Webmasters: How cope with non-Netscape browsers?
Elizabeth M. Gardner
planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape. I'm interested in
any thoughts from you who design and maintain those sites. Will you
create a non-Netscape alternative that looks OK with other browsers?
Adapt your site to less advanced browsers? Tell people to go download
Netscape? Ignore the new folks? I've seen all these tactics in use, and
would like to know people's thoughts on the pros and cons of each.
Reply here or via e-mail to 70262...@compuserve.com.
TIA
Elizabeth Gardner
70262...@compuserve.com
Barbara Snyder
[To keep the thread alive, reply there, not via email to me]
On Tue, 01 Aug 1995 17:04:47 -0600, exd0...@interramp.com (Elizabeth
M. Gardner) wrote:
I'm just pulling my home page and web page consulting business
together. My philosophy is that ALL readers should be accommodated.
I'll use Netscapisms, but only when they enhance the content/design
for Netscape users at no detriment to non-Netscape users.
I resent getting to a page and finding nothing but images (which I
often have turned off to speed things up). I recently posted another
message stating this; for some reason I think it's in a thread on
what writers charge, if you want to hunt it down. It's more coherent
than this one. <g> -- Barb
***********************************************
* Barbara Snyder
* bar...@sonic.net
* (formerly brsn...@netcom.com)
***********************************************
Andrew DeLancey
: I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
: planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
: services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
: browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape. I'm interested in
: any thoughts from you who design and maintain those sites. Will you
: create a non-Netscape alternative that looks OK with other browsers?
: Adapt your site to less advanced browsers? Tell people to go download
: Netscape? Ignore the new folks? I've seen all these tactics in use, and
: would like to know people's thoughts on the pros and cons of each.
The questions you pose are phrased in very misleading ways. "Adapt your
sites to less advanced browsers?" implies that Netscape is an advanced
browser, when in reality it is merely competent. There are many truly
advanced browsers. Netscape isn't one of them.
The *best* answer to all of these confused questions is also the simplest
answer. Maintain sites that use *correct* HTML, and don't stray down the
"enhanced for Netscape" path. Ever. If anything, I'd attach a little
header that instructs users to delete Netscape from their hard drives,
and download *any* other browser.
The notion of a site that is "optimized for Netscape" is very intriguing.
What this phrase seems to mean (at least where I've observed it in practice)
is that those sites use incredibly annoying and hideous background patterns,
flashing text in colors that clash badly with the aforementioned backgrounds,
and ugly simulated small caps and large initial caps created with <font size>.
I'd hardly call these features "optimization". More like handicaps. There
should be a term like "coherency challenged" to describe these sites....
Andrew
Elizabeth M. Gardner
Snyder) wrote:
>
> I'm just pulling my home page and web page consulting business
> together. My philosophy is that ALL readers should be accommodated.
> I'll use Netscapisms, but only when they enhance the content/design
> for Netscape users at no detriment to non-Netscape users.
>
a bit of browsing with Netscape, Enhanced Mosaic and the AOL browser, it
seems to me that when something looks uniquely good in Netscape, it comes
out peculiar in the others.
Elizabeth Gardner
70262...@compuserve.com
William E. Elston
exd0...@interramp.com (Elizabeth M. Gardner) wrote:
> I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
> planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
> services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
> browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape. I'm interested in
> any thoughts from you who design and maintain those sites. Will you
> create a non-Netscape alternative that looks OK with other browsers?
> Adapt your site to less advanced browsers? Tell people to go download
> Netscape? Ignore the new folks? I've seen all these tactics in use, and
> would like to know people's thoughts on the pros and cons of each.
>
The answer seems simple. As an HTML author, I try to view my documents in
all available browsers. If there is a major problem, then I try to fix it
such a manner that it still takes advantage of each browsers strengths
without being illegible in the others. If the pages are graphics
intensive, but there is a compelling reason to make it available to lynx
users as well, I will also provide either explanatory ALT= attributes, or
a text only version.
