🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5c1s1h$5do@cc.tut.fi>, p116711@cc.tut.fi (Tero Paananen) wrote:

> In <weigle-ya023180002001972352440001@news.algonet.se>
weigle@snip-to-mail.algonet.se (Thomas Weigle) writes:
> 
> The multitude of excuses for bad web design never ceases to amaze me,
> it's like a flooding river of drivel that never stops.

I agree. One of the worst excuses? "It is a standard!" spoken by people who
are in a clear minority. Standards are not set by minorities. That's what
we usually refer to as oppression if we don't like 'em.

> Oh? Every site needs Java and Shockwave and a few QuickTime sound files?

Not every site. I said that. A site entirely based on information that
users will be willing to read although it's badly formatted and designed
will not suffer from a static design, but any site that is trying to *get*
*new* customers on the Web will suffer if their user base happens to be
among the people with new Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers, people
who don't even know what HTML is. And this is not an uncommon thing. 
 
> And once again, the multimedia humbug red-herring "grey background text only"
> as an only alternative for your "lookie-here-mom, Java-without-hands".

It was an example. If we happen to go back to white pages and black text,
set as if it were a pocket book, that's what I would design pages like. But
it won't happen so I won't have to bother about that.
 
> What the **** are you talking about? Explain what relevance one or even
> two browsers have on a _World Wide_ Web?

Yes. *World Wide* Web. And of this *world*, 70-95% of all users are
experienced to one of these two browsers. These browsers are more the WWW
than are any consortium to most people.

As for the W3C's role, take a look at some of the member companies. Adobe
has Pagemill, which generates terrible HTML; Apple are proud of the BMW USA
site, which is not exactly friendly to old browsers; Ericsson are working
with Icon Media Lab (which naturally makes them enemies of the WWW,
right?); IBM are working with Razorfish, who never fear using the latest
stuff; Microsoft has Internet Explorer; Netscape has Navigator and
Communicator; NeXT are a part of Apple; Siemens-Nixdorf are working with
Icon Media Lab; Sony are working with Studio Verso and David Siegel, as
well as with Razorfish; Sun allowed Netscape to call it JavaScript and
would love a more interactive Web.

That's just a few that I can come up with offhand. You have misconceptions
about the importance of *your* World Wide Web.

> Might not be lynx, but it sure as hell might be a text browser used by
> the Chinese...you know, the country with 1/4th of the population in the
> world. Yes, development countries are BOUND to hit the web some day and
> believe me, they will NOT have multimedia terminals at their homes. If
> your site ignores them (provided it is of interest to a world wide audience),
> you will lose and you will lose BIG!

Might be. Yup. Because all those 600 million oppressed farmers really will
be able to pick up a computer. Get real. China already have Internet
access. Some of them. This Internet access is not fully free, y'know. For
example, USA Today, CNN, and similar sites are censored.
 
> The day software run on MS-Windows will run my house is the day I will
> relocate myself to a place with no electricity, no computers and no
> MS-Windows.

So? Now you sound like you really will make a difference. People say that
about Microsoft every day, and refuse to use any MS product. Has it really
made a difference?

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