This site best viewed with....
spag...@worldbank.org
Some time ago I ran across a site with gifs that said variations of:
"This site best viewed with whatever browser you prefer"
I thought I'd bookmarked it, but if I did must have deleted the bookmark,
and now I can't find the site any more.
Can anyone point me to it?
Thanks in advance,
Stefano Pagiola
spag...@NO-SPAM.usa.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark A. Fuller
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:41:11 -0600, spag...@worldbank.org wrote:
>Some time ago I ran across a site with gifs that said variations of:
>
>"This site best viewed with whatever browser you prefer"
http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
A very worthwhile endeavor and something everyone should strive for.
Mark
Second Amendment Law Library, recent legal scholarship at:
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/
Henry Churchyard
> Some time ago I ran across a site with gifs that said variations of:
> "This site best viewed with whatever browser you prefer". I thought
> I'd bookmarked it, but if I did must have deleted the bookmark, and
> now I can't find the site any more.
http://server.berkeley.edu/~cdaveb/anybrowser.html
(I have some of my personal favorites down towards the middle of
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/ ).
--
"You know they've reintroduced the death penalty for insurance company direc-
tors?" "Really?" said Arthur, "No, I didn't. For what offense?" Trillian
frowned. "What do you mean, offense?" "I see." - D.Adams, _Mostly Harmless_
GC
This site is best viewed with a "text-only" browser because I refuse to go along
with any attempt at making any standards at all. I don't want anyone to try to
improve the efficiency of delivery of music and graphics to internet surfers. I
want people to write web pages that have many seperate variations for all those who
refuse to attempt any sort of compatiblity.
I want people to hardly ever be able to see a web page with full graphics and music
the way the designer wanted it to look!
I must go home now and turn on my black and white tv because black and white has
more class than color does. (and everybody knows color is not a natural thing)
Dumb down everybody! Nobody strive for improvement! Write for the lowest common
denominator! Write your web pages to deliver meaningful content to a 1970's Unix
text based web browser! Bring back phonograph records, I miss the hissing popping
noises in my music! ...... Insert whining and crying noises here if you are a
liberal with a Unix/Linix/Whinx browser..........
When someone puts a 'Best Viewed With' logo on their page, they are telling you
that they aren't writing their page for the low-tech dumbasses, but have something
on their page that uses the newest technologies of delivery. Those of us who are
excited about the new possibilities on the Internet strive to promote standards at
the high end, not the low end. The 'Best Viewed' sign is equivelant to saying "If
you use a pitifully old browser, there is probably nothing you need in here because
I am trying something new here"
End of Rant.....Hey,,Please don't hit your keyboard with your Birkenstock sandal
like that!
Love ya, Gary G...@home.com
Whiners only - please respond to G...@IhaveAdumbassBrowser.com
Tor Rognmo
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:34:52 -0800, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
>When someone puts a 'Best Viewed With' logo on their page, they are telling you
>that they aren't writing their page for the low-tech dumbasses, but have something
>on their page that uses the newest technologies of delivery.
What they are saying is that the 30 percent of net users who do not
have access to the newest browsers are not important to them. For a
personal for-fun home page that is quite acceptable. But in the
professional world most web publishers - and their business customers
- do not want to exclude a third of their potential market. So instead
of 'best viewed with' they give visitors a choice: click here if you
have Explorer/Netscape 3.0 or later, click there if not...
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
To everyone: please don't make your lines longer than 75-76 characters
to allow for quoting to look right on 80 column screens. Thanks.
In message <3494EBAB...@home.com>, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
|This site is best viewed with a "text-only" browser because I refuse to go
along
|with any attempt at making any standards at all. I don't want anyone to try to
|improve the efficiency of delivery of music and graphics to internet surfers.
I
|want people to write web pages that have many seperate variations for all
those who
|refuse to attempt any sort of compatiblity.
Uh, where did you get from "text only" browser to "let's make 100
versions of a web page?" It's the Navigator and Internet Explorer
users that are promoting incompatibility. Especially the latter; when
is the last time MS did *not* try to screw with a standard when they
had the chance? Hell, they even have their own hack of DNS (WINS).
|I want people to hardly ever be able to see a web page with full graphics and
music
|the way the designer wanted it to look!
If you're worried about how a web page *looks* you are in the wrong
medium. Sometimes a web page isn't even rendered in a visual medium.
|I must go home now and turn on my black and white tv because black and white
has
|more class than color does. (and everybody knows color is not a natural thing)
When black and white TV was the only thing around, TV shows had a lot
higher quality content, at least here in the US and according to most
of those alive during the time frame. Not that the shows went
completely off the deep end as soon as color "caught on," and I'm not
really trying to imply the change is related. (How many really violent
shows, besides westerns, were made in B&W?)
|Dumb down everybody! Nobody strive for improvement! Write for the lowest
common
|denominator! Write your web pages to deliver meaningful content to a 1970's
Unix
|text based web browser! Bring back phonograph records, I miss the hissing
popping
|noises in my music! ...... Insert whining and crying noises here if you
are a
|liberal with a Unix/Linix/Whinx browser..........
A lot of the stuff only made available in vinyl will probably never be
reissued in CD or cassette. Ditto for most of the 8-track stuff. And
Lynx and company are hardly a "1970's Unix text based browser." There
is a version of Lynx for Windows 95, and I think even one for plain
DOS.
While most of the operating systems that can run Lynx are Unix-like,
most if not all of the modern operating systems except for DOS,
Windows 95, Windows NT, OS/2, MacOS, and BeOS are Unix-like.
|When someone puts a 'Best Viewed With' logo on their page, they are telling you
|that they aren't writing their page for the low-tech dumbasses, but have
something
|on their page that uses the newest technologies of delivery. Those of us who
are
|excited about the new possibilities on the Internet strive to promote
standards at
|the high end, not the low end. The 'Best Viewed' sign is equivelant to saying
"If
|you use a pitifully old browser, there is probably nothing you need in here
because
|I am trying something new here"
When someone puts a "Best Viewed With Browser X" logo on their page,
they're figuratively giving Tim Berners-Lee and all those who worked
so hard to make the World Wide Web platform-independent a virtual slap
in the face. I do like having visually appealing content when I'm in
the mood for it, but definitely not when I want to find information
fast or don't feel like putting up with long download times (I don't
have that T-3 like you, do where the graphics just fly across the net
in milliseconds; I have a 28.8kbps modem but I want ISDN).
--
Shawn K. Quinn - skq...@brokersys.com - visit my home page at
http://www.brokersys.com/~skquinn/ and visit a bunch of bogus e-mail addresses
at http://www.brokersys.com/~skquinn/spamsucks.html (latter to foil robots)
GC
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
>To everyone: please don't make your lines longer than 75-76 characters
>to allow for quoting to look right on 80 column screens. Thanks.Hi Shawn, I
normally have 'wrap long lines' toggle on so I forget sometimes about the masses of
'browser challenged' out there.Entering CR's in messages forces a CR when the line
should wrap around at the window size you are using. Unfortuanately you may not be
reading this part of my paragraph because it's off your screen!
If you force CR's you
will get lines broken up at the wrong places like this one when someone is using a
small window.
>A lot of the stuff only made available in vinyl will probably never be
>reissued in CD or cassette. Ditto for most of the 8-track stuff.
There is no relationship between the content and the medium here.
>And Lynx and company are hardly a "1970's Unix text based browser." There
>is a version of Lynx for Windows 95, and I think even one for plain DOS.Use
whatever you like the most, I have no opinion on those OS's other than I suspect
that those who avoid the mainstreamOSs are the same ones who avoid the mainstream
browsers, who are the same ones who complain when they can't view
mainstream Internet content.
GC
Tor Rognmo wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:34:52 -0800, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >When someone puts a 'Best Viewed With' logo on their page, they are telling you
> >that they aren't writing their page for the low-tech dumbasses, but have something
> >on their page that uses the newest technologies of delivery.
>
> What they are saying is that the 30 percent of net users who do not
> have access to the newest browsers are not important to them. For a
> personal for-fun home page that is quite acceptable. But in the
> professional world most web publishers - and their business customers
> - do not want to exclude a third of their potential market. So instead
> of 'best viewed with' they give visitors a choice: click here if you
> have Explorer/Netscape 3.0 or later, click there if not...
Nothing wrong with that view. The web references that were given had a point of
view that no-one's browser should be left out. They want you to make your web pages so
convoluted that any possible browser will work. Don't dare to do anything new that an
older
browser can't see. The oft mentioned 'lowest common denominator' thing. They don't
want you to just redirect to a 'sorry you can't view' message, they don't want you to
make a version for every possible browser.
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING
In message <3495120C...@home.com>, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
|Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
|>A lot of the stuff only made available in vinyl will probably never be
|>reissued in CD or cassette. Ditto for most of the 8-track stuff.
|
|There is no relationship between the content and the medium here.
Oh really? There's no relationship between lesser-known rock artists
that co-existed with Elvis, at least 30 years before the CD became
popular, and the fact that practically *none* of their material can be
found on CD? Seems like a relationship between content and the medium
to me.
|>And Lynx and company are hardly a "1970's Unix text based browser." There
|>is a version of Lynx for Windows 95, and I think even one for plain DOS.
[linebreak introduced to make it clear who said what]
|Use
|whatever you like the most, I have no opinion on those OS's other than I
suspect
|that those who avoid the mainstreamOSs are the same ones who avoid the
mainstream
|browsers, who are the same ones who complain when they can't view
|mainstream Internet content.
That's not the point, and there is no such animal as "mainstream
Internet content." AFAIAC, it's *all* mainstream at some point or
another. But you really do have an opinion on those OS's and browsers:
by being (in some cases) actively rude to the users of these OS's and
browsers, you make clear your desire to shut them out. You're just
like the idiot the Dallas Cowboys hired to design their website, that
convinced me the Dallas Cowboys have the worst website in the NFL, if
not the web at large.
I use Lynx more often than the average Internet user because typically
I want to find information without having to sit through 100K of
images and/or half a zillion colors in front of me so I have no idea
what the hell is a link or not. I know what I want, so make your page
where I can tell where each link leads and don't tell me to "click
here" because my mouse doesn't (always) control the browser I'm using.
Yes, I use Netscape Navigator (part of Communicator 4.03) as well, but
only because there are no viable alternatives on my OS yet for when I
really feel like browsing graphically, and the Linux version is hardly
"mainstream" since it can't do plug-ins (can do helper apps though).
Even when using a graphical browser, I don't always load images, and I
only have Javascript turned on for style sheets, and really wish there
was a way to say "keep this damn script's paws OFF my status line,
thank you." Java is turned on, mostly because it's hardly ever used on
the pages I visit and I have yet to see too many truly annoying Java
applets (the Dallas Cowboys' annoying scroller being one of them).
Alan J. Flavell
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, GC wrote:
> Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
>
> >To everyone: please don't make your lines longer than 75-76 characters
That's only long-established good manners on usenet, after all.
> If you force CR's you
> will get lines broken up at the wrong places like this one when someone is using a
> small window.
Please read the new user FAQs on news.announce.newusers, and if you
don't know how to use your news software in a usenet-friendly fashion
then find out how on news.newusers.questions (or get something more
suitable). ciwah is no place for learning the rudiments of usenet
usage.
thanks
Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Hi Shawn, I normally have 'wrap long lines' toggle on so I forget
| sometimes about the masses of 'browser challenged' out
| there.
For your information: this newsreader does not wrap lines for me
automatically because that's not the way Usenet News works these
days. (In this case I asked it to, because your post was so
unreadable.) It has more features and is more configurable than
Netscape can ever hope to get, so I'd say that your news reader is
standards-challenged, while mine does what it's supposed to.
| Unfortuanately you may not be reading this part of my paragraph
| because it's off your screen!
Well, how about breaking the lines, then? I'm sure you can set up
Netscape News to do it for you.
| If you force CR's you will get lines broken up at the wrong places
| like this one when someone is using a small window.
The standard on Usenet News is to not make lines longer than about
74-75 characters. If you don't do that, then everyone will be
happy. It's not any more difficult than that.
| Use whatever you like the most, I have no opinion on those OS's
| other than I suspect that those who avoid the mainstreamOSs are the
| same ones who avoid the mainstream browsers,
Did the thought enter your head that maybe different people have
different needs and that some people might have needs not catered for
by your mainstream OSes and browsers? Windows NT/95 and Netscape/MSIE
are bug-ridden and slow, so I can very well understand that people
choose technologically superior alternatives where those are
available.
| who are the same ones who complain when they can't view mainstream
| Internet content.
The main reason for complaint is that it takes so little effort to
make your "mainstream Internet content" available to all browsers that
it's senseless not to do so.
--
"These are, as I began, cumbersome ways / to kill a man. Simpler, direct,
and much more neat / is to see that he is living somewhere in the middle /
of the twentieth century, and leave him there." -- Edwin Brock
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
William G. Schlake
>On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, GC wrote:
>
>> Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
>>
>> >To everyone: please don't make your lines longer than 75-76 characters
>
>That's only long-established good manners on usenet, after all.
>
>> If you force CR's you
>> will get lines broken up at the wrong places like this one when someone is using a
>> small window.
>
>Please read the new user FAQs on news.announce.newusers, and if you
>don't know how to use your news software in a usenet-friendly fashion
>then find out how on news.newusers.questions (or get something more
>suitable). ciwah is no place for learning the rudiments of usenet
>usage.
>
>thanks
Alan, CIWAH isn't a friendly place period.
Bill
Jo Meder
GC <g...@home.com> writes:
[Huge snip]
> End of Rant.....
Go away, stupid troll.
Jo
--
j...@delorges.in-berlin.de --- Berlin, Germany
GC
Jo Meder wrote:
I don't want to insult anyone's browser or OS, I was just expressing my
opinion that forcing web pages toconform to old standards sucks. Guess
you don't like to hear opinions unless they are the same as your's huh?
I will not post here anymore. Please end this thread all. On to more
constructive things..like work..yuk
GC
Lars Marius Garshol
|
| I don't want to insult anyone's browser or OS, I was just expressing
| my opinion that forcing web pages toconform to old standards sucks.
Well, actually, all you did was show that you didn't actually know
either the new or the old standards well enough.
| Guess you don't like to hear opinions unless they are the same as
| your's huh?
I guess Jo was tired of all the people who post here only raise
outrages and thought you were yet another.
Michael K. Neylon
Preivously, on 'comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html',>opinion that forcing web pages toconform to old standards sucks. Guess
>you don't like to hear opinions unless they are the same as your's huh?
>constructive things..like work..yuk
No one is forcing anyone to conform pages to an old standard - almost everyone
agrees that HTML 3.2 standardization (which is the current one), and prepping
for HTML 4.0 standard are good things.
What people say, time and time again, is that if you are going to use a
tag that is not in the standard, and thus, not expected to be available
in *all* browsers, from lynx to IE, then make sure you provide a
standard-version of that so that people can access it or whatnot.
