Are we going backwards ? (please excuse my spelling...)
In my opinion an absolute YES !
Take a look at what we are doing ! we create TAGS, things like <H1> etc.
and although there are tools (dreamweaver and the like), they are all at the
lowest level of programming (something like assembly as oposed to C++ etc.).
These tools create "brain-dead" developers that constantly have to plough
through tons of tags to do the simplest thing.
Let me make my point by example: if i want to create a page with "say" a tab
notebook inside it. DOES it not make sense to do something like:
Notebook (arg1,arg2,...)
rather than some mumbo/jumbo using table & div tags (which i am not even
gonna print the code here, cause it takes far too many lines) ?
Languages do not solve our problems, they may actually add to them (Java's
and the like). I have nothing against Java per say, but remember we placed
MAN-ON-THE-MOON with assembly language and PDB computers.
AS i got sicker and sicker, i decided to get away from the crowed (otherwise
i had to follow!) and do some experimenting and the result was
AMAZING to me and many others. Yes to Libraries, Yes to Reuse, Yes to
Templates, Yes to OO, Yes to High level languages 4GL+ and all other things
i learned in my past years. and ever since, i had not written a single UGLY
TAG code.
What is happening to the Great and Mighty IBM's and the like, did they
forget was they were all about ? When i look at WebSphere, I can not believe
what they are feeding us. They are creating a Japansese style Braing-Dead
developers that know one thing and one thing only, to work on the BELT and
become a MachinMan. I spent tons of time with WebSphere developers, and
amazed that the stuff i can do in less than a minute will take 2-3 people
and brainStorming(or there lack of) and the longest time to do ?
Please understand I am not against IBM (big empire fall on their own, when
they forget their past), i merely used it as an example.
I AM NOT SELLING ANYTHING. what i have done is just to show that, internet
is no different than any others before them, forget the hype, selling
books/software/training etc. We are still doing INPUT->PROCESS->OUTPUT,
languages and platforms take on different face and always promise to solve
universe's problems. Look what happened to JAVA virtual machines, after 15
years, there are no unglier application than one written in Java, and the
garbage collector...(well that's another story).
i will repond to your thought later, but please take a look at my stuff at : http://toolkit.redolive.com, again I WILL NOT SELL MY STUFF TO YOU for any
price, but you are welcome to experiment and... Please let me have your
thoghts. don't forget you can copy examples and paste them into my "SandBox"
and see for yourself how it works !
and Please let's not argue over languages. it get boring ! i choose the
langauage that fits my need but there is no reason, it can not be done with
Java/C/C++/VB/&^%$## etc.
Yours, Mel
Jul 20 '05
72  5296 
In message <rPenc.6741$7S2.3339@newsfe1-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes Have a look at what I am talking about. Try one of my photograph pages.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
Indeed:
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson01.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson02.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson03.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson04.jpg>
In the latter especially wouldn't you prefer the captions under the
images?
BTW, having repeating occurrences of text ("500", "700, "info") each
linking to different targets is also a very bad idea.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <rt***************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>, Barry
Pearson <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes
My own experience is that, when I have discussed the problem of the
width of my photographs, I get responses that appear to be based on
ideology rather than practical experience.
Speaking of "practical experience", have you viewed you site on a PDA
yet?
I'll assume you are talking about my photography pages, since that is what I
was talking about above.
I always test my pages in Opera 7.23 in "small screen mode". I think the
results are pretty good! I designed those pages to work in a 700px viewport,
and here they are working in a plausible way on a 240px screen. Gosh!
I accept that other technologies may fail to render them plausibly on a narrow
screen. If users don't use the sort of systems that I designed for, and don't
use available technology to compensate for their departure, they won't see
what I intended. I can live with that. I don't care if they can. It isn't my
problem.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <xe***************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Barry
Pearson <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes
Indeed. Many millions of websites. Many 100s of millions of users.
Perhaps 99% pages with table layout.
More violins are played badly than well. I know which I prefer to
listen to.
But many of those sites communicate with their audience. I realise that it
totally pisses people off that pages developed with grotty techniques can
still appear to work well with their target audience. That table-layout pages
can have a mass audience in the millions. And make huge amounts of money for
the publishers. And, probably, the vast majority of the user haven't a clue
that they are table-pages, and don't care, because they wouldn't even
undertand the esoteric arguments involved. But that is life!
The aim of a website is to communicate with the audience. Everything else is a
means to that end. Start off by measuring communication. What do the users
think? Could they hande the pages? Did they feel inclined to stay, or did they
want to leave? And how many of those feelings were the result of the
techniques used, and how many because of other factors, such as the
architecture of the site? Or its visual design? Or its content?
