🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:12:23 +0100, weigle@snip-to-mail.algonet.se
(Thomas Weigle) wrote:

><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.

Well then...  The WDG site does not exist to entertain, so how can you
compare it to SiegelSites?  Some of the most popular sites on the Web
are ones like Yahoo and AltaVista, which allow people to look for
*information*.  Yes, you could probably find entertainment through
Yahoo and AltaVista, but information is at the forefront, regardless
of what magazines say.

>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.

Last time I checked, people didn't want to wait for entertainment.
It's simply too slow on the Web.  Why not just turn on the TV if you
want to see good pictures and video for entertainment?  In almost all
parts of the world, TV is cheaper than the Internet, and you don't get
busy signals :)

><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.

I wonder how they would feel if they knew that one site could be made
for all, at a fraction of the cost you're charging them.

><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.

Do you ever wonder why the Web is so different from print media?  Why
it has enjoyed such success in spite of this?  Think about it and get
back to us.

>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. 

Sure, that's what style sheets are for.  Authors can influence the
presentation for those who want it influenced, but can't touch it for
those who would rather do it themselves.

>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.

Netscape does not satisfy me, so it won't be used until it does.  It
doesn't even support style sheets yet.

>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.

Would anyone want to read your personal essays?  How can they be
entertaining in standard HTML?  Surely they're not informative?

>People are already raving about the coolness of layers and absolute
>positioning in Netscape 4.0.

I'm not.

>They will not care if these features cause
>endless problems for a small percentage of all WWW users.

Do they understand why absolute positioning is impossible when you
don't know even know the dimensions of my window?  Or if I'm using a
window?

>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.

No, it's because they know how to influence what the market wants.
That's what an oligopoly does, and they're doing it to perfection.

>A natural development would be to ask designers what they want, then to see
>how it could be implemented.

Okay...  People here are always asking how to have an unbulleted list.
The answer could have been <UL PLAIN> from the expired HTML 3.0 draft,
but Microsoft and Netscape found that too challenging.  The answer now
is the list-item property of Cascading Style Sheets, but that's still
too complicated for Microsoft and Netscape.

People are always asking how to have their background image so that it
doesn't tile.  The answer is Cascading Style Sheets, but that won't
work on Netscape.

People are always asking how to have a custom bullet for their lists.
The answer is the list-item property of CSS, but that won't work on
Netscape or MSIE3.  What's wrong with these browser vendors?  I
thought they knew what the market wanted?

>Instead of trying to force a standard onto me,
>a standard that I will not follow because it does not fulfill my needs

What are your needs, and in what way are they not fulfilled by HTML
3.2 and Cascading Style Sheets?

>W3C
>et al should ask me what I would like to have, then they should consider if
>that is at all possible.

You're free to participate in creating new features through the W3C.
Try doing this through Netscape.

>And then they need to update the standard before
>Netscape release the next version of their browser.

Netscape needs to support the standard before they can support the
next standard.

>How about relatively absolute positioning? Absolute positioning in percent
>would be possible.

What is "relatively absolute", other than an oxymoron?  Positioning in
percent isn't absolute.

>People clearly want these features

People will want whatever Netscape gives them if Netscape convinces
them that it is k00l.

>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.

Do MARQUEE and BLINK really make or break a browser?

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

The W3C is not competing with Netscape.  That would be like the
European Union competing with Belgium (hopefully this doesn't actually
happen :)).  The W3C is open to new ideas, including those of
Netscape, and if the ideas are good enough, they will be in future
standards.  The W3C is trying to include frames in Cougar, but it's
difficult given the botched design that Netscape created and
implemented.

Liam Quinn
===============  http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/  ===============
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/