--
William E. Elston <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/welston/>
mval...@draco.lnec.pt
: Elizabeth M. Gardner (exd0...@interramp.com) wrote:
: : I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
: : planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
: : services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
: : browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape. I'm interested in
: : any thoughts from you who design and maintain those sites. Will you
: : create a non-Netscape alternative that looks OK with other browsers?
: : Adapt your site to less advanced browsers? Tell people to go download
: : Netscape? Ignore the new folks? I've seen all these tactics in use, and
: : would like to know people's thoughts on the pros and cons of each.
: The questions you pose are phrased in very misleading ways. "Adapt your
: sites to less advanced browsers?" implies that Netscape is an advanced
: browser, when in reality it is merely competent. There are many truly
: advanced browsers. Netscape isn't one of them.
Precisely.
How do I cope with the problem ? I just dont use Netscape extensions.
This is not downgrading for the sake of other (supposedly) less
advanced browsers. This is conforming to the HTML standard and not
going along with the Microsoft moves of Netscape.
Now I've been using WWW since the first times ( Jan 94 ) and I used
to apprecciate the work of Marc Andreessen. And I think that he/Netscape
have all the right to experiment and develop new extensions as testing
ground. But to try and force them on all of us as a standard as a way
to sell more server software just doesnt cut it with me.
Let me put this another way: I've been creating some pages with HTML 3.0
(which is the new standard and does all that "netscapisms" does ) and viewing
the pages with a wonderfull browser called UdiWWW ( get it from the URL
http://www.uni-ulm.de/~richter/udiwww/index.htm ). What is Netscape going
to do about it ?
: The *best* answer to all of these confused questions is also the simplest
: answer. Maintain sites that use *correct* HTML, and don't stray down the
: "enhanced for Netscape" path. Ever. If anything, I'd attach a little
: header that instructs users to delete Netscape from their hard drives,
: and download *any* other browser.
I completely agree.
And I tell my users to download UdiWWW. They get a fine WWW browser with
support for HTML 3.0 and yes it even supports "netscapisms"...
: The notion of a site that is "optimized for Netscape" is very intriguing.
: What this phrase seems to mean (at least where I've observed it in practice)
: is that those sites use incredibly annoying and hideous background patterns,
: flashing text in colors that clash badly with the aforementioned backgrounds,
: and ugly simulated small caps and large initial caps created with <font size>.
I also agree.
C U!
Mario Valente
--
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves, Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
Et in Arcadia Ego
Markus Freericks
> Can you describe some Netscapisms that fall into this category? Just from
> a bit of browsing with Netscape, Enhanced Mosaic and the AOL browser, it
> seems to me that when something looks uniquely good in Netscape, it comes
> out peculiar in the others.
Even better, there exist Netscape-Enhanced(TM) pages that are *illegible*
when viewed with Netscape, but look fine (or can, atleast, be viewed at
all) when viewed with just about any other browser.
I speak, of course, of those colour choices for background/text that
display as the _same colour_ on my colour-deficient display device (vulgo:
b/w monitor).
-- Markus (fun fact: most such pages contains proud announcements that
"for best results, view this with Netscape" ...)
Andrew DeLancey
: Snyder) wrote:
: >
: > I'm just pulling my home page and web page consulting business
: > together. My philosophy is that ALL readers should be accommodated.
: > I'll use Netscapisms, but only when they enhance the content/design
: > for Netscape users at no detriment to non-Netscape users.
: Can you describe some Netscapisms that fall into this category? Just from
: a bit of browsing with Netscape, Enhanced Mosaic and the AOL browser, it
: seems to me that when something looks uniquely good in Netscape, it comes
: out peculiar in the others.