The judges are the marketplace and the courts. What else is there?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <rPenc.6741$7S2.3339@newsfe1-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writesHave a look at what I am talking about. Try one of my photograph
pages. http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
Indeed:
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson01.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson02.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson03.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson04.jpg>
I see a set of screen shots with no context. I see no reason to care about any
user who sees such a view. Are they in my target audience? Have they contrived
these results?
Until I know, I will assume that such users are unlikely to have a useful
impact on my life. The people who buy my photographs have top-end equipment &
packages. They don't have that view.
In the latter especially wouldn't you prefer the captions under the
images?
BTW, having repeating occurrences of text ("500", "700, "info") each
linking to different targets is also a very bad idea.
I know, and have said elsewhere, that this is a problem with my galleries. Put
in high-level terms, my thumbnail galleries don't linearise properly.
When the needs of blind people to access my photographs gain sufficient
priority, I will address this linearisation issue. Honest!
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
In message <yA9oc.115$sD1.76@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes But you can mark it up in such a way that a computer programme can
translate it in to Gujarati (when suitable software exists); or you
can mark it up in such a way that such software cannot.
All my pages say:
<html lang="en">
Is that enough?
No; but I was making an analogy.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <sz9oc.114$sD1.57@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <xe***************@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net>, Barry
Pearson <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes
Indeed. Many millions of websites. Many 100s of millions of users.
Perhaps 99% pages with table layout.
More violins are played badly than well. I know which I prefer to
listen to.
But many of those sites communicate with their audience.
And many more can only communicate with /some/ of their audience.
I realise that it
totally pisses people off that pages developed with grotty techniques can
still appear to work well with their target audience.
You said it, not me - they /appear/ to work well.
That table-layout pages
can have a mass audience in the millions. And make huge amounts of money for
the publishers. And, probably, the vast majority of the user haven't a clue
that they are table-pages, and don't care, because they wouldn't even
undertand the esoteric arguments involved. But that is life!
Again, your words, "the vast majority". In other words, a minority
suffer.
The aim of a website is to communicate with the audience. Everything else is a
means to that end. Start off by measuring communication. What do the users
think? Could they hande the pages? Did they feel inclined to stay, or did they
want to leave? And how many of those feelings were the result of the
techniques used, and how many because of other factors, such as the
architecture of the site? Or its visual design? Or its content?
And what about the people who can't communicate with the site owner - to
say that the site excludes them - because the site excludes them?
The judges are the marketplace and the courts. What else is there?
Consideration for others.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <5r9oc.113$sD1.35@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes Andy Mabbett wrote:
Speaking of "practical experience", have you viewed you site on a PDA
yet?
I'll assume you are talking about my photography pages, since that is what I
was talking about above.
Any or all of your pages.
I always test my pages in Opera 7.23 in "small screen mode". I think the
results are pretty good! I designed those pages to work in a 700px viewport,
and here they are working in a plausible way on a 240px screen. Gosh!
That's nice for you. Opera in that mode will show you how the pages
appear on /some/ of the devices which use a version of Opera. They do
not show you how they appear, for instance, on PocketPC devices using
Pocket Explorer.
I accept that other technologies may fail to render them plausibly on a narrow
screen.
The other technologies do not fail. your pages do.
If users don't use the sort of systems that I designed for, and don't
use available technology to compensate for their departure, they won't see
what I intended.
Why design for some "systems"? Why not design for the WWW?
What technology is available, for instance, for the "departure" made by
a PocketPC user?
I can live with that. I don't care if they can.
Quite.
[...]
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <4J9oc.119$sD1.72@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <rPenc.6741$7S2.3339@newsfe1-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writesHave a look at what I am talking about. Try one of my photograph
pages. http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
Indeed:
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson01.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson02.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson03.jpg>
<http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/Pearson04.jpg>
I see a set of screen shots with no context.
You see what some of your visitors are seeing. What other context do you
need?
I see no reason to care about any user who sees such a view.
How callous.
Are they in my target audience?
Quite possibly.
Have they contrived these results?
Not necessarily.
Until I know, I will assume that such users are unlikely to have a useful
impact on my life. The people who buy my photographs have top-end equipment &
packages. They don't have that view.
As Alan Flavell has previously said of others; were I in businesses
you're the sort of competitor I'd want.
In the latter especially wouldn't you prefer the captions under the
images?
???