Examples: If you have an image, use ALT tags. If you have an inline movie
or sound file, provide a link around the embedding so that people can
download and do what they wish with it. If you are using a Java or Javascript
enhanced navigation scheme, provide a list of text links.
No change of content needed, and these things take little if no extra work
if done right from the start. This is the beef that most of the readers
of the NG have - sites don't take the time to consider the 'minority' of
their audience, and provide content only the most advanced users can
see, when it takes little work to make the site friendly to all browsers while
keeping it looking nice in the most advanced ones.
--
Michael K. Neylon, UM ChE Grad | "..Besides, as an engineer, I've
mne...@engin.umich.edu | never actually spoken to [a woman]
A!, PatB, F!, MST, ST, DW | and the very thought gives me the
http://pinky.wtower.com/mneylon | screaming willy-wallies!" Brain - A!#24
Chris Gray
In article <3494EBAB...@home.com> GC <g...@home.com> writes:
[deleted: over-long, over-wide screed containing not one original word]
*plonk*
--
Chris Gray
Liam Quinn
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:34:52 -0800, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
>I must go home now and turn on my black and white tv because black and white has
>more class than color does. (and everybody knows color is not a natural thing)
>Dumb down everybody! Nobody strive for improvement! Write for the lowest common
>denominator! Write your web pages to deliver meaningful content to a 1970's Unix
>text based web browser!
See <http://www.htmlhelp.com/design/accessibility/myths.html>.
>Insert whining and crying noises here if you are a
>liberal with a Unix/Linix/Whinx browser..........
Not sure what you have against Unix, other than ignorance. Netscape
and MSIE are both available for various flavours of Unix.
--
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Timothy R Prodin
In article <3494EBAB...@home.com>, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
[Most of rant snipped...]
>Those of us who are excited about the new possibilities on the Internet
>strive to promote standards at the high end, not the low end. The
>'Best Viewed' sign is equivelant to saying "If you use a pitifully old
>browser, there is probably nothing you need in here because I am trying
>something new here"
I know that this is just a troll; but it does provide a meaningful
springboard to point out that the same version of a browser behave
differently based on which platform it is installed on. (As well as
which 'refresh' level it is on, how the user has it configured, etc.)
Properly written HTML will work in all situations.
>Bring back phonograph records, I miss the hissing popping
>noises in my music!
Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
music clips nuances from the performace.
Dan McGarry
In article <34953C19...@home.com>, GC <g...@home.com> writes:
|> I don't want to insult anyone's browser or OS, I was just expressing my
|> opinion that forcing web pages toconform to old standards sucks. Guess
|> you don't like to hear opinions unless they are the same as your's huh?
|> I will not post here anymore. Please end this thread all. On to more
|> constructive things..like work..yuk
Opinions (especially valid ones) are always appreciated in this group.
There are, mind you, many opinions out there, shared be many more
people. This means that from time to time opinions get repeated. If you
would be so kind as to check Dejanews, you would find that the issue of
support for standards has been discussed heatedly and at great length
in this group.
If you had brought a new and challenging perspective to this debate,
your post would likely have elicited some really interesting (or at
least interested) replies. Unfortunately, your perspective has been
examined countless times before, and found lacking every time.
Let's start with facts:
Your premise that there is an attempt afoot to go about "forcing
web pages to conform to old standards," is false.
a) There is no use of force in this group. You do what you want.
Even if your pages do not adhere to any recognizable standard,
you can bet your boots that you will not be hacked/reported to
the W3C/beaten up on the way home from shool.
b) "Web pages" are more properly known as HTML documents. What is
HTML? Well, it's a content mark up language developed by the
World Wide Web Consortium and implemented by the IETF. It is
clearly defined in reference material designed expressly for
Web authors. If you write HTML, you write to a standard. The
more closely you adhere to that standard, the "better" your
HTML is. (Remember, no one is forcing you to do this.) Good
use of HTML is not the end of the road. It is the beginning.
c) These standards are not "old". Netscape and MS have yet to catch up
to the most recent standards. The argument that they are cutting-
edge and that the standards hold them back is patently false.
d) None of this means that you're not allowed to create flashy Web
material. A good deal of the activity in the ciwa.* groups is
designed to help authors do so in the most efficient possible way.
This sometimes includes refuting false assumptions that were
getting in the way of certain authors' ability to see what tools
they need for the job.
HTH, HAND.
--
Dan McGarry
Abigail
William G. Schlake (w...@enteract.com) wrote on 1567 September 1993 in
<URL: news:34952827...@news.enteract.com>:
++
++ Alan, CIWAH isn't a friendly place period.
Indeed. Just look at the Schlake postings.
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]
Abigail
GC (g...@home.com) wrote on 1567 September 1993 in
<URL: news:3494EBAB...@home.com>:
++
++ When someone puts a 'Best Viewed With' logo on their page, they are
++ telling you that they aren't writing their page for the low-tech
++ dumbasses, but have something on their page that uses the newest
++ technologies of delivery.
Wrong. Making documents that cannot be viewed crossplatform is the *old*
technology. The way the 70's and 80's were. Crossplatform is the *new*
technology. Sure, perhaps you didn't join the net till this was all
in place, and you consider crossplatform as old because you've never
experienced something else. But still, crossplatform viewability is
the new way.
++ Those of us who are excited about the new
++ possibilities on the Internet strive to promote standards at the high
++ end, not the low end.
Those who are excited strive to make standards. Period.
++ The 'Best Viewed' sign is equivelant to saying
++ "If you use a pitifully old browser, there is probably nothing you need
++ in here because I am trying something new here"
The "Best Viewed" sign means: this page was created by someone too dumb
to realise what crossplatform means.
Jhary-a-Conel
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
> In message <3495120C...@home.com>, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
> |Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
> |>A lot of the stuff only made available in vinyl will probably never be
> |>reissued in CD or cassette. Ditto for most of the 8-track stuff.
> |
> |There is no relationship between the content and the medium here.
>
> Oh really? There's no relationship between lesser-known rock artists
> that co-existed with Elvis, at least 30 years before the CD became
> popular, and the fact that practically *none* of their material can be
> found on CD? Seems like a relationship between content and the medium
> to me.
GC's point is still valid - your music content was recorded in a method
unique to the device that plays it.
HTML is still just an ASCII text file, despite what renders it.
If you want to rescue an 8-track tape, you'll need a stack of equipment.
If you want to rescue an ASCII text file, you email it to me.
--
Jhary-a-Conel
Visit Tanelorn @ http://www.seanet.com/~sizemore/enter.html
ICQ me @ 1400818
'All places are a myth somewhere else - but Tanelorn is more
constant than most. She can be found, if sought, from anywhere
in the multiverse.'
Jhary-a-Conel
> opinion that forcing web pages toconform to old standards sucks. Guess
> you don't like to hear opinions unless they are the same as your's huh?
> I will not post here anymore. Please end this thread all. On to more
> constructive things..like work..yuk
>
It's not that easy, now that you've got the troll-ey rolling.
Jhary-a-Conel
Timothy R Prodin wrote:
> >Bring back phonograph records, I miss the hissing popping
> >noises in my music!
>
> Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
> moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
> people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
> music clips nuances from the performace.
Heh. I'm sure this is geting WIDE acceptance among the youthful consumers
of 1997/98. Oh yeah, and all us 30 somethings are beating a path to jump
onto this band wagon.
<sincerity>Could you describe a nuance in a text browser?
Please.</sincerity>
This "70's renisance is bringing back garish colors, bad taste, ugly
haircuts, goofy
advertisements, disgusting clothes and a Brady Bunch-ish groovieness
<sarcasm>
I've been yearning for.</sarcasm>
Uh, yeah. The past is where it's at man. The past is groovy. I totally
dig it man.
Like wow.
Hey, like wow, like I've been saying man, like in another groovy thread,
like peace.
***toke*** Like we should like, get down, and like make things happen man.
Like
make them better, 'cause it's good for the power man. ***toke***. Let's
like, drop some tcp/ip, and like look at the pretty colors on the browser
man. ***toke***
Like forget the MAN, man. Ambers, like greens, and like black, we don't
have to stand for that stuff. ***toke*** Don't like worry about his
browser, like he ain't too groovy. Like stand up for what you believe in,
and write some boss HTML.
Keep on Trukin'
The WebMaster
> >that they aren't writing their page for the low-tech dumbasses, but have something
> >on their page that uses the newest technologies of delivery.
>
> What they are saying is that the 30 percent of net users who do not
> have access to the newest browsers are not important to them. For a
> personal for-fun home page that is quite acceptable. But in the
> professional world most web publishers - and their business customers
> - do not want to exclude a third of their potential market. So instead
> of 'best viewed with' they give visitors a choice: click here if you
> have Explorer/Netscape 3.0 or later, click there if not...
Or better still. They write their pages in stock HTML and don't worry
about what browser the visitor is using. People who put "Best Viewed by"
logos on their web pages are simply giving free advertising to the
browser makers. It's the sign of an amateurish and impressionable mind.
The most heavily hit site on the net, Yahoo, has no "Best Viewed By"
graphic. C|Net's sites? - Nope. Cool Site of the Day? Nope. The list
goes on...
Write it in HTML 3.2 if you're serious. Write it in 4.0 with
java/javascript/active-x/dynamic html etc if you're playing games.
--
Today's Excuse:
Due to the CDA, we no longer have a root account.
Arjun Ray
| When someone puts a 'Best Viewed With' logo on their page, they are
| telling you that they [...] have something on their page that uses
| the newest technologies of delivery.
Really? The why do they ask everyone to download bloated trailing-edge
crippleware?
:ar
David Steuber
On 15 Dec 1997 17:04:07 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
wrote:
% Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
% moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
% people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
% music clips nuances from the performace.
I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
--
David Steuber
The astigmatic, myopic visionary
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
------------------------------------------------
Notice: Bulk e-mail advertisers may send their
ads to tras...@david-steuber.com. These ads
will be displayed on my website for a fee of
$500. Sending advertising to trashcan constitutes
acceptance of this legally binding contract.
------------------------------------------------
Veronica Karlsson
GC wrote:
[ 8< ]
> I must go home now and turn on my black and white tv because black and white has
> more class than color does. (and everybody knows color is not a natural thing)
You should concider the fact that you _can_ go home and turn on your
black and white tv - and expect it to work. When colour tv was invented
special care was taken to make sure that people with black and white tvs
would still be able to watch tv programs, the same tv programs, using
the same signals. Black and white tvs simply ignore the "colour part" of
the signal, just like browsers ignore tags they don't recognise.
[ 8< ]
--
:)
Irebavpn Xneyffba
( r93...@fz.yhgu.fr uggc://jjj.yhqq.yhgu.fr/~ix/ )
Eric Bohlman
David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote:
: On 15 Dec 1997 17:04:07 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
: wrote:
: % Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
: % moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
: % people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
: % music clips nuances from the performace.
: I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
It doesn't, but the *real* reason for the resurgence of interest in LPs is
potentially related. There's an awful lot of material that was originally
recorded (on reel-to-reel tape) back when LPs were the standard delivery
medium. These recordings were "optimized" for the playback
characteristics of LPs by the recording engineers, and don't sound quite
as good on CD because they were never intended to be listened to exactly
as the mics heard them. It's impractical or impossible to re-record them,
so the only way to release them in a good-sounding format is to release
them on vinyl.
What we have here is a case where the content got so intermingled with a
specific delivery medium that the result couldn't adapt to changes in
delivery media. I see an analogy to the use of purely presentational
markup in Web documents, as well as to the reliance on
experimentally-ascertained browser behavior.
b. boertjes
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:02:30 GMT, Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com>
had the urge to write this in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
:>
:>
So you have an original vinyl LP that states on the flipsite:
"Best played on a high-end Cantor LP player with A Stanton9100 super
Diamond needle"??
I have no CD's that say that they are best played on a Denon CD-player.
So again, the comparison lost track.
Bram
=======================================================
"Very funny Scotty... Now beam down my clothes !!"
Bram Boertjes - The Netherlands - Europe - Planet Earth
http://www.worldaccess.nl/~boertjes/
=======================================================
Timothy R Prodin
David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote:
>tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin) wrote:
>
>% Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
>% moving back to LPs?
>I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
1 - It really isn't patently rediculous. Are LPs making a wide
comeback? Probably not; but most of the high end power amps are vacuum
tube technology, and there has been a resurgance in vinal. The debate
about sound quality has been, and continues to go on.
2 - It really doesn't have much to do with HTML - with the possible
exception of people assuming that 'the latest and greatest' is
equivelent with 'best'. (E.g. a site must have java, etc....)
Diane Wilson
In article <3498ec16....@news.zippo.com>, tras...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber) writes:
|> On 15 Dec 1997 17:04:07 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
|> wrote:
|>
|> % Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
|> % moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
|> % people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
|> % music clips nuances from the performace.
|>
|> I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
It does make a nice analogy; people can get sucked into believing
anything. The truth of this "high-end audio" is that tubes and vinyl
distort the music horribly, but some people *like* the distortion.
Going back to vinyl and tubes is very similar to designing for a single
browser, especially for those "trailing-edge crippleware browsers."
--
Diane Wilson |
anon-...@anon.twwells.com | I give people fifth heads.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | --Kevin Maroney
http://www.acm.org/chapters/trichi/ |
Chris Gray
> It does make a nice analogy; people can get sucked into believing
> anything. The truth of this "high-end audio" is that tubes and vinyl
> distort the music horribly, but some people *like* the distortion.
> Going back to vinyl and tubes is very similar to designing for a single
> browser, especially for those "trailing-edge crippleware browsers."
I've been trying to stay out of this one, but:
* a lot of 60's pop records are "best heard on a transistor radio": that's
what they were designed for, and they sound truly awful on hi-fi equip-
ment. What the Tamla Motown engineers were doing was very like optimising
for a popular browser running in 800x600x256, using a "browser-safe
pallette".
* in the later days of vinyl, hifi manufacturers came out with things like
elliptical styli and parallel tracking arms which improved reproduction
of most LPs - but could actually work worse on those which had been
engineered to compensate for the defects of "conventional" players.
Designing for the shortcomings of the equipment used by your "target
audience" may make a lot of commercial sense of the time, and look
pretty stupid later. But by that time the cheque has been cashed,
and the awards have been won ...
--
Chris Gray
Iain Wilkie Logan
In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
<URL:mailto:eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
> David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> : On 15 Dec 1997 17:04:07 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
> : wrote:
>
> : % Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
> : % moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
> : % people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
> : % music clips nuances from the performace.
>
> : I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
It certainly seems off-topic, but I'd have to agree with Timothy - our ears
are analogue devices, as are reel-to-reel tape and vinyl LPs, and whilst
it's often not possible to define precisely what's going wrong, some CD
performances do seem to lack something compared with the vinyl equivalent.
> It doesn't, but the *real* reason for the resurgence of interest in LPs is
> potentially related. There's an awful lot of material that was originally
> recorded (on reel-to-reel tape) back when LPs were the standard delivery
> medium. These recordings were "optimized" for the playback
> characteristics of LPs by the recording engineers, and don't sound quite
> as good on CD because they were never intended to be listened to exactly
> as the mics heard them. It's impractical or impossible to re-record them,
> so the only way to release them in a good-sounding format is to release
> them on vinyl.
