what you said was that re-stripping the lot would allow them to
park more cars. You said nothing about them being out of compliance
with code.
Besides, in the real world (that you are so fond of...) the store would
have nothing to do with actually maintaining the parking lot. That
would have been contracted out by (initally) the general contractor.
The bid would have not specified the width at all; it would have just
refered to the plan, developed by the architect, in compliance with
local ordinance. The paving sub-contractor would have constructed
the lot; then used the standard template to stripe it.
[music]
>>The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
>>grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
>>music is presented in a standard way.
>Note again, Mr. Purist could not accept that. He demanded they turn
>the music off.
I (incorrectly) assumed that you were refering to the MicroSoft(?)
<bgsound> extension; which I pointed out was different than presenting
music in a standard way.
>>The proper analogy would be if the music were critical to getting
>>groceries; and the shopper had to bring their own equipment to hear the
>>music, that there were two different standards for that equipment, and
>>the shopper doesn't know until after they are in the store which one
>>they needed.
>Not the purpose of the analogy. My point, a simple one. What Mr.
>Purist was saying was my way or no way. Not a practical position. The
>same one that's the purist's theme song here. You know, do it
>according to W3C or you're a dummy. I reject that narrow thinking. I
>let people choose how they make their Web pages since it is their
>choice. The purists twist it around and demand everyone make their
>sites so everyone can see them. That's not choice. If people choose to
>do so, that IS choice. Choosing not to do so is just another choice.
>Have I ever said people should choose to lock people out? No! I'm
>simply saying let Web authors choose.
And that is what I was pointing out also. However; you can't do
that in a standard way; so you are requiring me to bring along
special equipment to hear the music (e.g. a Shockwave plug-in,
Microsoft's IE, an audio board/speakers.) What happens when
I don't have one of these things?
Of course, to carry the store's background music analogy further;
when I used to go shopping in a grocery store that had background
music, I brought along my own on a personal stereo. The fact that
I was listening to Minor Threat, Anthrax, or The Ramones instead
of the Musak version of The Girl From Impanima really didn't change
my grocery shopping experience.
>>Of corse, the rest of this goes on, and on, and on; failing
>>to make comments on point and failing to properly connect
>>the analogies to the web.
>If you can't make the connections, it is more likely I was talking
>over your head. Shame, of the now over 100 people that took the time
>to email me, only 4 so far "didn't get it", so I'd say YOU missed it,
>but in true purist fashion, it's my fault you don't understand.
No, I understand the points that you are trying to make. I just reject
them. Your point is summed up in "I let people choose how they make
their pages.... Have I ever said people should choose to lock people
out? No! I'm simply saying let Web author choose."
However, what you fail to understand is that by allowing authors to use
extensions (such as music, which really took a beating here in
comp....html earlier) you are in essence saying "Go ahead, as a natural
result of the choices you made to do 'the cool thing', lock people out."
You are also saying, "What the web author chooses to do is far more
important than what the web reader chooses to do." It is this reason
alone why I don't like another poorly thought out idea, <frames>.
Many use frames to create navigation effects for their sites. However,
this forces people into the 'one window' mentality. The site flows
only when you have one browser window up. I, as a reader, choose to
load many pages at once.
In summary of my reply to you; I, and many others, feel that what
the READER chooses to do is far more important than what the
AUTHOR chooses to do. It was for this reason that standards were
developed, and it is for this reason that standards will continue
to be advanced.
Abigail
Gil Harvey (G...@Old-Hippy.com) wrote on 1512 September 1993 in
<URL: news:344cd62...@news.infi.net>:
++ On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:05:03 -0400, lesj...@usit.net (Les
++ Jones) wrote:
++
++
++ >The logic of having music in a store is that people tend to hang around
++ >longer. My reaction to a web page with music is exactly the opposite.
++
++ Yep, that's YOU. But my post was not about music, it
++ was about people in this newsgroup spouting off on subjects
++ they have no knowledge of....
Posts in this newsgroups are by definition about html on the
world wide web.
If you want to talk about the wonders of music in stores, please
discuss it somewhere else. It's irrelevant to HTML anyway.
Lester S. Garrett
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:55:34 GMT Patti Barbiero <pa...@iname.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
[Posted & E-mailed]
> To William G. Schlake:
>. . . You typically mischaracterize me, my posts, and my behaviour.
> I have also pretty much decided it is pointless to argue with a troll
> that has demonstrated more than once that his hard knowledge of HTML is
> less than substantial.
>
> You do not wish to have your work judged by objective standards - fine.
> However your agenda is the eradication of standards - perhaps out of
> fear of having your own work judged and found wanting?
You might want to consider doing what I've done. Put him in your kill file.
Since has nothing significant to say, you won't miss anything and so doing will
make for a slightly pleasanter reading experience :-)* I will probably add our
friend "HotSource" <Hot-stopall...@ibm.net> to my kill file shortly as
his contribution here is about as valuable as Schlake's -- which is to say, of
little to no value whatsoever.
-={lsg}=-
Timothy R Prodin
Gil Harvey <G...@Old-Hippy.com> wrote:
>tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin) wrote:
>
>>The music is not integral to the presentation or service that the
>>grocery store - so a customer would be free to ignore it. However, the
>>music is presented in a standard way.
....
> Reading the above statement reenforced the fact of how
>little "some" know about marketing/retail sales,
....
>Winn-Dixie spent over 150 thousand. The list goes on, but
>the point is if you do not know what you are talking about,
>don't say it.
I didn't say anything that would contradict the conclusion of the
article in Ad Age. Note that what I said: 'integral to the
presentation or service' and 'presented in a standard way'. Does the
music enhance the shopping experience? Who cares. (Aside: Did the AA
article do any surveys from grocery stores?)
What was important to the point was that the music was presented in a
standard way. After all, the analogy was supposed to show the
insignifigance of following standards. I was pointing out that
the music in stores is presented in a standard way.
Gil Harvey
On 22 Oct 1997 14:09:29 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R
Prodin) wrote:
>I didn't say anything that would contradict the conclusion of the
>article in Ad Age. Note that what I said: 'integral to the
>presentation or service' and 'presented in a standard way'. Does the
>music enhance the shopping experience? Who cares. (Aside: Did the AA
>article do any surveys from grocery stores?)
The companies care. They did the surveys, not AA.
>What was important to the point was that the music was presented in a
>standard way. After all, the analogy was supposed to show the
>insignifigance of following standards. I was pointing out that
>the music in stores is presented in a standard way.
What is "Standard"? These, nor other companies follow
any "standards" in their choice of music or it's
presentation, they follow what has been proven to work.
Janez @upani~
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:41:47 GMT, eboh...@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman)
wrote:
>Actually, on appropriate platforms they may indeed be able to enjoy your
>game collection. Lynx can be configured to fire up the Java applet
>viewer as a helper application (just as it can be configured to fire up a
>high-quality image viewer for viewing linked images).
>
Eehm, which platforms are appropirate, and in case WIN95 is in this
category, what must be included in the configuration file?
jan
Janez @upani~ !=i