BTW, having repeating occurrences of text ("500", "700, "info") each
linking to different targets is also a very bad idea.
I know, and have said elsewhere, that this is a problem with my galleries. Put
in high-level terms, my thumbnail galleries don't linearise properly.
It is nothing to do with linearisation.
When the needs of blind people to access my photographs gain sufficient
priority, I will address this linearisation issue. Honest!
Who said anything about blind people?
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <yA9oc.115$sD1.76@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson Andy Mabbett wrote: But you can mark it up in such a way that a computer programme can
translate it in to Gujarati (when suitable software exists); or you
can mark it up in such a way that such software cannot.
All my pages say:
<html lang="en">
Is that enough?
No;
What would be enough? What should I do?
but I was making an analogy.
Analogy for what? We were talking about communicating with people who have a
different language, weren't wee? (See above).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <sz9oc.114$sD1.57@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes
[snip] But many of those sites communicate with their audience.
And many more can only communicate with /some/ of their audience.
And sometimes that is the fault of the audience. Let the marketplace & courts
settle the matter. You & I can't. I realise that it
totally pisses people off that pages developed with grotty techniques
can still appear to work well with their target audience.
You said it, not me - they /appear/ to work well.
Yup! They *appear* to make a lot of money for Amazon & eBay & Google. But ...
perhaps it is all a sham, and they are not working well. Let the marketplace &
courts settle the matter. That table-layout pages
can have a mass audience in the millions. And make huge amounts of
money for the publishers. And, probably, the vast majority of the
user haven't a clue that they are table-pages, and don't care,
because they wouldn't even undertand the esoteric arguments involved.
But that is life!
Again, your words, "the vast majority". In other words, a minority
suffer.
I said "the vast majority of the user haven't a clue that they are
table-pages, and don't care". So a minority perhaps *do* have a clue & *do*
care. Including, perhaps, pissed-off web authors. That has *no* implication
whatsoever that anyone suffers. But you may, of course, have evidence to the
contrary. However, if people *are*suffering, let the courts settle the matter.
That is something that cannot be determined in a technical NG like this.
[snip] The judges are the marketplace and the courts. What else is there?
Consideration for others.
Are those others in the target audience? Have they paid to access the website?
Are they covered by laws saying they must be catered for? If not, why should a
publisher have consideration for them? The web isn't just a big charity! Let
the marketplace & courts settle the matter.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <5r9oc.113$sD1.35@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writesAndy Mabbett wrote:
Speaking of "practical experience", have you viewed you site on a
PDA yet?
I'll assume you are talking about my photography pages, since that is
what I was talking about above.
Any or all of your pages.
I don't care if most of those pages can't be accessed by a PDA. My target
audience will use screens, at least for part of their time. (And if they
don't, I will live with the consequences. Which won't be noticed by me!) I always test my pages in Opera 7.23 in "small screen mode". I think
the results are pretty good! I designed those pages to work in a
700px viewport, and here they are working in a plausible way on a
240px screen. Gosh!
That's nice for you. Opera in that mode will show you how the pages
appear on /some/ of the devices which use a version of Opera. They do
not show you how they appear, for instance, on PocketPC devices using
Pocket Explorer.
I accept that other technologies may fail to render them plausibly on
a narrow screen.
The other technologies do not fail. your pages do.
My pages work to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of my target audience
that I know about. I suggest anyone else gets better technology, or simply
goes elsewhere! I sleep well at night. If users don't use the sort of systems that I designed for, and don't
use available technology to compensate for their departure, they
won't see what I intended.
Why design for some "systems"? Why not design for the WWW?
[snip]
I do. I write valid HTML & CSS. Then test in the common browsers. (I recognise
that, whatever I do, it is possible for a user to find a user agent that will
screw up that user. Perhaps they will eventually realise that they are being
excluded from the overwhelming majority of the web, and will get a better user
agent! If they are happy not to see my site, then we are both happy. If they
are not happy - then *they* have a problem. I don't).
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <4J9oc.119$sD1.72@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
[snip] I see a set of screen shots with no context.
You see what some of your visitors are seeing. What other context do
you need?
Do those visitors matter to me? Would they see something different if I did
something different? I put 700px photographs on the web! What *should* happen
when someone looks at them on a PDA? What did they expect? Will they go home
and look at my 700px photographs on a bigger screen? And if they are not the
sort of people to do this, how can they be of interest to a photographer? > I see no reason to care about any user who sees such a view.
How callous.
Chuckle! You simply don't understand, do you? If they can't see my pages
properly, it is their problem, not mine! They haven't paid me to see my pages.