Some of the relatively "safe" Netscapisms are:
- width and other attributes to <img> and <hr>
- <font size> *only* when it encloses entire words. (not when used to
isolate an initial letter)
- <center> *only* when used to compensate for the defect in Netscape
that prevents <table align=center> from working. And even then,
it should be combined with real HTML, like this:
<center><table align=center></table></center>
There may be others as well. Generally, avoid <center> like the plague,
since it has an undocumented implied paragraph break. When <center>
is ignored by normal browsers, the implied break is also ignored, which
can cause very unpredictable renderings of your page. Always use the
real HTML align attributes, which are understood by Netscape, Mosaic, a
and many other browsers, and which are eventually going to be understood
by just about *all* browsers.
Take a stroll through the World Wide Web Consortium's site to see what
the *real* HTML standards include :)
Andrew
Alan J Flavell
mval...@draco.lnec.pt () writes:
>Andrew DeLancey (dela...@herbie.unl.edu) wrote:
>: Elizabeth M. Gardner (exd0...@interramp.com) wrote:
>: : I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
>: : planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
>: : services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
>: : browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape.
"crippled for Netscape". Fortunately, many of them have nothing
worthwhile to communicate to the Web, and are just playing with
something they haven't really understood.
Netscape is a reasonbly competent browser and makes a pretty good
job of displaying standard HTML. 'Nuff said.
> Now I've been using WWW since the first times ( Jan 94 )
Could I just make two points here:
1. This is really an HTML authoring question you're all discussing
here, and as such it belongs IMHO on ...authoring.html rather than
on a browsers group.
2. Please take a read of the Style guide at www.w3.org by TimBL
and co. I happened to be re-reading it just the other day, for a
particular reason, and was impressed just what a lot of sense it made,
far better than all the blatherings about (in effect) turning HTML
from a well thought out structural markup language into a very poor
cobbled-together page description language.
--- http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/%7Eflavell/
Alan Flavell, H.E.P Group, Glasgow University, Scotland
CERN is not my employer: I am not posting on behalf
of either, but in a personal capacity only.
Mike Meyer
> The answer seems simple. As an HTML author, I try to view my documents in
> all available browsers.
"For ever complex problem, there is an obvious, simple and WRONG solution."
That's the case here.
The first problem is that, according to my servers, there are at least
80 different browsers (meaning that the text from the first
non-whitespace character in the User-Agent: header to the first '/' is
distinct). How many of those can you test?
I have as yet to run into anyone who tests with enough browsers to
have one per platform for which HTML display programs are available,
much less every browser. Even if you count everything that calls
itself Unix as one platform, I know of browsers an even dozen
platforms that have browsers. That doesn't include the captive systems
(AOL, Prodigy, etc.).
The second problem is that browsers aren't meant to test HTML, they're
meant to display it. One of the rules of thumb on the internet is that
you "accept loose", meaning do your best to deal with invalid input.
The better a browser is at following that guideline, the worse it is
as a test for your HTML[1].
So you decide to fix problems when someone points them out - at least
if it's clearly your HTML that's broken, and not their browser.
However, when you get to a few thousand documents, are you going to be
willing to spend time correcting them all if you know the number of
users of that browser is zero to the nearest tenth of a percent? Or
are you going to disenfranchise minority users from your site because
you don't have the time to do it.
The solution is to use tools that are *designed* to test your HTML. A
number of them are listed in the FAQ[2]. You're liable to consider
them anal about things if you've been using HTML as a formatting
language. They are anal for a reason - they're designed to make sure
your HTML will be readable in 80+ browsers, many of which were *not*
designed by the author of Mosaic.
If you really intend to fix problems, using validation tools
proactively will save you time - you wan't have to react to problems
as they show up. That means you get to spend more time building great
new pages instead of editing old ones.
Ideally, the validation system is part of your publication system.
I've set up a "publication" page for one client. They fill in a URL on
an internal server (usually their Mac), a location for the document to
land on the publicly available server, and some checkbox items. After
they get through the authentication, the CGI script mirrors that
document and all subdocuments, validates them as it go, then install
the entire document tree in where sepcified on the public server, and
returns a link to the first document in the tree.
