🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5c22cs$5ci$6@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>,
tina@spirou.uab.ericsson.se (Tina Marie Holmboe) wrote:

> [Original material]
>  ==> Author    : Thomas Weigle (weigle@snip-to-mail.algonet.se (Thomas
Weigle))
>  ==> Article   : <weigle-ya023180002001972352440001@news.algonet.se>
>  ==> Newsgroup : comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
>  ==> Date      : 21 Jan, 00:52:49
> 
> 
> > Nah. I offer them that if the particular design that they happen to like
> > doesn't suit all browsers, which is quite often the case these days. Most
> > of them tell me, once again, that Netscape 2.0 will be just fine.
> 
>   And *then* you tell them that in *order* to make the design fit more
than one
> browser, you need to create duplicate pages ?

Sorry for the typo. Should've been "tell them that ..." Does that clarify
things a wee bit? They come to use because we offer stuff that smaller
firms cannot or won't offer. They want Netscape 2.0 pages. In a perfect
world, these pages would work in any browser, but the Web is far from
perfect, and given this, they have to take into account what is more
important: five percent of the Web or something that will get and keep the
visitor's attention during the first ten seconds of his or her stay.
Because, as mentioned, with all the people out there just surfing around,
you need to offer something special, something that actively gets their
attention. Indeed, people looking for information will keep looking for
that information, but people just surfing about must be convinced to stay.
Which is, once again, why a very multimedial page will be interesting to
most people who are out to see something special or interesting and are not
interested in long essays (like mine).
 
> >>   Its been said before: you allready *HAVE* tools that do this: PostScript
> >> and PDF. HTML _was_not_designed_ for what you want to do with it.
> > 
> > No. But it works.
>
> It does NOT work

It does work. It does NOT work with every browser. But read above and learn
more about why a company will gladly leave up to 40% of their possibly user
base unhappy.

> 
> > What do you think? That they and Microsoft will both lose their market
> 
>   I think that attempting to predict anything about the direction(s) the 
> 'Net' might move in is folly. Which is why sticking to HTML as a standard
> is a Smart Idea.

It's better to satisfy those who are in a position to make me money today
while at the same time trying to convince those responsible for standards
that some features should be in HTML--even if you happen to be playing your
favorite CD on your computer. At least this is better if you happen to make
your money on it.

Two years from now, multimedia will be incorporated in HTML. Most companies
will be using it. Hopefully there will be some backwards compability, but
this is not necessary because if you're not willing to change in a
constantly changing environment, you should move. Some of these companies
will then have great database solutions for huge amounts of information
that they will still be able to use. Others will be content with making
minor tweaks to their sites. Most of the companies that we have dealt with
will most definitely be considered pioneers two years from now, because
they very early predicted that the Web would come alive. Netscape will
still exist and make money, but mostly in the intranet sector. MSIE and
Apple Cyberdog will be the two most common browsers, and people using them
will expect extremely active sites. 

Don't predict the future with your eyes closed unless you're Tiresias. Then
again, many in this newsgroup are keeping their eyes closed. "EMBEDded
background sound is a bad thing ... "

//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.     :
.................................................................