They have no rights in the matter. I am happy with the audience I have.
[snip] Until I know, I will assume that such users are unlikely to have a
useful impact on my life. The people who buy my photographs have
top-end equipment & packages. They don't have that view.
As Alan Flavell has previously said of others; were I in businesses
you're the sort of competitor I'd want.
[snip]
Then we are all happy. I save effort by not trying to cater for people who are
not in my audience and won't matter to me. I can then use that saved effort to
reach my audience better. You pick up an audience that has no value to me.
Win-win.
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: sometimes that is the fault of the audience. Let the marketplace &
courts settle the matter.
perhaps it is all a sham, and they are not working well. Let the
marketplace & courts settle the matter.
However, if people *are*suffering, let the courts settle the matter.
The web isn't just a big charity! Let the marketplace & courts settle
the matter.
Hey! Barry has a new mantra. "Let the marketplace & courts settle the
matter."
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote:
sometimes that is the fault of the audience. Let the marketplace &
courts settle the matter.
perhaps it is all a sham, and they are not working well. Let the
marketplace & courts settle the matter.
However, if people *are*suffering, let the courts settle the matter.
The web isn't just a big charity! Let the marketplace & courts settle
the matter.
Hey! Barry has a new mantra. "Let the marketplace & courts settle the
matter."
Chuckle! Have you got a better way?
Some techies (and at heart I am still a techie) have a bizarre belief that
their view of technical excellence is what matters. (Perhaps I used to think
something like that, before I became a business analyst).
But the aim of a website is to communicate with the audience. Techniques have
to be judged against that. We can judge communication by some sort of
complicated research & analysis, (which may have been done). Or just let the
marketplace & courts sort things out. In the long term, they will.
Whatever techniques you propose to use for your next page, will it be better
or worse at communicating with the audience than some altenative technique?
(Within the project constraints, of cost, risk, and time). Can you demonstrate
that?
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
sometimes that is the fault of the audience. Let the marketplace
& courts settle the matter.
perhaps it is all a sham, and they are not working well. Let the
marketplace & courts settle the matter.
However, if people *are* suffering, let the courts settle the
matter.
The web isn't just a big charity! Let the marketplace & courts
settle the matter.
Hey! Barry has a new mantra. "Let the marketplace & courts settle
the matter."
Chuckle! Have you got a better way?
Of course. Stop repeating the same tripe ad nauseum. (I know how much
you like Latin, so I made sure to include some.)
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote: Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
{snip] Hey! Barry has a new mantra. "Let the marketplace & courts settle
the matter."
Chuckle! Have you got a better way?
Of course. Stop repeating the same tripe ad nauseum. (I know how much
you like Latin, so I made sure to include some.)
Have you got a better of sorting out these issues than letting the marketplace
& courts settle the matter?
I believe the above statement of mine is the answer to a variety of criticisms
that people make about how website design & authoring is going. I think the
only alternatives I've seen proposed are:
- To allow only licensed or registered or accredited authors to have their
pages published. (A classic "closed shop" approach).
- To ensure that browsers apply very strict parsing & rendering of pages. (Why
would people change to using such browsers?)
--
Barry Pearson http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Barry Pearson wrote: Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:
Brian wrote:
Hey! Barry has a new mantra. "Let the marketplace & courts
settle the matter."
Chuckle! Have you got a better way?
Of course. Stop repeating the same tripe ad nauseum.
Have you got a better of sorting out these issues than letting the
marketplace & courts settle the matter?
Of course, you chose to continue chanting your new mantra.
I think the only alternatives I've seen proposed are:
- To allow only licensed or registered or accredited authors to have
their pages published. (A classic "closed shop" approach).
A clasic approach that noone has ever proposed in ciwa*.
- To ensure that browsers apply very strict parsing & rendering of
pages.
I could be charitable and concede that many designers want strict
adherence of standards to make their job easier. But you can't or won't
follow the argument, so why bother? You'll just reply by repeating your
new mantra.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
In message <gHboc.89$Ge5.79@newsfe1-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes but I was making an analogy.
Analogy for what? We were talking about communicating with people who
have a different language, weren't wee? (See above).
No, "wee" weren't:
In message <ER***************@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>,
Barry Pearson <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writesIf someone with a serious visual disability, who needs to be
able to see large text, doesn't know about the "Accessibility"
dialogue of IE, I would classify that as a failure of society.
People will *never* attempt to cater for every problem. I will
*never* publish my websites in Gujarati.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <Bococ.193$sD1.129@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes You see what some of your visitors are seeing. What other context do
you need?