I think it's worth mentioning that all the components of the audio chain -
reel-to-reel recorders, disc cutting lathes, pickup cartridges, pre-amps and
so on, are all set up to precisely-defined 'interworking' standards, so that
the original production [*] may be reproduced as closely as possible or -
more likely - adjusted by the listener to suit his/her individual
preference, within the limitations of the playback equipment he/she has
chosen. That is analogous both to writing compliant HTML, and browser choice
when 'viewing' web pages.
[snip]
All the best,
Iain
[*] please note that I deliberately didn't say 'performance'.
--
Iain Logan, Langholm, Dumfriesshire - Chartered Transport Consultant
<http://homepages.enterprise.net/iainlogan/>
<mailto:iain...@enterprise.net>
David Steuber
On 16 Dec 1997 16:59:28 GMT, thwi...@bnr.ca (Diane Wilson) wrote:
% Going back to vinyl and tubes is very similar to designing for a single
% browser, especially for those "trailing-edge crippleware browsers."
I don't quite get this. Can I not write HTML that works in
"trailing-edge crippleware browsers" but still takes advantage of the
newer features?
For example. Let's say I use 'Pure' HTML 3.2. The only extensions I
use are the ones for CSS support. I also include a style sheet. In a
modern browser running on a machine that has the specified fonts
available the page looks terrific. On a "trailing-edge crippleware
browser" the page looks kinda mundane, but is still completely
viewable.
Perhaps this is like playing a CD on a portable boom box?
David Steuber
% What we have here is a case where the content got so intermingled with a
% specific delivery medium that the result couldn't adapt to changes in
% delivery media. I see an analogy to the use of purely presentational
% markup in Web documents, as well as to the reliance on
% experimentally-ascertained browser behavior.
Now this is something I can understand. I have run into situations,
primarily with CSS, where I have added attributes that I would have
preferred to have been handled by the style sheet. However, buggy
behavior, such as Netscape Tables, has forced me to use them. I can
only hope that fixing Netscape didn't break some obscure browser that
I don't have available to me.
When many people start relying on undocumented/buggy behavior, then it
becomes harder to fix because the fix will either break the page or
have to be backwards compatible. In the first case, people might
think the fix is a bug. In the second, the browser's code base has
gotten more bloated and unmaintainable.
The solution, it seems, is to promote the use of standard HTML. If
the standard is not correctly implemented in most browsers, or even a
subset you are interested in, then that feature may want to be avoided
rather than hacked with questionable mark up.
In any case, the idea that correct HTML has to look like feces is in
tenable. The content may look _much_ nicer on some browsers than on
others. Done correctly, it will be presentable just about anywhere.
If I'm wrong about this, why are newsgroups in plain ascii instead of
full blown HTML using a unicode character set, graphics, and sound?
Could it be that ideas can be conveyed efficiently just by using plain
text?
No, I am not saying that the web should be plain text. <-- for the
anti-pure ;-)
David Steuber
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 18:14:17 +0000 (GMT), Iain Wilkie Logan
<iain...@enterprise.net> wrote:
% In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
% <URL:mailto:eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
%
% > David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote:
% > : On 15 Dec 1997 17:04:07 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
% > : wrote:
% >
% > : % Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
% > : % moving back to LPs? (and, by the way, vacuum tubes). It seems that
% > : % people have begun to recognize that sampling quantization from digital
% > : % music clips nuances from the performace.
% >
% > : I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
%
% It certainly seems off-topic, but I'd have to agree with Timothy - our ears
% are analogue devices, as are reel-to-reel tape and vinyl LPs, and whilst
% it's often not possible to define precisely what's going wrong, some CD
% performances do seem to lack something compared with the vinyl equivalent.
Timothy clued me in to the analogy I was missing. But I should point
out that in the case of audio reproduction, the goal is to reproduce a
wave form as accurately as possible after going through the process of
recording, mixing, re-recording, and final play back.
HTML is not similar. It describes the structure of a document, not
how it is to be displayed.
If you want the document to be displayed just so, you need to define a
minimum set of capabilities for the rendering device. You also need
to use something that describes presentation like TEX or PS.
The closes thing to TEX in HTML is CSS. CSS falls way short.
However, it does a useful job. It tells the user-agent how the author
would like various elements to be displayed. The user-agent takes it
under advisement. I think this is a good scheme. Platform indepence
is preserved. Structure is preserved (in fact, it is more strongly
encouraged). The author gets to specify a look for the page that will
work on user-agents that adopt CSS in a relatively bug free manor.
Drop caps still need work :-).
David Steuber
The following is off topic. Proceed at your own risk.
On 16 Dec 1997 16:31:06 GMT, tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin)
wrote:
%
% David Steuber <tras...@david-steuber.com> wrote:
% >tpr...@ford.com (Timothy R Prodin) wrote:
% >
% >% Interesting; but you did know that very-high-end audio equipment is
% >% moving back to LPs?
%
%
% >I don't know what this patently rediculous claim has to do with HTML.
%
% 1 - It really isn't patently rediculous. Are LPs making a wide
% comeback? Probably not; but most of the high end power amps are vacuum
% tube technology, and there has been a resurgance in vinal. The debate
% about sound quality has been, and continues to go on.
On purely technical merits, tubes and vinyl are inferior technologies.
The test of fidelity is that the play-back wave form matches the
original wave form. Digital recording media preserves the wave form
more accurately than does analog. MOSFET amps have better S/N than
any tube amp. They are also cheaper for a given power output.
% 2 - It really doesn't have much to do with HTML - with the possible
% exception of people assuming that 'the latest and greatest' is
% equivelent with 'best'. (E.g. a site must have java, etc....)
People may feel this way. I won't debate this point.
Michael Reynolds
Shawn K. Quinn - NO SOLICITING wrote:
> they're figuratively giving Tim Berners-Lee and all those who worked
> so hard to make the World Wide Web platform-independent a virtual slap
> in the face. I do like having visually appealing content when I'm in
> the mood for it, but definitely not when I want to find information
> fast or don't feel like putting up with long download times (I don't
> have that T-3 like you, do where the graphics just fly across the net
> in milliseconds; I have a 28.8kbps modem but I want ISDN).
I agree. I have no problem with buttons that mention that a latest-generation
browser such as Netacape or IE should be used, but I have a real problem with
being told to switch browsers. I mean, when I see a button that says "Best
Viewed with Internet Explorer" do they really expect me to quit Netscape,
download IE, install IE, and open IE just to view their page? Get real...
---Michael Reynolds
--
mic...@spinweb.net
SpinWeb Net Designs
http://www.spinweb.net
webma...@spinweb.net
(765) 749-1699
P.O. Box 1611
Muncie, IN 47308
Robert G. Eldridge
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:34:52 -0800, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
>I must go home now and turn on my black and white tv because black and white has
>more class than color does. (and everybody knows color is not a natural thing)
This reminds me of the intelligent youngster who asked their mother
"when did the world become coloured mum?".
They had noticed that all the old photos were in black & white and the
newer ones were in colour so putting two and two together.... .
Robert G. Eldridge Cardiff NSW Australia
robert....@hunterlink.net.au
http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/
Zilbandy
Michael Reynolds <mic...@spinweb.net> wrote:
>I agree. I have no problem with buttons that mention that a latest-generation
>browser such as Netacape or IE should be used, but I have a real problem with
>being told to switch browsers. I mean, when I see a button that says "Best
>Viewed with....
I don't that's what is intended at all. My one and only home
page says that it looks best when viewed with Netscape 2.0.
All I mean by that is if you are using that version, you
should see it the way I see it. It's certainly viewable by
other browsers. I do tell people that if they want the
frames version of my page, they should be running 800x600
resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Burnett (Zilbandy) z...@azstarnet.com
Tucson, Arizona USA
The Dead Suburban's Home Page
http://www.azstarnet.com/~zil/suburb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl-Johan Noren
In <349964a1...@news.azstarnet.com>,
z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) wrote:
> I don't that's what is intended at all. My one and only home
> page says that it looks best when viewed with Netscape 2.0.
> All I mean by that is if you are using that version, you
> should see it the way I see it.
The way you see it is probably not the _best_ way to see it.
Or in some cases your visitors won't even see it - they'll
hear it, or index it.
> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
What is the pixel width of my Lynx xterm window? What is the
pixel width of a screen reader? Do you know the pixel width
that _I_ find give a comfortable reading width, or the
typeface and typesize I use?
--
Karl-Johan Norén (Noren with acute e) -- k-j-...@dsv.su.se
http://www.dsv.su.se/~k-j-nore/
- To believe people are as stupid as one believes is
stupider than one can believe
Zilbandy
Karl-Johan Noren <k-j-...@dsv.su.se> wrote:
>The way you see it is probably not the _best_ way to see it.
>Or in some cases your visitors won't even see it - they'll
>hear it, or index it.
Remember here, this is a personal home page. There is text
and pictures. How do you hear a picture? I'm assuming that
the majority of people even going to it will look at it,
even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
>> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
>> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
>> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
>> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
>
>What is the pixel width of my Lynx xterm window? What is the
>pixel width of a screen reader? Do you know the pixel width
>that _I_ find give a comfortable reading width, or the
>typeface and typesize I use?
I don't know what to tell you there. I'm one of the people
using an IBM compatible with Windows. I assume that a
majority of computer users fall into this catagory. That
being the case, my statement stands. For the rest of you, I
don't know what to say. If you are one of the elite computer
literate folks, then I would assume you to know what I meant
by this statement and not even have to comment on it, for
you are a minority!
>--
>Karl-Johan Norén (Noren with acute e) -- k-j-...@dsv.su.se
>http://www.dsv.su.se/~k-j-nore/
> - To believe people are as stupid as one believes is
> stupider than one can believe
Diane Wilson
In article <349d487f...@news.zippo.com>, tras...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber) writes:
|> On 16 Dec 1997 16:59:28 GMT, thwi...@bnr.ca (Diane Wilson) wrote:
|>
|> % Going back to vinyl and tubes is very similar to designing for a single
|> % browser, especially for those "trailing-edge crippleware browsers."
|>
|> I don't quite get this. Can I not write HTML that works in
|> "trailing-edge crippleware browsers" but still takes advantage of the
|> newer features?
You snipped parts of the analogy; it's a comparison about glorifying
technology that is in fact minimally capable. Writing a page that uses,
say, MS dynamic HTML, would be like producing a new recording and
engineering it so that it only sounds good on vinyl and tubes.
Yes, you can certainly write HTML that works on IE, and you can even
use features that are unique to IE. The problem comes in *depending*
on IE for the page to be fully functional, or worse, for the page to
be even minimally usable. Ditto for dependencies on NS HTML extensions.
And yet one doesn't have to surf very far on the web to run into pages
that do exactly this.
--
Diane Wilson | It's like someone is beating you with
anon-...@anon.twwells.com | a stick, saying, "Your job is
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | rejoicing; your job is rejoicing."
http://www.acm.org/chapters/trichi/ | --Dmitri Shostakovich
Karl-Johan Noren
In <34997696...@news.azstarnet.com>,
z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) wrote:
> Karl-Johan Noren <k-j-...@dsv.su.se> wrote:
>
> >The way you see it is probably not the _best_ way to see it.
> >Or in some cases your visitors won't even see it - they'll
> >hear it, or index it.
>
> Remember here, this is a personal home page. There is text
> and pictures. How do you hear a picture?
You don't - but you can still hear the text.
> I'm assuming that the majority of people even going to it will look
> at it, even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
You also say, later in your post, "Why can't more sites do
this?" If you want to make your personal page less
accessible than it could be is one thing, but asking or
telling others to do it is a tad much.
> >> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
> >> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
> >> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
> >> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
> >
> >What is the pixel width of my Lynx xterm window? What is the
> >pixel width of a screen reader? Do you know the pixel width
> >that _I_ find give a comfortable reading width, or the
> >typeface and typesize I use?
>
> I don't know what to tell you there. I'm one of the people using an
> IBM compatible with Windows.
Which have nothing to do with the window width of the browser
window, or the fonts that are used to show the content of the
page.
[ snip my quoted .sig - snip them when following up! ]
Zilbandy
Karl-Johan Noren <k-j-...@dsv.su.se> wrote:
>You also say, later in your post, "Why can't more sites do
>this?" If you want to make your personal page less
>accessible than it could be is one thing, but asking or
>telling others to do it is a tad much.
You seem to be hung up on the notion that I am TELLING
someone what to do. Using the equipment I have, and the
computer knowledge (or lack thereof) I have, I designed my
page based on a full screen resolution of 640x480 for my non
frame page and 800x600 for my frames page. Both pages can
certainly be view at other resolutions.
My biggest gripe is that some web designers ASSUME that
everyone has a 21" monitor and can view their site as they
see it. Monetary circumstances force me to use a 15"
monitor. The old eyeballs make using 640x480 resolution the
best choice for me. Many, many sites pop up on my screen (I
use Netscape 3.04 Gold) with widths that require me to use
the scroll bars or switch to 800x600 or even 1024x768. Maybe
it's just me, but if they designed their page to work best
at 640x480, would that make more people able to view it
without scrolling? Many of the consumers that visit these
pages are using less than state of the art computers and
monitors. I would think you would want to make it easy for
these folks, (ie. myself) to view your pages.
I don't know what MicroSoft does on their Knowledge Base
pages, but I have a heck of time viewing their stuff with
Netscape. There are articles that I can't even scroll to the
end of. I have to go to higher resolutions or reduce my font
sizes to the point I can't read them to have it all fit in
my viewer. I know they want me to abandon NS and go for
their viewer, but it's not likely to happen any time soon. I
consider their web designers to be amateurs, like myself. I
would expect more from them. Just my humble opinion.
>> >> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
>> >> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
>> >> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
>> >> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan J. Flavell
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Zilbandy wrote:
> Remember here, this is a personal home page.
It would be interesting to hear more about why you think that's a
significant fact. Surely a "personal home page" isn't disqualified
from holding up some kind of web authoring standards, is it?
> There is text and pictures.
Sure, and, like as not, audio too.
> How do you hear a picture?
By rendering its ALT text, of course. That's what the ALT text is there
for (to be used by non-graphical clients), and it does no harm at all to
any of your graphical visitors. In fact it might do some of them some
good - those who visit with auto image loading turned off.
If you want to do the whole job you could have a "D" link too (see
http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/access/accessinstructions.html#visim
for details).
> I'm assuming that
> the majority of people even going to it will look at it,
> even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
Sure, that wasn't in dispute, but why should that disqualify your blind
neighbour from taking an interest in it, or the robot indexer from
indexing it?
> >> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
> >> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
> >> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
> >> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
With respect, this _is_ the HTML authoring group, not the WWW
site-design group. HTML isn't specific to _any_ pixel size. That's a
problem you need to deal with in a different forum.
Zilbandy
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Zilbandy wrote:
>
>> Remember here, this is a personal home page.