The authors - once they got used to writing legal HTML - love it.
<mike
1] I believe this is an area where NetScape is the best browser
available, as it carries the rule to the extreme of using it to
justify failing to correctly parse legal HTML.
Mike Meyer
> Some of the relatively "safe" Netscapisms are:
> isolate an initial letter)
Not quite good enough. It's safe to use where BLINK is safe to use. In
both cases, you're trying to emphasize some text. To be safe, make
sure the text is emphasized in other browsers as well. Treat those two
tags as if there were not allowed to containt text, but only allowed
to contain <B>, <I>, <EM>, <STRONG>, or <TT> tags (cite, code & var are
marginal cases).
Of course, when emphasizing text, it's good to remember that if you
overuse it, it looses it's meaning.
<mike
Alan J Flavell
and anyone looking for it could easily stumble into the "Style
sheets proposals" instead of the guide to authoring style.
From the WWW.W3.ORG main page you'd take first HTML and then
Information Provider Materials - A Style Guide. This brings you
to the URL:
http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Provider/Style/Overview.html
(a page which, embarassingly, contains a typo in its HTML,
but, well, it seems even the experts aren't perfect...)
Highly recommended reading, IMHO. (Speaking for myself, as ever).
Steve Driscoll
: : Elizabeth M. Gardner (exd0...@interramp.com) wrote:
: : : I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
: : : planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
: : : services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
: : : any thoughts from you who design and maintain those sites. Will you
: : : create a non-Netscape alternative that looks OK with other browsers?
: : : Adapt your site to less advanced browsers? Tell people to go download
: : : Netscape? Ignore the new folks? I've seen all these tactics in use, and
: : : would like to know people's thoughts on the pros and cons of each.
I'd like to add my .02. We're wrestling with the same issues and
while we've taken an approach, I'm not entirely happy about it.
I've developed a simple evaluation page which contains about
100 separate test cases for browsers. We're evaluating several
browsers and establishing a list of commonly supported features.
This list will then be input into our authoring standards and
guidelines. Further, when someone must go beyond this standard,
they will have a means of determining which browser may view
their document and we will post a list of suitable browsers
when necessary.
Any comments?
R.K. Stephenson
> I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
> planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
> services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
> browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape.
> Adapt your site to less advanced browsers?
Depends on one's perspective. I don't believe 'Netscapisms' makes their
browser 'more advanced'.
One other question to add to your research: when HTML 3.0 is finalized,
must all those Netscape 'enhanced' pages be changed if the final version
of HTML 3.0 doesn't jibe with whatever Netscape is using now?
--
R.K. Stephenson Team OS/2
Yet Another Web Page: <a href="http://www.primenet.com/~rks/">YAWP</a>
Collin Forbes
: Most sites that claim to be "optimized for Netscape" are really
: "crippled for Netscape". Fortunately, many of them have nothing
: worthwhile to communicate to the Web, and are just playing with
: something they haven't really understood.
As an odd stab-to-the-heart aside, I've remarked a number of times
that I think http://home.netscape.com/ (the home page for Netscape)
actually more readable using Lynx than it is for Netscape.
--
/''' Collin Forbes
c oo col...@uidaho.edu
`` >
`'` http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~collinf/
Andrew DeLancey
Perhaps when I said "safe" I created some confusion... compared to <center>,
<font size> is less likely to totally mangle the content of a page when that
page is viewed with a normal, conformant browser.
I don't think that *any* Netscapisms are useful, and I'd never use one for
any reason. Since some people are just determined that their pages won't
"stand out" (whatever the hell that means ;) unless they clutter them up
with Netscapisms, I figure it can't hurt to try to steer them away from
the more dangerous and unpredictable Netscape "enhancements" (the biggest
oxymoron I've ever seen ;)
Andrew
Andrew DeLancey
: I'd like to add my .02. We're wrestling with the same issues and
: while we've taken an approach, I'm not entirely happy about it.