Do those visitors matter to me?
It seems not - tough why their money is of less concern to you than
anyone else's is beyond me.
Would they see something different if I did something different?
Yes, as you well know.
I put 700px photographs on the web! What *should* happen when someone
looks at them on a PDA?
The fourth picture is from a PocketPC.
What did they expect?
Probably very little; since when is meeting low expectations a sensible
goal?
Will they go home and look at my 700px photographs on a bigger screen?
Quite possibly - though they may, instead go on to buy from one of your
competitors.
And if they are not the sort of people to do this, how can they be of
interest to a photographer?
As customers. As people.
> I see no reason to care about any user who sees such a view.
How callous.
Chuckle! You simply don't understand, do you?
Understand what? Your callousness? Certainly not.
If they can't see my pages properly, it is their problem, not mine!
How callous.
They haven't paid me to see my pages. They have no rights in the
matter.
The law says otherwise.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <9Fnoc.10$Et.5@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes
[...] ensure that browsers apply very strict parsing & rendering of pages.
(Why would people change to using such browsers?)
Sadly, they probably wouldn't.
If only wed had such browsers from the beginning...
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <76coc.144$sD1.71@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <sz9oc.114$sD1.57@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes[snip]But many of those sites communicate with their audience.
And many more can only communicate with /some/ of their audience.
And sometimes that is the fault of the audience.
How is it?
I realise that it
totally pisses people off that pages developed with grotty techniques
can still appear to work well with their target audience.
You said it, not me - they /appear/ to work well.
Yup! They *appear* to make a lot of money for Amazon & eBay & Google. But ...
perhaps it is all a sham, and they are not working well.
The fact that they make money gives the appearance that they work well,
(when in fact they are merely adequate in the majority of cases).
That table-layout pages
can have a mass audience in the millions. And make huge amounts of
money for the publishers. And, probably, the vast majority of the
user haven't a clue that they are table-pages, and don't care,
because they wouldn't even undertand the esoteric arguments involved.
But that is life!
Again, your words, "the vast majority". In other words, a minority
suffer.
I said "the vast majority of the user haven't a clue that they are
table-pages, and don't care". So a minority perhaps *do* have a clue & *do*
care. Including, perhaps, pissed-off web authors. That has *no* implication
whatsoever that anyone suffers.
I didn't say that it did.
But you may, of course, have evidence to the
contrary.
Indeed.
However, if people *are*suffering, let the courts settle the matter.
<Yawn>
That is something that cannot be determined in a technical NG like this.
Not so.
The judges are the marketplace and the courts. What else is there?
Consideration for others.
Are those others in the target audience?
Yes.
Have they paid to access the website?
Sometimes. What if they haven't?
Are they covered by laws saying they must be catered for?
Yes.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf
In message <4gcoc.164$sD1.35@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes Andy Mabbett wrote: In message <5r9oc.113$sD1.35@newsfe6-win>, Barry Pearson
<ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writesAndy Mabbett wrote: Speaking of "practical experience", have you viewed you site on a
PDA yet?
I'll assume you are talking about my photography pages, since that is
what I was talking about above.
Any or all of your pages.
I don't care if most of those pages can't be accessed by a PDA. My target
audience will use screens, at least for part of their time. (And if they
don't, I will live with the consequences. Which won't be noticed by me!)
Yes, you won't notice the money they're not spending with you.
[...]I accept that other technologies may fail to render them plausibly on
a narrow screen.
The other technologies do not fail. your pages do.
My pages work to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of my target audience
that I know about.
Thank you for acknowledging your areas of ignorance.
I suggest anyone else gets better technology,
[...]
The technology, as I indicated above, is not deficient.
If users don't use the sort of systems that I designed for, and don't
use available technology to compensate for their departure, they
won't see what I intended.
Why design for some "systems"? Why not design for the WWW?
[snip]
I do. I write valid HTML & CSS.
Validation is only part of the story.
Then test in the common browsers. (I recognise
that, whatever I do, it is possible for a user to find a user agent that will
screw up that user.
The technology is not deficient.
Perhaps they will eventually realise that they are being
excluded from the overwhelming majority of the web, and will get a better user
agent!
The technology is not deficient.
If they are happy not to see my site, then we are both happy. If they
are not happy - then *they* have a problem. I don't).
Fool.
--
Andy Mabbett
"The Internet is a reflection of our society[ ...]. If we do not like what we
see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix
society." Vint Cerf This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. | |