>
>It would be interesting to hear more about why you think that's a
>significant fact. Surely a "personal home page" isn't disqualified
>from holding up some kind of web authoring standards, is it?
Personal as opposed to commercial. I'm not selling anything.
My livelyhood doesn't depend on a "perfect" page.
>> There is text and pictures.
>
>Sure, and, like as not, audio too.
What a stupid statement. Go there and check it out. Then
feel free to flame away. Making that statement without basis
is an ignorant thing to do.
>> How do you hear a picture?
>
>By rendering its ALT text, of course. That's what the ALT text is there
>for (to be used by non-graphical clients), and it does no harm at all to
>any of your graphical visitors. In fact it might do some of them some
>good - those who visit with auto image loading turned off.
Didn't use the ALT thing. Don't feel I need it, although I
hadn't considered your point of view. Read the story, the
pictures are there if you want them.
>If you want to do the whole job you could have a "D" link too (see
>http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/access/accessinstructions.html#visim
>for details).
Remember, I'm not a pro, just an amateur. Don't have the
foggiest what you're talking about.
>> I'm assuming that
>> the majority of people even going to it will look at it,
>> even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
>
>Sure, that wasn't in dispute, but why should that disqualify your blind
>neighbour from taking an interest in it, or the robot indexer from
>indexing it?
Not intentional, but then again, I'm talking about a
majority of people using home computers and the leading two
or three browsers. I don't have the knowledge to please
everyone.
>> >> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
>> >> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
>> >> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
>> >> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
>With respect, this _is_ the HTML authoring group, not the WWW
>site-design group. HTML isn't specific to _any_ pixel size. That's a
>problem you need to deal with in a different forum.
Refer me to a proper group, instead of just telling me to go
to one, and I might leave. Until then, I'll hang around and
see if there are any friendly sorts in this group. You seem
to forget that all your HTML authoring is still going to
wind up being viewed by people using computers and browsers,
the MAJORITY of which fall into the catagory I'm talking
about. You seem to be so hung up on the authoring aspect,
that you can't see the whole picture. What is the intent of
your finished HTML document? Isn't it meant to be viewed?
Liam Quinn
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:08:03 GMT, z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) wrote:
>"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Zilbandy wrote:
>>
>>> Remember here, this is a personal home page.
>>
>>It would be interesting to hear more about why you think that's a
>>significant fact. Surely a "personal home page" isn't disqualified
>>from holding up some kind of web authoring standards, is it?
>
>Personal as opposed to commercial. I'm not selling anything.
>My livelyhood doesn't depend on a "perfect" page.
But you would like a better page, no?
>Didn't use the ALT thing. Don't feel I need it, although I
>hadn't considered your point of view. Read the story, the
>pictures are there if you want them.
Why are the pictures there? Once you answer this question, you can
determine what ALT text would be most suitable based on Alan's article
at <http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/%7Eflavell/alt/alt-text.html>.
>>If you want to do the whole job you could have a "D" link too (see
>>http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/access/accessinstructions.html#visim
>>for details).
>
>Remember, I'm not a pro, just an amateur. Don't have the
>foggiest what you're talking about.
That's why he gave you a link. Don't be so quick to accept mediocrity
just because you're unpaid.
>I don't have the knowledge to please
>everyone.
Don't sell yourself short. Making Web pages accessible to all isn't
as hard as it seems. Reading this newsgroup and listening to people's
suggestions is one of the best ways to learn how to write accessible
pages.
>>With respect, this _is_ the HTML authoring group, not the WWW
>>site-design group. HTML isn't specific to _any_ pixel size. That's a
>>problem you need to deal with in a different forum.
>
>Refer me to a proper group, instead of just telling me to go
>to one, and I might leave.
He referred you to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design.
>You seem
>to forget that all your HTML authoring is still going to
>wind up being viewed by people using computers and browsers,
>the MAJORITY of which fall into the catagory I'm talking
>about.
There's nothing wrong with pleasing all users instead of just a
majority of them.
>What is the intent of
>your finished HTML document? Isn't it meant to be viewed?
No, it's meant to inform/entertain/sell/whatever. Whether it
accomplishes this goal through a visual, aural, or Braille rendering
should not be a concern as long as the goal is met.
Before you discount blind users as the minority, remember that search
engines' robots are blind. I've heard that sighted people like to use
search engines to find pages.
--
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
Chip Ciammaichella
I see the confusion here. You assume that 640x480 is the smallest
resolution, but that isn't the case. Many people browse with their
windows resized smaller than that, and in fact WebTV will only display
540 pixels wide, and does not allow for horizontal scrolling. If your
page fits 640x480, some of your content may be totally unviewable on a
web-tv. It's best to have your page so it looks well at multiple
resolutions, with minimum width without horizontal scrolling only
limited by the width of any graphics, which should never be wider than
500px IMHO.
--
Regards,
Chip Ciammaichella - ch...@raton.com
http://www.raton.com/~chip/
"A journey of ten thousand miles begins with one small step."
Zilbandy wrote in message <3499cf6...@news.azstarnet.com>...
>abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>
>>Oh please. You complain people design for a certain resolution
>>that doesn't fit your needs/possibilities, yet you design for
>>certain resolution yourself too.
>>
>>Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>At least all of my stuff fits in the smallest kettle! Let
>this thread die, this is my last post about this. If you
>have additional comments, please use email....
Dave Williams
In article <34986318...@spinweb.net>, mic...@spinweb.net wrote:
(snip)
> I agree. I have no problem with buttons that mention that a latest-generation
> browser such as Netacape or IE should be used, but I have a real problem with
> being told to switch browsers. I mean, when I see a button that says "Best
> Viewed with Internet Explorer" do they really expect me to quit Netscape,
> download IE, install IE, and open IE just to view their page? Get real...
So when I'm at home, using NS2.0 on my puny 33mhz computer because NS3 is
too slow, it's OK for a Web site to tell me that I have to download the
"latest-generation" version of Netscape, when my hard drive only has 19MB
free?
This isn't hypothetical (well actually, I do have NS3, MSIE4 and a couple
other browsers on my hard disk, part of the reason it's running out of
space).
I don't mean to be picky, since I share your irritation about being told
what browser to use. But I also object to being told what generation to
use. And then there's all the other things people like to suggest:
Resolution, default text size, default font (yes, I've seen this), window
size, etc.
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
Abigail
Zilbandy (z...@azstarnet.com) wrote on 1570 September 1993 in
<URL: news:349964a1...@news.azstarnet.com>:
++ Michael Reynolds <mic...@spinweb.net> wrote:
++
++ >I agree. I have no problem with buttons that mention that a latest-generation
++ >browser such as Netacape or IE should be used, but I have a real problem with
++ >being told to switch browsers. I mean, when I see a button that says "Best
++ >Viewed with....
++
++ I don't that's what is intended at all. My one and only home
++ page says that it looks best when viewed with Netscape 2.0.
++ All I mean by that is if you are using that version, you
++ should see it the way I see it. It's certainly viewable by
++ other browsers. I do tell people that if they want the
++ frames version of my page, they should be running 800x600
++ resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
++ 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
++
Now why should they do something stupid like that?
Why should you limit your audience? Is what you have to say only
viewable in 640x480?
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]
Abigail
++
++ Remember here, this is a personal home page. There is text
++ and pictures. How do you hear a picture? I'm assuming that
++ the majority of people even going to it will look at it,
++ even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
*Don't* assume. That's the entire point of the web, you *can't*
make assumptions about the readers platform if your intention
is to bring a message across.
++ I don't know what to tell you there. I'm one of the people
++ using an IBM compatible with Windows. I assume that a
++ majority of computer users fall into this catagory. That
++ being the case, my statement stands. For the rest of you, I
++ don't know what to say. If you are one of the elite computer
++ literate folks, then I would assume you to know what I meant
++ by this statement and not even have to comment on it, for
++ you are a minority!
Uh. Right. So, you only have to say something to a majority? Someone who
makes an individual choice (either forced or by free will) doesn't
count? You've nothing to say to him/her? Are you never afraid *you*
at one point in time might be a minority?
Abigail
++
++ You seem to be hung up on the notion that I am TELLING
++ someone what to do. Using the equipment I have, and the
++ computer knowledge (or lack thereof) I have, I designed my
++ page based on a full screen resolution of 640x480 for my non
++ frame page and 800x600 for my frames page. Both pages can
++ certainly be view at other resolutions.
++
++ My biggest gripe is that some web designers ASSUME that
++ everyone has a 21" monitor and can view their site as they
++ see it. Monetary circumstances force me to use a 15"
++ monitor. The old eyeballs make using 640x480 resolution the
++ best choice for me. Many, many sites pop up on my screen (I
++ use Netscape 3.04 Gold) with widths that require me to use
++ the scroll bars or switch to 800x600 or even 1024x768. Maybe
++ it's just me, but if they designed their page to work best
++ at 640x480, would that make more people able to view it
++ without scrolling? Many of the consumers that visit these
Oh please. You complain people design for a certain resolution
that doesn't fit your needs/possibilities, yet you design for
certain resolution yourself too.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Abigail
Dan McGarry
In article <34998c48...@news.azstarnet.com>, z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) writes:
|> "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
|>
|> >On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Zilbandy wrote:
|> >
|> >> Remember here, this is a personal home page.
|> >
|> >It would be interesting to hear more about why you think that's a
|> >significant fact. Surely a "personal home page" isn't disqualified
|> >from holding up some kind of web authoring standards, is it?
|>
|> Personal as opposed to commercial. I'm not selling anything.
|> My livelyhood doesn't depend on a "perfect" page.
You're absolutely right, of course, and no one is going to start
pounding on your door one night with an injunction forcing you
to fix your HTML mark up <grin>.
|> >> There is text and pictures.
|> >
|> >Sure, and, like as not, audio too.
|>
|> What a stupid statement. Go there and check it out. Then
|> feel free to flame away. Making that statement without basis
|> is an ignorant thing to do.
I think Alan was just extrapolating on commonly found multi-media
formats. I'm relatively certain that he didn't intend to flame you.
The issue of universal accessibility has been hashed over quite a
bit in this newsgroup. Most people posting here agree that there
are a few simple steps that you can take to make sure your site is
accessible to everyone.
A couple of basic issues:
The WWW was conceived of as a milieu in which anyone could share
any data with anyone else. The idea, in other words, was to make
information as accessible and shareable as possible. Naturally,
this involves a certain degree of compromise. As you rightly stated,
a blind person is likely never going to be able to see the images
you placed on your site. But if these images are important, or if
the information they convey adds to the textual material, adding
a short phrase expressing that information in the ALT attribute
is an easy way to mitigate this problem.
There are other good reasons to do so as well:
- If someone is visiting your site with Lynx (a text-mode
browser), they see images without ALTs as [INLINE]. This
can look pretty ugly if you have any amount of graphical
content. If it's important (e.g. navigational) material, they
won't know how to use it.
- Indexing robots see pretty much the same thing as a text-
mode browser does. When someone punches up a listing for
your site, it only makes sense to want them to see info
that doesn't have gaping holes in it.
- A significant number of people browse with images off. You
might be able to con(vince) a few of those people into
turning them back on if the ALT text is intriguing. As a
writer, I really like to make the ALT text work on a
creative level as well. You might enjoy doing the same.
Designing a page so that it can be viewed at a certain resolution
can sometimes have a negative effect as well.
You can find a whole whack of information about this and other
issues in HTML authoring at:
<URL: http://www.htmlhelp.com/>
|> >> How do you hear a picture?
|> >
|> >By rendering its ALT text, of course. That's what the ALT text is there
|> >for (to be used by non-graphical clients), and it does no harm at all to
|> >any of your graphical visitors. In fact it might do some of them some
|> >good - those who visit with auto image loading turned off.
|>
|> Didn't use the ALT thing. Don't feel I need it, although I
|> hadn't considered your point of view. Read the story, the
|> pictures are there if you want them.
If you don't consider the pictures necessary to the experience, you
can always just put ALT="" into the <IMG> tag. It won't take a lot
of effort, and it sure cleans up the display.
|> >> I'm assuming that
|> >> the majority of people even going to it will look at it,
|> >> even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
|> >
|> >Sure, that wasn't in dispute, but why should that disqualify your blind
|> >neighbour from taking an interest in it, or the robot indexer from
|> >indexing it?
|>
|> Not intentional, but then again, I'm talking about a
|> majority of people using home computers and the leading two
|> or three browsers. I don't have the knowledge to please
|> everyone.
Nobody's asking you to *please* them, but it is quite easy to make
a page that's accessible to all current browsers. There's really not
much extra effort required at all.
I guess if I had to make an analogy (duck, everyone!), I'd say
that it boils down to this: It's unrealistic to expect you to build
a wheelchair ramp into the front entrance to your home on the
off chance that a disabled person might happen by. It's not at all
unreasonable to expect you to hold a door for that same person.
Making HTML documents accessible involves about that much effort,
and really is just an act of courtesy. Nobody will ever force you
to do it, but you'll feel better if you do....
|> >> >> It's certainly viewable by other browsers. I do tell people that if
|> >> >> they want the frames version of my page, they should be running
|> >> >> 800x600 resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
|> >> >> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
|>
|> >With respect, this _is_ the HTML authoring group, not the WWW
|> >site-design group. HTML isn't specific to _any_ pixel size. That's a
|> >problem you need to deal with in a different forum.
|>
|> Refer me to a proper group, instead of just telling me to go
|> to one, and I might leave.
You don't have to leave, exactly. Just step around the corner to
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design when you want to talk
about issues that deal more with design than with actual HTML
mark up.
|> Until then, I'll hang around and
|> see if there are any friendly sorts in this group.
Please bear in mind that the issues being explained to you here
really have been gone over and over many times. It may seem new
to you, but there have been literally hundreds of posts just recently
dealing with the very reasoning that you're using. It sometimes
gets hard to be friendly when you find yourself typing the same
arguments for the nnth time.
|> You seem
|> to forget that all your HTML authoring is still going to
|> wind up being viewed by people using computers and browsers,
|> the MAJORITY of which fall into the catagory I'm talking
|> about. You seem to be so hung up on the authoring aspect,
|> that you can't see the whole picture. What is the intent of
|> your finished HTML document?
That's a very good question
|> Isn't it meant to be viewed?
That's not a complete answer. Remember that even though the most
common use of the WWW today is to view HTML files in graphical
browsers, it's not the only one. Even when the material *is* being
viewed with a graphical browser, there are so many display resolutions
colour depths and G*d-knows-what-all that you really can't assume
anything.
More importantly, there's nothing to say that the way we navigate
the Web won't change fundamentally within a very short period of
time. With the way the computer revolution has been going, I'd
say it's pretty much a sure thing. Let me give you an example:
You say you design for a resolution of 640x480 pixels. Were you
aware that WebTV uses a smaller screen width? There aren't many
people using this browser today, but there could easily be within
the year. Some people are already buying cars that have audio
browsers. Even some cel phones have web browsing capabilities
these days. It really would be a drag to have to re-write your
HTML documents every time a new browsing method appears, wouldn't
it?