: I've developed a simple evaluation page which contains about
: 100 separate test cases for browsers. We're evaluating several
: browsers and establishing a list of commonly supported features.
: This list will then be input into our authoring standards and
: guidelines. Further, when someone must go beyond this standard,
: they will have a means of determining which browser may view
: their document and we will post a list of suitable browsers
: when necessary.
I'm assuming that oclc.org is the same OCLC that maintains the comprehensive
online library catalog...
If that's true, I find it very odd that a webmaster at an organization whose
very existence depends on clearly defined standards is considering supporting
the erratic behavior of *one* browser company.
I'll repeat my reply to the initial question in this thread:
To guarantee that your documents are accessible to *100%* of your potential
users, stick with strict HTML 2.0. If you feel that you need some of the
advanced features of HTML 3.0 (alignment attributes, tables, etc.), go
ahead and add those (after carefully studying the www.w3.org site's
documentation, of course ;), but realize that you may be making some of
your information inaccessible to users with browsers that can't handle
3.0 tags correctly yet.
*Never, never, never* add Netscape tags to your pages. Not now, not tomorrow,
not next year. (assuming there is still a Netscape next year ;)
Validate all of your pages, and don't put them out for public consumption
until they're all completely clean HTML. That is the *only* reliable way
to ensure that your documents will be useful and accessible to the widest
possible audience.
Andrew
Andrew DeLancey
: Alan J Flavell (FLA...@cernvm.cern.ch) wrote:
: : Most sites that claim to be "optimized for Netscape" are really
: : "crippled for Netscape". Fortunately, many of them have nothing
: : worthwhile to communicate to the Web, and are just playing with
: : something they haven't really understood.
: As an odd stab-to-the-heart aside, I've remarked a number of times
: that I think http://home.netscape.com/ (the home page for Netscape)
: actually more readable using Lynx than it is for Netscape.
I noticed that the other day... I stopped by with lynx to see what the
Netscape site actually contained. I've briefly seen the site with Netscape
(at work, many of my co-workers still let their copies of Netscape open
the Netscape homepage on startup ;), and I was somewhat amused/nauseated
by the horrible tackiness of it. With Lynx, it was actually only a little
irritating. :)
Andrew
John Woods
>In <welston-0208...@blv-pm3-ip24.halcyon.com>, wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
>> The answer seems simple. As an HTML author, I try to view my documents in
>> all available browsers.
>"For ever complex problem, there is an obvious, simple and WRONG solution."
>That's the case here.
There is something to be said for checking a document with several, if not
all, browsers, especially if the browsers can be significantly different,
like Netscape versus Lynx. Even with valid HTML, a page can be substantially
less usable with (for example) a text-only browser, which may not be desirable
(unless you're actively interested in preventing people from viewing your
pages unless they drink the same soft drink, wear the same sneakers, and use
the same browser as you). That said, I agree that the first step ought to be
ensuring that the HTML truly *is* valid, to ensure that the page will be
*correctly* rendered by all correct browsers; once that's done, though, you
might want to make sure that lynx viewers (or even people on slow links with
image loading turned off) aren't being treated to pages of
[IMAGE]
[LINK]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]
Elizabeth M. Gardner
> Elizabeth M. Gardner wrote:
> > I'm working on an article about whether and how commercial Web sites are
> > planning to adapt to the onslaught of new Web users from commercial
> > services (prodigy, aol, compuserve, msn) who will be using non-Netscape
> > browsers, especially sites now optimized for Netscape.
> [snip]
> > Adapt your site to less advanced browsers?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Depends on one's perspective. I don't believe 'Netscapisms' makes their
> browser 'more advanced'.
>
> One other question to add to your research: when HTML 3.0 is finalized,
> must all those Netscape 'enhanced' pages be changed if the final version
> of HTML 3.0 doesn't jibe with whatever Netscape is using now?
