🚀 go-pugleaf

To cut down on this thread and instead try to start a new one, if at all
necessary ...

<Liam Quinn wrote>

> Can you explain why this is so?  A user--any user--gets information
> from the WDG site.  What does a user get from a SiegelSite?  Well,
> that depends first on what browser the person is using.  Then it
> depends on the user's font size.  Then on the user's window size.  You
> get the idea.

Information is finding itself dwarfed by 'exchange' and entertainment, to
use David Siegel's terms. Most people don't look for it, and when they do,
they will find a graphical site just as good as a purely informational.
Besides, as I've tried to explain, form is part of the information.

David Siegel's sites are probably visited by more people than are your
sites, simply because people don't look for information but for
entertainment. It's not strange to see 'graphically advanced' being
celebrated in magazines, etc. These people clearly want this feature, even
if it happens to mean that a standard is being flouted.

<Tina Marie Holmboe wrote>

>Have you told your customers that they are paying for extra work?

I tell them that we will have to put extra time into developing item x to
fit more browsers, yes. I tell them that item x will in its current state
only work in browser y and they usually think it's worth the extra time to
make it available to browser z as well. Oh, most clients tell me that it
won't be necessary: their clientele use Netscape 2.0 or later.

<Abigail wrote>

>It is indeed an _old_ technique.

So which is superior? Just because print media has had some 4-500 years to
mature in doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Typographers are trained to know
how *most people* react to fonts, styles etc. That is why they are such a
great aid even when designing a Web site. You know why? Because most people
don't even know what fonts and colors work best for them. Just check out
all those disgusting backgrounds on the WWW and you'll see how good a taste
the average surfer has. 

SGML may be great to get your scientific essay to everybody that might find
it interesting, but SGML-HTML in its current form does not satisfy either
users or browser manufacturers, so it won't be used until it does. It's not
just something I make up to feel better about designing for Netscape
Navigator, it's a fact.

To clarify what I say above:
When publishing my personal essays on the WWW, I've made sure that
everybody can read them by using standard HTML. I know that most of the
form will not be necessary (a few style sheets here and there satisfy me)
because people will not read 20-page essays unless they are interested. But
I flout the standards all the time for my personal home page, and it
usually gets me a lot of positive comments (have yet to get my first flame)
as well as visitors staying a little longer and viewing more pages.

General comment:

People are already raving about the coolness of layers and absolute
positioning in Netscape 4.0. They will not care if these features cause
endless problems for a small percentage of all WWW users.

The W3C can introduce all the cool stuff they want, this will not matter as
long as Netscape and Microsoft, two companies that are a part of the W3C,
keep introducing new tags. Why do they do that when they are a part of the
W3C? Because they understand what the market wants. Because they realize
that 'we' bring more money into the net than 'you' do, and money, after
all, is what makes the world go round.

A natural development would be to ask designers what they want, then to see
how it could be implemented. Instead of trying to force a standard onto me,
a standard that I will not follow because it does not fulfill my needs, W3C
et al should ask me what I would like to have, then they should consider if
that is at all possible. And then they need to update the standard before
Netscape release the next version of their browser.

How about relatively absolute positioning? Absolute positioning in percent
would be possible. Find a way for layers to 'fall back gracefully'. Etc.
People clearly want these features, and Netscape will not disappoint them,
because--as David Siegel points out--Netscape think that their browser will
be the ultimate browser, the total product. Microsoft will pretend to be
nice and follow some of the W3C standards, such as style sheets, but they
will not stop implementing features such as MARQUEE and BGSOUND, because if
they do, more people will switch back to Netscape to get their latest
browser's features, and if they do, Microsoft will have lost the war.

The W3C will most definitely lose the war if they can't find a way to
advance past Netscape in terms of 'cool' effects.

//thomas
--
: Web Designer at Icon Media Lab and generally a nice guy too.  :
: Work: thomas@iconmedialab.se -- <http://www.iconmedialab.se/> :
: Home: weigle@algonet.se -- <http://www.algonet.se/~weigle/>   :
: Opinions expressed are mine and not those of my employer.     :
.................................................................