Okay, okay. Your's is just a simple personal home page. I really
am not trying to brow-beat you; I just wanted to give you the
Reader's Digest version of a discussion that has been going on here
for quite some time. I wanted to do that so you wouldn't feel
overwhelmed when people snap off curt (*not* rude) responses
to arguments they've seen a million times before.
Bottom line: HTML is a universal standard for marking up Web content.
Knowing that, it only makes sense to learn enough about it to
achieve that goal.
<FX: birds singing, morning sun smiling on horizon, Mr Rogers throws
his sweater over his shoulder and says:>
Nobody's going to force you to adhere to the HTML standard, but the
Web is a better place when you do....
</fx>
8^)
--
Dan McGarry
Erik Johnson
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 06:18:01 -0800, GC <g...@home.com> wrote:
>I don't want to insult anyone's browser or OS, I was just expressing my
>opinion that forcing web pages toconform to old standards sucks. Guess
>you don't like to hear opinions unless they are the same as your's huh?
>I will not post here anymore. Please end this thread all. On to more
>constructive things..like work..yuk
Okay, I've read through half these posts, and have to pipe
in. You say "forcing web pages to conform to old standards
sucks", yet it sounds like you are just conforming to Microsoft's
or Netscape's attempts to redefine existing standards around
their proprietary additions and "technologies". Anything that
requires a *specific* browser brand or version is not based on
standards (old OR new) at all. And then what do you do when
MS or Netscape changes this moving target you *think* is a
standardized?
I recall visiting a rather nifty site with a gee whizzy slick
interface. It said best viewed using Netscape. It didn't
work at all with Netscape 4, but only with Netscape 3.
Now this guy thought what he was doing was standard
and leading edge, but because it wasn't, it doesn't work
with the latest and greatest. He got really pissed at me
for pointing this out and said I was an idiot for using NS4.
Oh well, maybe he's right.
Since I don't know what your site is, I don't know what
you are doing that is so special that it requires a specific
browser. Perhaps you'll relay your URL? I'm suspect
there is nothing that cannot be accomplished in more
generic ways, or is entirely superfluous.
btw, Just so you don't confuse me with one of these
html 'purists' who are so vocal in this newsgroup (where
do they find the time?), I don't give a s**t about Lynx or
hypothetical talking browsers... but when working with
actual standards, one, for the most part doesn't have to.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Erik Johnson erik@ phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/ejvgallery
http://phidias.colorado.edu/phidias
Zilbandy
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>Oh please. You complain people design for a certain resolution
>that doesn't fit your needs/possibilities, yet you design for
>certain resolution yourself too.
>
>Pot. Kettle. Black.
At least all of my stuff fits in the smallest kettle! Let
Zilbandy
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>*Don't* assume. That's the entire point of the web, you *can't*
>make assumptions about the readers platform if your intention
>is to bring a message across.
Remember, as a web designer, I have but one very simple
page. My assumptions may be due to ignorance, but I'm
learning.
>++ I don't know what to tell you there. I'm one of the people
>++ using an IBM compatible with Windows. I assume that a
>++ majority of computer users fall into this catagory. That
>++ being the case, my statement stands. For the rest of you, I
>++ don't know what to say. If you are one of the elite computer
>++ literate folks, then I would assume you to know what I meant
>++ by this statement and not even have to comment on it, for
>++ you are a minority!
>
>Uh. Right. So, you only have to say something to a majority? Someone who
>makes an individual choice (either forced or by free will) doesn't
>count? You've nothing to say to him/her? Are you never afraid *you*
>at one point in time might be a minority?
If you take the time to read my page, you will know that in
certain ways which become obvious as you read, I am a
minority, and I know what it feels like to be looked on as a
minority. I've dealt with it for 30 years!
Zilbandy
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>++ My regular page was intended for
>++ 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
>++
>
>Now why should they do something stupid like that?
>
>Why should you limit your audience? Is what you have to say only
>viewable in 640x480?
In many cases, yes. People using any resolution of 640x480
or higher should be able to view my page without scrolling,
except for up and down, of course. Pages designed for higher
resolutions, simply don't fit on my screen. My own page has
an example of that. I was unable to make my frames page fit
conveniently on a 640x480 screen, thus my comment about
using 800x600 or higher to view it properly. I can certainly
view it at 640x480, but it's not as convenient. IMHO
Derek Moody
In article <34998c48...@news.azstarnet.com>, Zilbandy
<URL:mailto:z...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
> "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Zilbandy wrote:
> >
> >> Remember here, this is a personal home page.
> >
> >It would be interesting to hear more about why you think that's a
> >significant fact. Surely a "personal home page" isn't disqualified
> >from holding up some kind of web authoring standards, is it?
<snip>
> >> I'm assuming that
> >> the majority of people even going to it will look at it,
> >> even if only to decide they don't want to look at it.
> >
> >Sure, that wasn't in dispute, but why should that disqualify your blind
> >neighbour from taking an interest in it, or the robot indexer from
> >indexing it?
>
> Not intentional, but then again, I'm talking about a
> majority of people using home computers and the leading two
> or three browsers. I don't have the knowledge to please
> everyone.
<snip>
> to one, and I might leave. Until then, I'll hang around and
> see if there are any friendly sorts in this group. You seem
> to forget that all your HTML authoring is still going to
> wind up being viewed by people using computers and browsers,
> the MAJORITY of which fall into the catagory I'm talking
> about. You seem to be so hung up on the authoring aspect,
> that you can't see the whole picture. What is the intent of
> your finished HTML document? Isn't it meant to be viewed?
I wouldn't dream of speaking for Mr. Flavell - but I imagine that he, like
most of us, intends his HTML document(s) to be understood. Viewing is only
one means by which this might be achieved.
It never fails to amaze me just how much work some folks will put into a
site in order to make it _less_ usable, whereas a few simple processes make
a simple page accessible to almost everyone.
Cheerio,
--
Derek Moody >>> Derek...@ndirect.co.uk
Zilbandy
Well, I tried to send this via email to tal...@bnr.ca but it
bounced. Said unknown user. Oh well, here's my reply:
tal...@bnr.ca (Dan McGarry) wrote:
On 19 Dec 1997 00:55:51 GMT, you wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm moving this out
of the group because it has all been said at least once.
>|> >> There is text and pictures.
>|> >
>|> >Sure, and, like as not, audio too.
>|>
>|> What a stupid statement. Go there and check it out. Then
>|> feel free to flame away. Making that statement without basis
>|> is an ignorant thing to do.
>
>I think Alan was just extrapolating on commonly found multi-media
>formats. I'm relatively certain that he didn't intend to flame you.
I took the comment to mean that as a "newbie" to web pages,
he was implying that I had added every little cute noise and
animation I could find. That is simply not the case,
although last night I did add a small 4k animated Santa
waving his arm and the text, "Merry Christmas!"
I'm not seriously taking offense at any of the posts at this
time, although I was surprised by the general negativity I
felt in the other replys. Surprised, not offended.
>The issue of universal accessibility has been hashed over quite a
>bit in this newsgroup. Most people posting here agree that there
>are a few simple steps that you can take to make sure your site is
>accessible to everyone.
I follow other groups on a regular basis and I see the same
thing. Yes, sometimes it is frustrating to hear the same
question every other day. My experience with FAQs has not
been good. I would rather ask the question, take the flames,
and run with the answer. :)
>A couple of basic issues:
> As you rightly stated,
>a blind person is likely never going to be able to see the images
>you placed on your site. But if these images are important, or if
>the information they convey adds to the textual material, adding
>a short phrase expressing that information in the ALT attribute
>is an easy way to mitigate this problem.
You know, I just wouldn't know what to say about them.
"Here's a picture of my truck upside down." This just
doesn't seem to work for me. The thumbnail images don't have
any ALT info either. Clicking on a thumbnail loads a larger
image, actually another HTML file with the image and brief
description. I guess I could take the descriptions and put
them in an ALT statement. That might work, although it still
doesn't describe the actual picture.
>There are other good reasons to do so as well:
>
>- If someone is visiting your site with Lynx (a text-mode
> browser), they see images without ALTs as [INLINE]. This
> can look pretty ugly if you have any amount of graphical
> content. If it's important (e.g. navigational) material, they
> won't know how to use it.
I don't know anything about Lynx, Unix, MacOS, and barely
know enough about Win95 to keep my system running. My HTML
is at a kindergarten level. I know just enough to do what I
have done, and most of that was pirated from other sites
with the text and graphics changed for my application.
>- Indexing robots see pretty much the same thing as a text-
> mode browser does. When someone punches up a listing for
> your site, it only makes sense to want them to see info
> that doesn't have gaping holes in it.
I just recently added some META tags to my page. Is this
similar to what you are referring to about indexing robots?
>- A significant number of people browse with images off. You
> might be able to con(vince) a few of those people into
> turning them back on if the ALT text is intriguing. As a
> writer, I really like to make the ALT text work on a
> creative level as well. You might enjoy doing the same.
This makes sense. My story tells the story, the pictures
show the results. It's kind like listening to the news on
radio, or watching it on TV.
>Designing a page so that it can be viewed at a certain resolution
>can sometimes have a negative effect as well.
I can see this. Again, the only experience I have is with my
old Pentium and Windows 3.11 and Win95. I have tried IE 3.x
and didn't care for it. I currently use Netscape 3.04,
moving up from Netscape 1.1 and consistently lagging one
generation behind. This is my computer world. Anything else
out there is greek to me. Consequently, I designed my page
based on what I knew at the time.
>You can find a whole whack of information about this and other
>issues in HTML authoring at:
>
><URL: http://www.htmlhelp.com/>
I will take a look at it. I have gone to some HTML pages on
the web and got some good info from them. All I know about
frames was taken from some guys page who had written a
little tutorial and included some examples.
>|> >> How do you hear a picture?
>|> >By rendering its ALT text, of course. That's what the ALT text is there
>|> >for (to be used by non-graphical clients), and it does no harm at all to
>|> >any of your graphical visitors. In fact it might do some of them some
>|> >good - those who visit with auto image loading turned off.
It makes sense now.
>|> Didn't use the ALT thing. Don't feel I need it, although I
>|> hadn't considered your point of view. Read the story, the
>|> pictures are there if you want them.
>
>If you don't consider the pictures necessary to the experience, you
>can always just put ALT="" into the <IMG> tag. It won't take a lot
>of effort, and it sure cleans up the display.
I'll try to bone up on the ALT command and include it, if I
can figure out what to say. I currently have HotDog4.5 and I
believe it has pretty good help concerning HTML.
>Nobody's asking you to *please* them, but it is quite easy to make
>a page that's accessible to all current browsers. There's really not
>much extra effort required at all.
I'll add the ALT tags soon. I guess I can check out the
results by turning off the "load images" in my browser.
>|> >With respect, this _is_ the HTML authoring group, not the WWW
>|> >site-design group. HTML isn't specific to _any_ pixel size. That's a
>|> >problem you need to deal with in a different forum.
>|>
>|> Refer me to a proper group, instead of just telling me to go
>|> to one, and I might leave.
>
>You don't have to leave, exactly. Just step around the corner to
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design when you want to talk
>about issues that deal more with design than with actual HTML
>mark up.
I have already subscribed to that group. I'll also follow
alt.html for a while but that seemed to have more garbage in
it than this group.
>|> Until then, I'll hang around and
>|> see if there are any friendly sorts in this group.
>Please bear in mind that the issues being explained to you here
>really have been gone over and over many times. It may seem new
>to you, but there have been literally hundreds of posts just recently
>dealing with the very reasoning that you're using. It sometimes
>gets hard to be friendly when you find yourself typing the same
>arguments for the nnth time.
As mentioned earlier, I can understand this. I just try to
keep in mind that every body at one time or another was new
to the group and probably asked question that were just
answered a few days earlier. When I joined the group, I
retrieved over 1800 headers and looked through them for
things that looked interesting to me. I fueled this whole
thread by commenting on the, "...best viewed with... crap."
Boy, I didn't know it was such a sensitive issue. :)
>|> What is the intent of
>|> your finished HTML document?
>
>That's a very good question
>
>|> Isn't it meant to be viewed?
>
>That's not a complete answer. Remember that even though the most
>common use of the WWW today is to view HTML files in graphical
>browsers, it's not the only one. Even when the material *is* being
>viewed with a graphical browser, there are so many display resolutions
>colour depths and G*d-knows-what-all that you really can't assume
>anything.
Again, that is the only world I know.
>More importantly, there's nothing to say that the way we navigate
>the Web won't change fundamentally within a very short period of
>time. With the way the computer revolution has been going, I'd
>say it's pretty much a sure thing. Let me give you an example:
That's for sure. My 18 month old Pentium 133 is already
outdated. My old 486 is used by my son to run games and my
older 386 is a dust collecting paper weight/coffee table.
>You say you design for a resolution of 640x480 pixels. Were you
>aware that WebTV uses a smaller screen width? There aren't many
>people using this browser today, but there could easily be within
>the year. Some people are already buying cars that have audio
>browsers. Even some cel phones have web browsing capabilities
>these days. It really would be a drag to have to re-write your
>HTML documents every time a new browsing method appears, wouldn't
>it?
I guess the WebTVers will just have to scroll. Again, it
comes down to trying to trying to make a page available to
most people. Certainly, the WebTV crowd could read my story
and view the pictures, although not as conveniently as I
can.
>Okay, okay. Your's is just a simple personal home page. I really
>am not trying to brow-beat you; I just wanted to give you the
>Reader's Digest version of a discussion that has been going on here
>for quite some time. I wanted to do that so you wouldn't feel
>overwhelmed when people snap off curt (*not* rude) responses
>to arguments they've seen a million times before.
Again, I'm not offended by any post, yet. I was just
surprised by the negative responses. I guess I really hit a
nerve. I've been on the sending and receiving end of flames
before. If they get too bad, I don't have to play anymore.
:)
>Bottom line: HTML is a universal standard for marking up Web content.
>Knowing that, it only makes sense to learn enough about it to
>achieve that goal.
>
><FX: birds singing, morning sun smiling on horizon, Mr Rogers throws
>his sweater over his shoulder and says:>
>
>Nobody's going to force you to adhere to the HTML standard, but the
>Web is a better place when you do....
>
></fx>
Hmmm. I'll have to look up what the FX thing is. :) That is
what I was attempting to do with my page. I designed it to
work with NS2.0 when version 3 was coming out. I figured if
I stayed with the older version, more people with older
browsers would be able to view it. At the time, I only
considered viewing it. I did not even think of hearing it,
or feeling it. And, I only considered people using PCs with
the current common browsers. I looked at my page with AOL
(yes, I have an AOL account, too....) :( and it just didn't
look at good, still doesn't in my opinion, even though I'm
using their IE browser. It has to due with their handling of
graphics I guess.
Well, if you've followed me for this long, let me again
thank you for responding to my post. I have learned some
things in the last couple of days. I will try to figure out
how to make my page more friendly, but I can only rely on
feedback from others because I am still trapped in the
Windows world. Boy, I wish DOS was still the only thing I
had to master. Thanks again and have a happy holiday season.