>
Guess I mis-spoke myself when I called Netscape "advanced." I guess what
I really mean is, "a browser that will do things other browsers won't, as
well as all the things other browsers do," for better or for worse. For
what it's worth, I've been using Enhanced Mosaic and the new AOL browser
to help research this article, as well as doing a lot of cruising with
graphics turned off, and those "Netscape optimized" pages sure look funny
sometimes. Especially when they've done everything within image maps with
no text menu at all.
Anyone want to tell me why people do that? (Seriously, not just as flame
bait. Is there anyone out there who can suggest good reasons for the
image-map-only approach?)
Mike Meyer
> Guess I mis-spoke myself when I called Netscape "advanced." I guess what
> I really mean is, "a browser that will do things other browsers won't, as
> well as all the things other browsers do,"
Which browser is that? It's certainly not NetScape.
NetScape won't do anything some other browser won't do, unless you
restrict it to using the same mechanism NetScape does, and even then
there's only one such example. Further, NetScape won't do anything
that some other browser didn't do first, if not before NetScape's
first public beta.
Likewise, I can think of a number of things that I wish NetScape did
that other browsers do, with "correctly parse HTML 2.0" being at the
top of the list. Being able to specify text/background colors on a
per-tag basis would also be nice. There are things other browsers were
doing before NetScape's first public beta - like right aligning text -
that NetScape can't do yet.
The only reason for thinking that NetScape is an advanced browser is
because you haven't seen an advanced browsers yet.
<mike
Andrew DeLancey
: Guess I mis-spoke myself when I called Netscape "advanced." I guess what
: I really mean is, "a browser that will do things other browsers won't, as
: what it's worth, I've been using Enhanced Mosaic and the new AOL browser
: to help research this article, as well as doing a lot of cruising with
: graphics turned off, and those "Netscape optimized" pages sure look funny
: sometimes. Especially when they've done everything within image maps with
: no text menu at all.
: Anyone want to tell me why people do that? (Seriously, not just as flame
: bait. Is there anyone out there who can suggest good reasons for the
: image-map-only approach?)
I've often wondered why people are so easily impressed with image maps
and the like. My sneaking suspicion is that they subconsciously realize
that without some glitzy and vacuous graphic, their pages are totally
indistinguishable from thousands of other "click here to download the
latest version of Netscape" pages...
The sites that use image maps and don't provide a more efficient and useful
way to navigate are actually doing a service. Whenever I come across one,
I can instantly tell that I'm probably not going to find anything useful
there. Since I do nearly all of my brosing with Lynx (by choice, not because
I'm one of the "poor text browser users" that can't use a kewl broser like
Netscape), the pathetic "Netscape-enhanced" pages are very easy to identify
and avoid. :)
I figure that if the author of a page doesn't take the time to make the page
accessible to the *World Wide* Web, then the content probably isn't all that
important or interesting. If someone chooses to put up a page that's cluttered
with silly Netscape tricks, that's OK. I realize that some people don't get
much entertainment in life, and must invent their own. Hopefully they also
realize that most people on the web won't be entertained by the same silly
tricks... ;)
Andrew
Elizabeth M. Gardner
m...@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer) wrote:
> NetScape won't do anything some other browser won't do, unless you
> restrict it to using the same mechanism NetScape does, and even then
> there's only one such example.
Don't leave me hanging! What's the example?
>
> Likewise, I can think of a number of things that I wish NetScape did
> that other browsers do, with "correctly parse HTML 2.0" being at the
> top of the list.
What does it do to HTML 2.0?
>
> The only reason for thinking that NetScape is an advanced browser is
> because you haven't seen an advanced browsers yet.