And, as a final note, since I'm posting this instead of
email, thanks to all who have replied. I haven't taken
offense at any post and I hope none of my replies were taken
as offensive. I would prefer that future comments to
Zilbandy are sent via email. My address is correct. I've
cluttered this group with enough stuff for my second day. :)
Happy Holidays!
Abigail
Zilbandy (z...@azstarnet.com) wrote on 1571 September 1993 in
<URL: news:3499cf6...@news.azstarnet.com>:
++ abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
++
++ >Oh please. You complain people design for a certain resolution
++ >that doesn't fit your needs/possibilities, yet you design for
++ >certain resolution yourself too.
++ >
++ >Pot. Kettle. Black.
++
++ At least all of my stuff fits in the smallest kettle!
You make exactly the same fault many others make.
Assuming your situation matters for the rest.
Don't assume your browsing situation is relevant; not even by
assuming you have the "smallest kettle".
William G. Schlake
On 19 Dec 1997 00:34:30 GMT, abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>Zilbandy (z...@azstarnet.com) wrote on 1570 September 1993 in
><URL: news:349964a1...@news.azstarnet.com>:
>++ Michael Reynolds <mic...@spinweb.net> wrote:
>++
>++ >I agree. I have no problem with buttons that mention that a latest-generation
>++ >browser such as Netacape or IE should be used, but I have a real problem with
>++ >being told to switch browsers. I mean, when I see a button that says "Best
>++ >Viewed with....
>++
>++ I don't that's what is intended at all. My one and only home
>++ page says that it looks best when viewed with Netscape 2.0.
>++ All I mean by that is if you are using that version, you
>++ should see it the way I see it. It's certainly viewable by
>++ other browsers. I do tell people that if they want the
>++ frames version of my page, they should be running 800x600
>++ resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
>++ 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
>++
>
>Now why should they do something stupid like that?
>
>Why should you limit your audience? Is what you have to say only
>viewable in 640x480?
>
>
>Abigail
Classic purist example of sticking their head in the sand and denying
reality. What the person you're "debating" with is telling you is he
acknowledges that MOST people use the Windows OS on a IBM compatible
PC and as such MOST people will view his site and everyone else's for
that matter at either 640x480 or 800x600 resolution.
For your further education Abigail, while such things may be
irrelevant for text and of little or no concern to purists, reasonable
care should be made that pages that have graphics or in other ways are
concerned with appearance (it IS important, deny it all you want) you
don't want to exceed "normal" browser width and force a scroll bar to
pop up to pan right.
I know there is no "correct" resolution and of course some will use
higher or different resolutions or not have their browser window at
full size or they just got to use brand X. Still, it makes sense to
make pages look acceptable at resolutions MOST people use. Need I
remind you which browsers people use? Deny common sense or harp away
about minority browsers as you always do, you can't say that's not the
way things are. Some people accept it's a Windows world others can't
handle the truth and keep wishing it wasn't so.
Bill
David Steuber
On 18 Dec 1997 19:12:33 GMT, thwi...@bnr.ca (Diane Wilson) wrote:
% You snipped parts of the analogy; it's a comparison about glorifying
% technology that is in fact minimally capable. Writing a page that uses,
% say, MS dynamic HTML, would be like producing a new recording and
% engineering it so that it only sounds good on vinyl and tubes.
%
% Yes, you can certainly write HTML that works on IE, and you can even
% use features that are unique to IE. The problem comes in *depending*
% on IE for the page to be fully functional, or worse, for the page to
% be even minimally usable. Ditto for dependencies on NS HTML extensions.
% And yet one doesn't have to surf very far on the web to run into pages
% that do exactly this.
Pardon my sniping! I tend to remove as much as I can and just quote
enough to jog a memory.
I agree with what you say here. One flagrant example I have run into
is when a 'link' is really a JavaScript function call with no HTML
fall back available. I imagine that client side (or even server side,
come to think of it) image maps with no text based menu are equally
insidious.
On my site, I use JavaScript to enhance random access navigation. But
I have a server side fall back which should work for all other
browsers except for the ones that don't automatically redirect when
they get a 302. If Active Server Pages could do a proper server side
redirect, I would even support non 302 auto forwarding browsers.
--
David Steuber
The astigmatic, myopic visionary
http://www.david-steuber.com
To reply by e-mail, replace trashcan with david.
------------------------------------------------
Notice: Bulk e-mail advertisers may send their
ads to tras...@david-steuber.com. These ads
will be displayed on my website for a fee of
$500. Sending advertising to trashcan constitutes
acceptance of this legally binding contract.
------------------------------------------------
David Steuber
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 07:33:01 GMT, robert....@hunterlink.net.au
(Robert G. Eldridge) wrote:
% They had noticed that all the old photos were in black & white and the
% newer ones were in colour so putting two and two together.... .
They got five?
Steve Davis
Dan McGarry wrote:
>
> You're absolutely right, of course, and no one is going to start
> pounding on your door one night with an injunction forcing you
> to fix your HTML mark up <grin>.
Personally, I wouldn't make a firm bet on that! 8^)
> I think Alan was just extrapolating on commonly found multi-media
> formats. I'm relatively certain that he didn't intend to flame you.
But it did sound a bit like a veiled accusation... in fact, I still reckon it
was! (Only Alan knows for certain, of course).
> The issue of universal accessibility has been hashed over quite a
> bit in this newsgroup. Most people posting here agree that there
> are a few simple steps that you can take to make sure your site is
> accessible to everyone.
Agreed. Whilst these considerations are 'things every author should know',
once you do know how to write good HTML you may not wish to observe all of
them in all circumstances; e.g. avoidance of FONT color. (Please let me finish
before judgement is passed...!) Even then, the solution, of course, will
usually be to bung such things in a stylesheet. This is increasingly a
practical, and even *author* friendly, thing to do.
> A couple of basic issues:
[snip]
> - If someone is visiting your site with Lynx (a text-mode
> browser), they see images without ALTs as [INLINE]. This
> can look pretty ugly if you have any amount of graphical
> content. If it's important (e.g. navigational) material, they
> won't know how to use it.
"Pretty ugly"! Careful, Dan or we'll all get into a battle over aesthetic
design in Lynx! What a concept! (I mean the battle, not design in Lynx, which
is of course possible. 8^)
> - A significant number of people browse with images off. You
> might be able to con(vince) a few of those people into
> turning them back on if the ALT text is intriguing. As a
> writer, I really like to make the ALT text work on a
> creative level as well. You might enjoy doing the same.
BTW I've not seen a solution to the mashed/absent rendering of ALT text when
setting HEIGHT and WIDTH for small IMGs. Is there a reference/accepted solution?
> I guess if I had to make an analogy (duck, everyone!),
AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!
> I'd say
> that it boils down to this: It's unrealistic to expect you to build
> a wheelchair ramp into the front entrance to your home on the
> off chance that a disabled person might happen by. It's not at all
> unreasonable to expect you to hold a door for that same person.
Oh. Not bad. Thank you, Dan, for demonstrating a sensible use of analogy.
> Nobody's going to force you to adhere to the HTML standard, but the
> Web is a better place when you do....
True... most of the time. 8^)
Steve Davis
Steve Davis
> ++ I don't know what to tell you there. I'm one of the people
> ++ using an IBM compatible with Windows.
Shame on you.
> ++ I assume that a
> ++ majority of computer users fall into this catagory.
Shame on all of them.
> ++ That
> ++ being the case, my statement stands. For the rest of you, I
> ++ don't know what to say. If you are one of the elite computer
> ++ literate folks, then I would assume you to know what I meant
> ++ by this statement and not even have to comment on it, for
> ++ you are a minority!
> Uh. Right. So, you only have to say something to a majority? Someone who
> makes an individual choice (either forced or by free will) doesn't
> count? You've nothing to say to him/her? Are you never afraid *you*
> at one point in time might be a minority?
Wise words, IMHO.
Just a note on the 'power of the majority'. In the UK, television has recently
become obsessed with audience figures, and has certainly become more
successful at gaining large audiences for their programmes. *However* ...
Advertisers on commercial networks are now complaining that the programmes are
attracting fewer viewers of ABC1 status (i.e. those most likely to buy the
products). The 'cause of the majority' is hurting programme quality, choice,
and the very people who pay for commercial TV. It's a simple case of the
damage caused by the 'never mind the quality, feel the width' ethos. I'd warn
against forming judgements exclusively from the opinion of the majority in
every case.
So, Zilbandy, if you judge necessary quality of HTML authorship exclusively by
what the majority do, then you will hurt the medium, because the majority of
web authors are inexperienced. Also, I don't think that being a responsible
author of HTML requires you to be an "elite computer literate" person; it's
not a programming language. In fact it's hardly more difficult than learning
to mark up paper documents properly. All I'm saying is learn the rules (i.e.
good authoring techniques) *before* you learn how to break them.
Does it matter that amongst billions of documents your single home page is
written with blithe disregard of the benefit of experience? Actually, *YES, it
most certainly does*. Whether you choose to care about that fact is, of
course, up to you; But please don't listen to "the majority". In my
experience, they know bugger all about value.
Steve Davis
Chris Gray
In article <349964a1...@news.azstarnet.com> z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) writes:
> [..] My one and only home
> page says that it looks best when viewed with Netscape 2.0.
> All I mean by that is if you are using that version, you
> should see it the way I see it. It's certainly viewable by
> other browsers. I do tell people that if they want the
> frames version of my page, they should be running 800x600
> resolution or higher. My regular page was intended for
> 640x480. Why can't more sites do this?
I don't think many people seriously expect their readers to switch resolutions
(or browsers) just to look at their site. So most authors either:
- try to make their material work across the broadest possible range of
browsing situations (see Abigail's curt response); or
- design for what they believe "everybody" is using (see Bill Schlake's
more copious contribution).
Personally I would not equate "looks best" with "see it the way I see it".
I would rather think that some lucky people might see something better.
It is our agony
we fractured men
surmise a greater mercy
that no god has ever shown
(Michael Tippett, 3rd Symphony)
--
Chris Gray
Bill Godfrey
[Zilbandy]
>In many cases, yes. People using any resolution of 640x480
>or higher should be able to view my page without scrolling,
Actually, one little modification could make your document more accessable.
In http://www.azstarnet.com/~zil/suburb/suburban.htm
there's a line reading...
<CENTER><TABLE BORDER=5 WIDTH=420 CELLPADDING=10>
Change the width to a percentage, and it will resize itself to whatever width
of browser window your readers are using. WIDTH="80%" will make it take up 80%
of the browser window width.
I notice that the whole story is in one big, single cell, table. Ask yourself
if the table is really neccessary here. Remeber that some browsers (notably
Netscape) will require the the whole table content to be loaded before it will
even begin to display the table on screen.
If you are sure you want to keep the table, then I strongly suggest going for
the % width.
Enjoy yourself.
--
Home: bill.g...@motel.overflow.com (Fidonet 2:2500/702.25)
Work: bi...@sol.ftp.com
Hamster Times issue 8 out now.
Read it all at http://www.angelfire.com/sd/HamsterTimes/
"Tonight is the night when we have a laugh." -- Me.
Abigail
William G. Schlake (w...@enteract.com) wrote on 1571 September 1993 in
<URL: news:349afbc3...@news.enteract.com>:
++
++ Classic purist example of sticking their head in the sand and denying
++ reality. What the person you're "debating" with is telling you is he
++ acknowledges that MOST people use the Windows OS on a IBM compatible
++ PC and as such MOST people will view his site and everyone else's for
++ that matter at either 640x480 or 800x600 resolution.
Exactly. Not all will use Windows, not everyone will use an IBM
compatible, and there will be people with a different resolution.
We all know about your incapacity to cater for the world wide web;
no need to bring that up over and over again.
Abigail
--
Scooter doesn't run Windows on an IBM compatible in 640x480 resolution.
Alan J. Flavell
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Steve Davis wrote:
> > I think Alan was just extrapolating on commonly found multi-media
> > formats. I'm relatively certain that he didn't intend to flame you.
>
> But it did sound a bit like a veiled accusation... in fact, I still reckon it
> was! (Only Alan knows for certain, of course).
I'm sorry if it came over that way. May I quote from my SMA page:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/html-smac.html
The ambitious aim of the WWW was to be (and I quote) "the embodiment
of human knowledge". Not surprisingly, that encompasses more than just
"boring text": photos, diagrams, audio, video, VRML, and more...
HTML Purists encourage you to make full use of all appropriate media
for your purpose, but to ensure that the core of your message be
available as well-marked-up text, so that it can be perceived by any
reader in any reasonable browsing situation.
It wasn't meant to be a criticism (of a page that I hadn't looked at),
but just a statement of fact about individuals' home pages in general,
which will contain whatever media the individual considers appropriate
to their purpose; but the use of those other media in no way precludes
the use of accessible _HTML_. In fact, I'd say that the more exotic
media you use, the more important it is to make sure that your textual
part will work when reader's aren't in a position to cope with some of
those exotic media.
Hope that clears things up.
{I'm with Warren when it comes to deciding _how_ to include audio
on a page, but that's a different issue, that hadn't been raised
and that I hadn't been commenting on.]
Jedi Master Yoda
Zilbandy wrote:
>
> Personal as opposed to commercial. I'm not selling anything.
> My livelyhood doesn't depend on a "perfect" page.
Luckily.
> Didn't use the ALT thing. Don't feel I need it... [snip]
> Remember, I'm not a pro, just an amateur.
Evidently.
> Not intentional, but then again, I'm talking about a
> majority of people using home computers and the leading two
> or three browsers. I don't have the knowledge to please
> everyone.
OK, we get the message, you're ignorant.
> Refer me to a proper group, instead of just telling me to go
> to one,
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design.
alt.bad.html.flame.flame.flame
> and I might leave.
That's too much to hope for.
> Until then, I'll hang around and
> see if there are any friendly sorts in this group.
Don't hold your breath.
> You seem
> to forget that all your HTML authoring is still going to
> wind up being viewed by people using computers and browsers,
Yes, I often catch myself thinking I'm authoring for badgers who surf
the Web with a piece of string and a pair of PVC fishing waders.
> the MAJORITY of which fall into the catagory I'm talking
> about.
You misspeled 'ill-considered stereotype'. HTH.
> You seem to be so hung up on the authoring aspect,
> that you can't see the whole picture.
Surely an unintentional irony.
> What is the intent of
> your finished HTML document? Isn't it meant to be viewed?
No, I'm sorry, that's just noise. (Pace Alan Partridge)
JM "Christmas? Humbug" Y
William G. Schlake
On 19 Dec 1997 08:32:23 GMT, abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>William G. Schlake (w...@enteract.com) wrote on 1571 September 1993 in
><URL: news:349afbc3...@news.enteract.com>:
>++
>++ Classic purist example of sticking their head in the sand and denying
>++ reality. What the person you're "debating" with is telling you is he
>++ acknowledges that MOST people use the Windows OS on a IBM compatible
>++ PC and as such MOST people will view his site and everyone else's for
>++ that matter at either 640x480 or 800x600 resolution.
>
>Exactly. Not all will use Windows, not everyone will use an IBM
>compatible, and there will be people with a different resolution.
>
>We all know about your incapacity to cater for the world wide web;
>no need to bring that up over and over again.
>
Actually the reason I bring it up is because you keep denying the
reality of the how and why some things are done. You rant. I laugh.
Bill
>
>Abigail
Brent Eades
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>{I'm with Warren when it comes to deciding _how_ to include audio
>on a page, but that's a different issue, that hadn't been raised
>and that I hadn't been commenting on.]
Well, I'll raise it. This is a major bugbear of mine, this issue of
embedding audio files into pages such that they begin playing unasked
and unexpected when a user visits you.
There are various reasons for not doing this. One is simple courtesy:
users may well be listening to their own music via CD or MIDI files
while visiting your site -- abruptly imposing your own tastes in music
over theirs is rather like walking into a room and switching the
station on the radio without asking. Or like turning on your boombox
with the Spice Girls playing at volume 10.
It can also -- as happened to me just lately -- occasion actual
equipment damage. I had been sequencing some MIDI music over my
headphones at very high volume, then completed that and unplugged the
phones. However, I inadvertantly left the volume up high on the
speakers.
An hour or two later I loaded a "technical help" site, and abruptly
had an exceptionally loud and obnoxious MIDI file begin blaring
through the speakers; loud enough to wake up my children, and, I'm
almost convinced, to permanently damage my speakers. They haven't
sounded the same since, in any case.
You should *always* give users the *option* of loading intrusive
and/or time-consuming multimedia files, in my opinion.
-----------
Brent Eades, Almonte, Ontario
Web Design Services
bea...@worldlink.ca
William G. Schlake
On 19 Dec 1997 08:26:03 GMT, gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be (Chris
Gray) wrote:
Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
either 640x480 or 800x600? I'm simply saying if you make your pages
appear in whole without the need for horizontal scrolling you're on
the right path. Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
Denying that most DO NOT is the REAL issue that purists can't face.
The acid test isn't some purist propragand, t
Bill
Dan McGarry
In article <3499e949...@news.azstarnet.com>, z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) writes:
|> Well, I tried to send this via email to tal...@bnr.ca but it
|> bounced. Said unknown user.
Sorry. The address is actually valid. It's hidden behind a firewall
that doesn't let much through, though.
You can send mail to dmcg...@moodindigo.com as well.
--
Dan McGarry
Chris Gray
In article <349b954e...@news.enteract.com> w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake)
writes:
> Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
> either 640x480 or 800x600? I'm simply saying if you make your pages
> appear in whole without the need for horizontal scrolling you're on
> the right path. Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
> Denying that most DO NOT is the REAL issue that purists can't face.
> The acid test isn't some purist propragand, t
And then a great proboscis descended from the sky and just s-u-c-k-e-d our Bill
away, never to be seen again. He is now in a jar of formalin, on an inaccessible
shelf, in a dark and and dank storeroom of a museum of extraordinary specimens,
somewhere on the far side of a far galaxy.
Or am I dreaming?
As for whether it's important for a WWW "page" to deliver at least a promise of
something interesting in the first 10 seconds of downloading *and* reading time:
yes, it's very important. I've said so many times myself, but it was Diane Wilson
that taught me. Promise and reward, she says. And I know people won't scroll
down unless they've already been given a good reason to: and for many people
an image 480x320 is already somthing they have to scroll past. Is that what
you're trying to tell me, Bill? Because if so, you're several years too late.
Required reading: <URL: http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/web/rant.html>.
--
Chris Gray
William G. Schlake
On 19 Dec 1997 16:45:38 GMT, gr...@btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be (Chris
Gray) wrote:
It would be pointless of me to try an "educate" purists since I have
yet to read any purist post that even hints at being receptive to
anything beyond their own threadbare
No, I post here so others who do have an open mind can decide for
themselves if much of what purists babble about daily is really
propaganda meant not to help, but rather to further then own rigid and
unbending view of conformity that they tirelessly try to pass off as
their cockeyed view of choice.
Such mutterings are not very well cloaked in their almost unanimous
dislike of graphics, multimedia, Java or anything that hints of
creativity, and interactivity, preferring instead their bland, stark
text only pages accessible as is to browser brand X. Enhancements
visual or audio are relegated to the scrap heap or ridiculed as
meaningless extravagance denying the true potential of the Web and the
direction it is rapidly moving in.
Fortunately, most reject the purist's narrow tunnel vision and false
"choice" and continue to embrase newer and better alternatives to the
primitive HTML so often obsessed over within the dark confines of
CIWAH. True as with most other emerging technologies, advances bring
change and change requires forward thinking and frequenly it demands
the use of newer and better tools.
Th
Jason Thomas Hitesman
In article <349b954e...@news.enteract.com>,
William G. Schlake <w...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
>either 640x480 or 800x600? I'm simply saying if you make your pages
>appear in whole without the need for horizontal scrolling you're on
>the right path. Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
>Denying that most DO NOT is the REAL issue that purists can't face.
>The acid test isn't some purist propragand, t
>
I'll gladly debate it but it can't be proved or disproved one way or the
other. The face is there is no way to know what resolution people
visiting your site are at and it shoulden't matter.
Where I'm working now <http://www.osborn.com> a good deal of the people
working here still run their systems at 640x480. Even when I switch them
to 800x600 with large fonts they complain that the text is too small in
everything and revert back to 640x480. Heck 90% of the people here have
increaded the font size in their browser so much it makes even plain text
pages difficult for me to read. When the text is so large that you can
only fit 5 words on a line I get tired from scrilling that much.
The point is you have no way of knowing or controlling how a page is
displayed. Regardles of the resolution is the issue of
cross-platform/browser compatibility. Our site averages 30-40 different
browsers every week. We get hits (and guest book messages) from people in
India, Germany, Russia, Mexico, and any number of other countries. Many
of them comment on the fact that our site loads very quick even though we
only have a 56k connection to the internet for our server. To many of
these people time is money, internet time doubly so since they still have
no option other than paying by the minute.
Our pages are designed to conform to HTML3.2 with only minor deviations (I
use BGCOLOR in tables to help make some of them easier to read - the
colors are carefully chosen to degrade to white on 256 and lower color
displays). When I work from home I do my development under Linux, Mac,
and Windows with Lynx, Netscape (1.1 through 4.04), MSIE, Opera, and
anything else that's handy. It dosen't matter because the pages are
designed to be used this way. When I work at Osborn I work on everything
from our SGI (With ony 8 bit video, but 1024x768 resolution) to old 486's
that can't do anything more than 640x480 because of their outdated video
cards. It still dosen't matter the pages are designed to degrade well.
I've yet to see anyone Flavell, and Abigail (Heya folks I've been hiding
for a year or two) included say that the goal of a purist is to make pages
booring or perfectally conform to any HTml spec. The whole idea is to
make pages which can truely be viewed world wide by anyone on anything.
If your logs don't reflect the same diversity at the same level (Most of
our visitors view many pages from our site durring their visits, very few
indeed visit only the homepage and leave. And most of those who do leave
a message saying something like "Hey my name is Osborn two just wanted to
say hi") it may be time to rethink your philosphy. Could it be you don't
see the results widely reported by the so called "purists" because your
designs keep those other peole from even being able to view your pages?
Or they get tired waiting for Java to start, or they don't want to go
download yet another space wasting plug-in, or your site just won't
provide anything their browser can find usefull?
Coming from a design background I'll gladly take a HTMl3.2 compliant page
with small, efficient, and usefull graphics only where needed over a site
built entirely around it's graphics. Web design much like programming and
life is a game of comprimises. It's damn tough to make somthing small
efficient usable and visually pleasing. If you can't please stop buggins
us about why we have to upgrade our setup to make up for your design
ineptitude.
----
Jason Hitesman
http://frognet.net/~jhitesma <-- Me personally
http://www.osborn.com <-- My current major client
Warren Steel
> >on a page, but that's a different issue, that hadn't been raised
> >and that I hadn't been commenting on.]
Brent Eades wrote:
> Well, I'll raise it. This is a major bugbear of mine, this issue of
> embedding audio files into pages such that they begin playing unasked
> and unexpected when a user visits you.
[ relevant examples omitted ]
> You should *always* give users the *option* of loading intrusive
> and/or time-consuming multimedia files, in my opinion.
Thanks for mentioning this, Brent. There's also the
issue of embedding vs. linking. As always, I recommend
that anyone who wishes to offer MIDI or other audio
files over the web read and study Charles Kelly's
guidelines at
http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~ckelly/SMFguidelines.html
--
Warren Steel mu...@olemiss.edu
Department of Music University of Mississippi
URL: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/
William G. Schlake
>In article <349b954e...@news.enteract.com> w...@enteract.com (William G. Schlake)
> writes:
>
>> Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
>> either 640x480 or 800x600? I'm simply saying if you make your pages
>> appear in whole without the need for horizontal scrolling you're on
>> the right path. Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
>> Denying that most DO NOT is the REAL issue that purists can't face.
>> The acid test isn't some purist propragand, t
>
>And then a great proboscis descended from the sky and just s-u-c-k-e-d our Bill
>away, never to be seen again. He is now in a jar of formalin, on an inaccessible
>shelf, in a dark and and dank storeroom of a museum of extraordinary specimens,
>somewhere on the far side of a far galaxy.
>
>Or am I dreaming?
>
>As for whether it's important for a WWW "page" to deliver at least a promise of
>something interesting in the first 10 seconds of downloading *and* reading time:
>yes, it's very important. I've said so many times myself, but it was Diane Wilson
>that taught me. Promise and reward, she says. And I know people won't scroll
>down unless they've already been given a good reason to: and for many people
>an image 480x320 is already somthing they have to scroll past. Is that what
>you're trying to tell me, Bill? Because if so, you're several years too late.
>
>Required reading: <URL: http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/web/rant.html>.
It would be pointless of me to try an "educate" purists since I have
yet to read any purist post that even hints at being receptive to
anything beyond their own threadbare argument to make pages accessible
to everyone and a handful of inferior, underpowered and outdated
browsers rejected by the masses.
That is not saying to make it difficult for those that are physically
challenged, rather the focus is on those that for lack of better
language are simply too pig-headed to use one of the big two browsers
and think they have some right to whine if a page doesn't look as well
in browser X as it would in Navigator or Explorer simply because they
for personal reasons...hold one or both companies in contempt for
their business practices. Such shallow and rigid thinking is
counterproductive and reading between the lines of hundreds of purist
posts that clearly is what much of their whining is really about.
I post here so others who do have an open mind and aren't holding some
grudge or aren't clearly peeved at Netscape or Microsoft for their
thumbing their corporate noses at W3C standards can decide for
themselves if much of what purists babble about daily is really
propaganda not meant to help, but rather to further their own rigid
and unbending view of conformity that they tirelessly try to pass off
as their cockeyed view of choice.
Such mutterings are not very well cloaked in their almost unanimous
dislike of graphics, multimedia, Java or anything that hints of
creativity, and interactivity, preferring instead their bland, stark
text only pages accessible as-is to browser brand X. Enhancements
visual or audio are relegated to the scrap heap or ridiculed as
meaningless extravagance denying the true potential of the Web and the
direction it is rapidly moving in.
Fortunately, most reject the purist's narrow tunnel vision and false
"choice" and continue to embrace newer and better alternatives to the
primitive HTML so often obsessed over within the dark confines of
CIWAH. True as with most other emerging technologies, advances bring
change and change requires forward thinking and frequently it demands
the use of newer and better tools.
Any "choice" goes far beyond any visitor's selection of browser and
the outdated concept that all pages should be accessible to all
visitors. A more important choice is if or not the Web author embraces
the future or if he foolishly wants to cling to the past in some vain
attempt to please people who use inferior and primitive browsers that
struggle with or are wholly incapable of delivering graphical or
interactive content.
People that suggest their site is best viewed with a particular
browser if done in a non confrontational way are merely "offering"
visitors a glimpse of the future and saying to see it, you need "this"
tool. If or not visitors want to use that tool is their choice and
that choice may not infringe on the author's choice on how best to
design his site to reach and please the vast majority who have already
selected browsers that ARE capable of displaying the enhancements the
Web Author has thoughtfully added to allow his visitors a richer and
more rewarding experience. It's called progress, a word all too
frequently absent from the purist's vocabulary.
Bill
Zilbandy
Jedi Master Yoda <yo...@dagoba.org> wrote:
>Zilbandy wrote:
>> Not intentional, but then again, I'm talking about a
>> majority of people using home computers and the leading two
>> or three browsers. I don't have the knowledge to please
>> everyone.
>
>OK, we get the message, you're ignorant.
Oh Jedi Master Yoda, I bow to your superiority, for it is
obvious that your intellectual abilities far surpass the
studious qualities of my cerebral aparatus.
Zilbandy
bi...@sol.ftp.com (Bill Godfrey) wrote:
>I notice that the whole story is in one big, single cell, table. Ask yourself
>if the table is really neccessary here. Remeber that some browsers (notably
>Netscape) will require the the whole table content to be loaded before it will
>even begin to display the table on screen.
The intent was to have the text in a column. I find it
easier to read a column of reasonable size than trying to
follow a line of text all the way across a screen. Also,
since that cell contains only text, won't this cause it to
still load in a resonable time?
>If you are sure you want to keep the table, then I strongly suggest going for
>the % width.
In your opinion, would this technique keep the text easily
readable? I have troubles following long lines of text. I'm
sure Jedi Master Yoda will have some comment on this
inability of mine.
>Enjoy yourself.
Thanks for the "constructive" criticism.
Chris Burch
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 20:39:09 GMT, z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy)
diligently typed:
>:bi...@sol.ftp.com (Bill Godfrey) wrote:
>:
>:>I notice that the whole story is in one big, single cell, table. Ask yourself
>:>if the table is really neccessary here. Remeber that some browsers (notably
>:>Netscape) will require the the whole table content to be loaded before it will
>:>even begin to display the table on screen.
>:
>:The intent was to have the text in a column. I find it
>:easier to read a column of reasonable size than trying to
>:follow a line of text all the way across a screen.
Do I also find it easier that way? You'll never know! If _you_ find
it easier that way, why don't you configure your browser so it's not
so wide? You know, like make it smaller or something.
>:Also, since that cell contains only text, won't this cause it to
>:still load in a resonable time?
Netscape (et. al.? :) has to parse all the stuff in the table, until
it finds </TABLE>, then parse & format the innards of the table, then
display it. This takes longer than just parsing & displaying. (at
least this is my understanding of events - someone more knowledgable
should correct me)
>:In your opinion, would this technique keep the text easily
>:readable? I have troubles following long lines of text.
Like I say, if you are having trouble reading text in long lines,
configure your browser - but please don't try to configure mine.
Just my US$0.02
Chris
--
"The concept of the web is of universal readership. If you publish a
document on the web, it is important that anyone who has access to it
can read it and link to it."