>
Can you recommend one? I'll be happy to go get it, though it has to run
on a Macintosh. The "other browsers" competing with Netscape for the
purposes of my current article are the ones provided by Prodigy, AOL,
Compuserve, and Microsoft Network--the ones that are going to be used by
the teeming millions. If you've seen them, do you think any of them are
more advanced than Netscape? I've only seen demos of the MSN browser, but
it looked pretty nice.
eg
Mike Meyer
> In article <19950807.75...@contessa.phone.net>,
> m...@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer) wrote:
> > NetScape won't do anything some other browser won't do, unless you
> > restrict it to using the same mechanism NetScape does, and even then
> > there's only one such example.
> Don't leave me hanging! What's the example?
Server push. Note that just because I don't know of another browser
that does it doesn't mean there isn't one. Wouldn't surprise me if
emacs-w3 did it, but I haven't tested it.
The only uses for it I've run into are inlined animations. Amiga
Mosaic did inlined IFF anims over a year ago, Emacs-w3 did inlined
mpegs in about the same time frame, and at least one version of X
Mosaic animated multi-image gif's in place.
> > Likewise, I can think of a number of things that I wish NetScape did
> > that other browsers do, with "correctly parse HTML 2.0" being at the
> > top of the list.
> What does it do to HTML 2.0?
See for yourself at http://www.phone.net/home/mwm/bugs.html .
> Can you recommend one? I'll be happy to go get it, though it has to run
> on a Macintosh.
The Mac is a neglected corner of the WWW world (not the most
neglected, though). Emacs-w3 runs on a mac, though it might be a
text-only browser in that environment. It's the most advanced
all-around browser I know of. On the experimental side, Arena, Ariadne
and HotJava all reportedly do things that no other browser can do
(yet). I've only been able to test Arena. It's does the best designed
page layout of any browser I've seen; sufficiently so that I've
switched to it for reading long strings of text.
<mike
Dierk Lucyga
>What does it do to HTML 2.0?
Better ask "What does HTML 2.0 do to NetScape?" :-)
>on a Macintosh. The "other browsers" competing with Netscape for the
>purposes of my current article are the ones provided by Prodigy, AOL,
>Compuserve, and Microsoft Network--the ones that are going to be used by
Good gracious, you're lost!
--
Dierk....@uni-konstanz.de (PGP 2.6ui available on request)
It is prohibited to Microsoft Network to redistribute this information, in any form,
in whole or in part. (C) Dierk Lucyga 1995. I'm willing to license this Usenet posting
to MSN for $5000,-. Redistribution without permission constitutes an agreement to
these terms. Please send notices of violation to Dierk....@uni-konstanz.de and
Postm...@microsoft.com
(Above posting does not necessarily tally with my employers point of view.)
Elizabeth M. Gardner
Dierk....@uni-konstanz.de (Dierk Lucyga) wrote:
> In <exd00769-080...@38.12.121.249>,
> exd0...@interramp.com (Elizabeth M. Gardner) wrote:
>
> >What does it do to HTML 2.0?
>
> Better ask "What does HTML 2.0 do to NetScape?" :-)
>
> >on a Macintosh. The "other browsers" competing with Netscape for the
> >purposes of my current article are the ones provided by Prodigy, AOL,
> >Compuserve, and Microsoft Network--the ones that are going to be used by
>
> Good gracious, you're lost!
>
Heavens, _I'm_ not lost! I have three different browsers handy on my Mac,
including Netscape, and plenty of room for others as they become
available. It's the people coming on line through the commercial services
that are going to be lost. Or at least really confused.
eg
Andrew DeLancey
: including Netscape, and plenty of room for others as they become
: available. It's the people coming on line through the commercial services
: that are going to be lost. Or at least really confused.
And what do you propose to do about the confused new users? If you've come
up with a cure for terminal confusion, you'll become very, very rich.