- Tim Berners-Lee
http://www.eit.com/old/www.lists/www-talk.1991/0010.html
Abigail
Zilbandy (z...@azstarnet.com) wrote on 1571 September 1993 in
<URL: news:349ad95f...@news.azstarnet.com>:
++ bi...@sol.ftp.com (Bill Godfrey) wrote:
++
++ >I notice that the whole story is in one big, single cell, table. Ask yourself
++ >if the table is really neccessary here. Remeber that some browsers (notably
++ >Netscape) will require the the whole table content to be loaded before it will
++ >even begin to display the table on screen.
++
++ The intent was to have the text in a column. I find it
++ easier to read a column of reasonable size than trying to
++ follow a line of text all the way across a screen. Also,
Hey! *THAT* is the reason why you shouldn't think almost everyone will use
640x480 characters. People who are clued in using windows know they can
resize a window. People will resize a window till the width is acceptable
*FOR THEM*. Which means many people will use windows smaller than 640
pixels. That's the point of HTML: people read it in an environment
suitable for them, not in the way the author thinks might be the best.
++ since that cell contains only text, won't this cause it to
++ still load in a resonable time?
++
++ >If you are sure you want to keep the table, then I strongly suggest going for
++ >the % width.
++
++ In your opinion, would this technique keep the text easily
++ readable? I have troubles following long lines of text. I'm
Then resize your window!
++ sure Jedi Master Yoda will have some comment on this
++ inability of mine.
++
Jan Roland Eriksson
> Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
> either 640x480 or 800x600?
What's that got to do with it?
> I'm simply saying if you make your pages appear in whole without
> the need for horizontal scrolling
Piece of cake, just forget about resolutions and mark up
your page according to standards. No browser I've come
across will force you to side scroll then.
> Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
Well, Lynx or X, Y or Z does behaves the same way as long as
I do it right. What's your problem?
But on the other hand Bill.
I've just looked at three of your earlier postings that my
ISP has handed me this evening, to give some liberal room to
you before I felt compelled to tell you that I'm a man that
keeps my promises.
(I hope to see your changed attitude in a month or so).
So here goes an encore for another 30 days in jail...
^K
*plonk*
--
Jan Roland Eriksson - d.te...@ebox.tninet.se
URL - http://home2.swipnet.se/%7Ew-20547/
David Steuber
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 20:39:09 GMT, z...@azstarnet.com (Zilbandy) wrote:
% bi...@sol.ftp.com (Bill Godfrey) wrote:
%
% >I notice that the whole story is in one big, single cell, table. Ask yourself
% >if the table is really neccessary here. Remeber that some browsers (notably
% >Netscape) will require the the whole table content to be loaded before it will
% >even begin to display the table on screen.
%
% The intent was to have the text in a column. I find it
% easier to read a column of reasonable size than trying to
% follow a line of text all the way across a screen.
Is it not conceivable that the users will adjust the width of their
browser windows to something that is comfortable for them? Can't you
do the same?
There
is
nothing
more
annoying
than
narrow
text
in
a
wide
window.
Get the point?
William G. Schlake
>On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:47:16 GMT, w...@enteract.com (William
>G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>> Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
>> either 640x480 or 800x600?
>
>What's that got to do with it?
>> I'm simply saying if you make your pages appear in whole without
>> the need for horizontal scrolling
>Piece of cake, just forget about resolutions and mark up
>your page according to standards. No browser I've come
>across will force you to side scroll then.
If you don't know why it's important, there's little use in me
attempting to explain it so you could understand.
>> Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
>
>Well, Lynx or X, Y or Z does behaves the same way as long as
>I do it right. What's your problem?
The problem is the use of the words "do it right". If there's close to
100,000,000 copies of Navigator and Explorer on people's desktops,
(there is) then it's pretty hard to swallow using extensions are
wrong. Just more tail trying to wag dog. Hint: W3C may write
standards, but Netscape and Microsoft SET them! Huge difference.
>But on the other hand Bill.
>I've just looked at three of your earlier postings that my
>ISP has handed me this evening, to give some liberal room to
>you before I felt compelled to tell you that I'm a man that
>keeps my promises.
>(I hope to see your changed attitude in a month or so).
Shame your not a man that can be objective. That would be progress.
>So here goes an encore for another 30 days in jail...
>^K
>*plonk*
Typical purist ploy: stick head in sand, ignore reality.
Bill
Veronica Karlsson
William G. Schlake wrote:
[ 8< ]
> Classic purist example of sticking their head in the sand and denying
>
A billon flies can't be wrong - eat shit!
[ 8< ]
--
:)
Irebavpn Xneyffba
( r93...@fz.yhgu.fr uggc://jjj.yhqq.yhgu.fr/~ix/ )
Decklin Foster
Quoth GC <g...@home.com>:
><snip>
We are really a sorry bunch. Even bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics
eventually.
It was a nice work of satire though.
Veronica Karlsson
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
> William G. Schlake wrote:
[ 8< ]
> I've just looked at three of your earlier postings that my
> ISP has handed me this evening, to give some liberal room to
> you before I felt compelled to tell you that I'm a man that
> keeps my promises.
> (I hope to see your changed attitude in a month or so).
>
You are forgetting the typical stubbornness that one shows when one
_knows_ that _maybe_ something one does is wrong, but just because
people keep nagging about it one just _has_to_ go on doing it, and the
more they nag the more stubborn one gets...
William G. Schlake
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997 07:07:44 +0100, Veronica Karlsson
<dr...@on.spammer> wrote:
>William G. Schlake wrote:
>[ 8< ]
>> Classic purist example of sticking their head in the sand and denying
>> reality. What the person you're "debating" with is telling you is he
>> acknowledges that MOST people use the Windows OS on a IBM compatible
>> PC and as such MOST people will view his site and everyone else's for
>> that matter at either 640x480 or 800x600 resolution.
>>
>
>A billon flies can't be wrong - eat shit!
>
>[ 8< ]
Vulgarity from a lady, what's this NG turning into? I know, having
one's head buried in the sand does tend to reduce one's eyesight and
it obviously seems to make them foul tempered as well...probably all
that sand stuck in their mouth as well.
Bill
William G. Schlake
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997 08:49:19 +0100, Veronica Karlsson
<dr...@on.spammer> wrote:
>Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
>> William G. Schlake wrote:
>[ 8< ]
>> But on the other hand Bill.
>> I've just looked at three of your earlier postings that my
>> ISP has handed me this evening, to give some liberal room to
>> you before I felt compelled to tell you that I'm a man that
>> keeps my promises.
>> (I hope to see your changed attitude in a month or so).
>>
>
>You are forgetting the typical stubbornness that one shows when one
>_knows_ that _maybe_ something one does is wrong, but just because
>people keep nagging about it one just _has_to_ go on doing it, and the
>more they nag the more stubborn one gets...
Congratulations! You've described the purist view perfectly. ;o)
Bill
Mark Jones
You still need to determine a maximum size to use for images. It would
be a very bad idea to use a lot of images that are so wide that almost
everyone has to scroll horizontally.
When I use tables, I specify percentage widths instead of fixed width.
It is up to the user to decide what size they want their browser window
to be. I also prefer to use alt text that makes the page readable if
images are not being viewed. I have some pages that need the alt text
fixed, so I better get to it.
Mark Jones
Jan Roland Eriksson wrote in message <349d31a1...@news1.tninet.se>...
>On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:47:16 GMT, w...@enteract.com (William
>G. Schlake) wrote:
>
>> Are you denying that the vast majority of people view web pages at
>> either 640x480 or 800x600?
>
>What's that got to do with it?
>
>> I'm simply saying if you make your pages appear in whole without
>> the need for horizontal scrolling
>
>Piece of cake, just forget about resolutions and mark up
>your page according to standards. No browser I've come
>across will force you to side scroll then.
>
>> Yes, I know some people use Lynx or brand X, Y or Z.
>
>Well, Lynx or X, Y or Z does behaves the same way as long as
>I do it right. What's your problem?
>
>But on the other hand Bill.
>I've just looked at three of your earlier postings that my
>ISP has handed me this evening, to give some liberal room to
>you before I felt compelled to tell you that I'm a man that
>keeps my promises.
>(I hope to see your changed attitude in a month or so).
>
>So here goes an encore for another 30 days in jail...
>^K
>*plonk*
>
Zilbandy
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>Hey! *THAT* is the reason why you shouldn't think almost everyone will use
>640x480 characters. People who are clued in using windows know they can
>resize a window. People will resize a window till the width is acceptable
>*FOR THEM*.
... and some of us clueless people like to hit that little
"maximize" button and have the page take up the whole
screen. Remember, when working with 14/15 inch screens, you
don't have room for lots of open windows.
And remember one other thing. When I did this page, I was
trying to please myself first... the fact that others do not
agree with my choice is ok. I still believe I did a fair job
of making a page that is VIEWABLE by most people,
considering this is the only page I ever made.
Zilbandy
tras...@david-steuber.com (David Steuber) wrote:
>Is it not conceivable that the users will adjust the width of their
>browser windows to something that is comfortable for them? Can't you
>do the same?
I DID!!! That's how I designed it. That's the way I view
it.... What, my opinions are less important than yours?
>
>There
>is
>nothing
>more
>annoying
>than
>narrow
>text
>in
>a
>wide
>window.
>
>Get the point?
Yeah, I get the point. Have you seen my text? I think not
considering your slightly stupid example.
Zilbandy
d.te...@ebox.tninet.se (Jan Roland Eriksson) wrote:
>> I'm simply saying if you make your pages appear in whole without
>> the need for horizontal scrolling
>
>Piece of cake, just forget about resolutions and mark up
>your page according to standards. No browser I've come
>across will force you to side scroll then.
Are you expecting that all web page authors are going to be
experienced enough to get it right the first time? Most web
pages, at least the personal pages, are designed by
amateurs. Most of these people will never become familiar
with the standards or the best way to use them.
Daniel R. Tobias
William G. Schlake wrote:
> That is not saying to make it difficult for those that are physically
> challenged, rather the focus is on those that for lack of better
> language are simply too pig-headed to use one of the big two browsers
> and think they have some right to whine if a page doesn't look as well
> in browser X as it would in Navigator or Explorer simply because they
> for personal reasons...hold one or both companies in contempt for
> their business practices. Such shallow and rigid thinking is
> counterproductive and reading between the lines of hundreds of purist
> posts that clearly is what much of their whining is really about.
OK... let me get this straight... anyone who's concerned about Microsoft attempting to
transform the Internet from a wide-open medium for interpersonal interaction, with greater
freedom and accessibility than any medium ever created before, into a proprietary
environment owned and tightly controlled by Bill Gates, is "shallow" and "rigid" and
"counterproductive"? It seems more the other way around. The concept of the Web, as
created by Tim Berners-Lee, was to create a platform-independent medium for interchange of
information. It succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, but the concept is seriously
undermined if one or two companies gain a stranglehold over the Web and people are treated
as oddballs if they choose to use any other software. It's like if you were treated as an
outcast if you preferred hamburgers made by a locally-owned restaurant instead of
McDonalds or Burger King, and could get flamed as not being a true hamburger lover if you
rejected the two choices made by the majority.
> I post here so others who do have an open mind and aren't holding some
> grudge or aren't clearly peeved at Netscape or Microsoft for their
> thumbing their corporate noses at W3C standards can decide for
> themselves if much of what purists babble about daily is really
> propaganda not meant to help, but rather to further their own rigid
> and unbending view of conformity that they tirelessly try to pass off
> as their cockeyed view of choice.
As opposed to your own non-cockeyed view of choice, which is that everyone should use one
of a limited set of "acceptable" browsers chosen by the majority, even if this helps one
or two companies "own" the Internet?
> Such mutterings are not very well cloaked in their almost unanimous
> dislike of graphics, multimedia, Java or anything that hints of
> creativity, and interactivity, preferring instead their bland, stark
> text only pages accessible as-is to browser brand X. Enhancements
> visual or audio are relegated to the scrap heap or ridiculed as
> meaningless extravagance denying the true potential of the Web and the
> direction it is rapidly moving in.
You'll never stop making these silly straw-man arguments. "Purists" that I've encountered
are not opposed to the appropriate use of multimedia. MIME type headers were added to the
HTTP protocol fairly early -- somewhere around 1992 or so -- when the web was still under
the control of the "purists", to permit the use of all sorts of data formats on the web,
including graphics, sounds, video, desktop-published documents, etc.
If, for instance, you're creating a site about music, it's perfectly reasonable that some
of its content will be audio files. Other content of the site might be graphics showing
pictures of the musicians, composers, vocalists, etc. being discussed in the site. There
might also be sheet music presented in an appropriate format such as a graphic file or
maybe a data file designed for a special plug-in to handle this sort of data and present
it logically. And there might also be content of a primarily textual nature, such as
discussions of music theory or schedules of upcoming concerts.
The main index page, or "home page", of the site needs to provide a useful navigational
structure to get to all of this content, so this page should be designed for maximum
accessibility. If I'm accessing the site on my home machine, on which my sound card is
presently broken, I won't be able to play the sound files, but might want to look at the
graphics and read the text. A blind person accessing the site, on the other hand, can't
see the graphics but might want to read the text and listen to the sound files. Still
another user with a slow network connection might want to bypass all the graphics and
sound and just read the concert dates in a text-only form. Thus, the main navigation page
should be designed to work properly in the widest range of accessing situations, even if
the site as a whole contains the latest in high-tech multimedia.
If that home page, on the other hand, is designed inaccessibly -- using a server-side
imagemap or a JavaScript pulldown menu as its only navigation tool, for instance -- many
users, including some who would be able to view some of the multimedia in the site, would
be cut off from it. And if the sound files in the site are placed as automatically-loaded
background music on the pages of the site instead of as separate links, they'll annoy some
users who don't want to listen to music at the time (and might be browsing in an
environment with people trying to work, study, or sleep within earshot), and also make the
music inaccessible to some users who do want to listen to it, but have browsers that need
to launch a helper application instead of supporting embedded sounds. Making the sounds a
separate link would permit giving the user more choice between sound formats, as well, by
making the sounds available in several different file types (all of which have different
strengths and weaknesses and are supported by different platforms).
The appropriate use of a wide range of file formats for different kinds of information has
never been opposed by the "purists". The inappropriate use of such technologies in ways
that cut off accessibility to users of some browsers while providing more annoyance than
assistance to users whose browsers DO support such things -- THAT'S what purists oppose.
--
--Dan -- Webmaster, www.softdisk.com
Dan's Web Tips: http://www.softdisk.com/comp/dan/webtips/
Tero Paananen
In <349C36F0...@bigfoot.com> Geoff Munn <mud...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>Crossplatform viewabilitiy is a utopia
And why exactly is it a utopia?
Hint: the answer has more to do with accounting than computing
-TPP
--
--
Nanoteknologia: Epämääräinen käsite, joka voi tarkoittaa
kotikielessä mitä tahansa ajattelu- tai muuta prosessia, johon
tiede ei vielä löydä selitystä. - Jussi Luukkonen (To The Point)