From what I've seen, it seems that people whose first experience being "online"
was with AOL or another major online service are automatically more confused
than people who start out with a direct ISP, since the online service users
become accustomed to thinking of everything they access as being part of a
big amusement park. When they storm onto the internet, they're disoriented
because there aren't any attendants waiting to help them if they screw up,
and it's much easier to get lost in the real world than it is to get lost
on an online service. Additionally, online service users seem to have a
difficult time changing gears once they start using the internet. One of
my friends is a good example. She is totally computer-illiterate, and
started using AOL several months ago. Recently, I convinced her to try
*any* other service, since AOL is so slow and expensive. She switched to
Netcom, and seems generally pleased so far. It will take quite a while
to get her reprogrammed, though. She has a difficult time understanding
things like the web and newsgroups unless I explain them to her in terms
she understands. Thus, newsgroups are "like the discussion forums on AOL"
and IRC is "like the chat rooms on AOL". The web is nearly impossible
to explain in terms that online service users will understand, though,
since there's just nothing even remotely like it there...
Andrew
Elizabeth M. Gardner
DeLancey) wrote:
> Elizabeth M. Gardner (exd0...@interramp.com) wrote:
> : Heavens, _I'm_ not lost! I have three different browsers handy on my Mac,
> : including Netscape, and plenty of room for others as they become
> : available. It's the people coming on line through the commercial services
> : that are going to be lost. Or at least really confused.
>
>
> And what do you propose to do about the confused new users? If you've come
> up with a cure for terminal confusion, you'll become very, very rich.
Nope, sorry, no cures here, though I have been able to help certain
patients alleviate their condition through individual counseling. No money
in it as far as I can see, though.
>
> From what I've seen, it seems that people whose first experience being
"online"
> was with AOL or another major online service are automatically more confused
> than people who start out with a direct ISP, since the online service users
> become accustomed to thinking of everything they access as being part of a
> big amusement park.
Very true, and the Web will just be the worse for them if every second
page they visit turns out to be viewable only with Netscape Navigator.
All those teeming millions the marketers want to reach will spend an hour
or two on the Web and then say the heck with it, unless they're lucky
enough to stumble on a few useful sites that look decent to them. I
Webbed with my dad this weekend through AOL (his first time), looking for
some specific legislative information (which turned out to be "under
construction"), and he was mystified.
eg
Barbara Snyder
[To keep the thread alive, reply there, not via email to me]
On 8 Aug 1995 06:31:47 GMT, dela...@herbie.unl.edu (Andrew DeLancey)
wrote:
> The sites that use image maps and don't provide a more efficient and useful
> way to navigate are actually doing a service. Whenever I come across one,
> I can instantly tell that I'm probably not going to find anything useful
> there.
> I figure that if the author of a page doesn't take the time to make the page
> accessible to the *World Wide* Web, then the content probably isn't all that
> important or interesting.
Hear hear!
***********************************************
* Barbara Snyder
* bar...@sonic.net
* (formerly brsn...@netcom.com)
***********************************************
Bob Brody
>Guess I mis-spoke myself when I called Netscape "advanced." I guess what
>I really mean is, "a browser that will do things other browsers won't, as
>well as all the things other browsers do," for better or for worse. For
>what it's worth, I've been using Enhanced Mosaic and the new AOL browser
>to help research this article, as well as doing a lot of cruising with
>graphics turned off, and those "Netscape optimized" pages sure look funny
>sometimes. Especially when they've done everything within image maps with
>no text menu at all.
>Anyone want to tell me why people do that? (Seriously, not just as flame
>bait. Is there anyone out there who can suggest good reasons for the
>image-map-only approach?)
I'm not inclined to defend image-map-*only* but something frequently
overlooked by the good folks who assault image-maps and/or images in
general is that images can/have universality that deals with language
barriers. I'm reminded of first implementations of graphical
street-crossing signals here in the city where I live (an
internationally busy city). Some locals, critics of the "pictures"
used rather than text, argued it was a dumbing down to education for
people who can't read and shouldn't be encouraged. Indeed. The
"pictures" are for those unfamiliar with the text language.
Bob