Re: Graceful Degradation (Was Re: Frames vs. Tables)

Harold,

Far from me the intention of underestimate the importance of the content.
This is, for shore, the basic and the essence. But is content, not sharing
content. Sharing content was the key in the early days of the web, and about
sharing content are mailing lists, news groups etc. OK, you may say that
"selling content" concept is a subset of the huge concept of "sharing
content" but, in this case, the TV is also about sharing content and I don't
think this is your point.

But, back to the the starting point of this thread, if everybody follows
specifications and  standards there is no progress. The first company that
implemented a graphic browser made a revolution, and (please tell me if I am
wrong) they didn't follow the standards.

We have to push the market and the technology as far as we can. This means
encouraging the good things even if they are not part of a standard. The
technological progress is enlarging the market, so I don't believe we should
look for backward compatibility by any means. We should preserve a delicate
balance between compatibility (ie. readability in old browsers) and
innovation. None of the extremes is the right point.


Mihai


>The Web _was_ about sharing of content, the Web currently _is_ about
>sharing of content, and we can expect the Web to continue to be about
>sharing of content for the foreseeable future.
>
>The audience on the Web has certainly changed, expanding in directions,
>defying one's imagination.
>
>There are surely far more folks interested in the behavior and mathematical
>properties of elementary particles today than there were in the early days.
>
>At the same time, there are vastly more people interested in the
>mathematical properties (and other aspects) of stocks and investments and
>businesses.
>
>At the same time, there are also vastly more people interested in sports
>activities. At the same time, ... ... ...
>
>To illustrate the relevance of content, consider this announcement (of
>Tuesday of this week):
>
>
>  * * * CMPnet's Double Debut * * *
>
>  The week's not even half over, and already CMPnet has a new
>  addition to its family: TechCompanies. TechCompanies is the
>  definitive A-to-Z resource for news and profiles on more than
>  45,000 technology companies. You'll also find product reviews,
>  financial data, and contact information -- including hotlinks -- for
>  each company as well.
>
>  http://www.techweb.com/companies
>
>That is content!
>
>Go to any of the major sports league Web sites, and you'll find lots of
>content. Articles, statistics, pictures, multimedia... all content.
>Contrast for example the amount of content, with what was provided say 25
>years ago, in the deluxe souvenir booklets one could buy at the ball park
>for more than the price of an admission ticket. For example, see
>http://www.nba.com (National Basketball Association).
>
>That is content!
>
>Presentation is an important part of the delivery of information. One might
>go so far as to say that it _is_ the delivery of information. Presentation
>is not easy, and the underlying technology is far from easy. The Web is
>growing, evolving, and addressing these needs.
>
>Contrast, if you will, the number of years with which one had to endure
>"green-bar" computer reports, in clumsy sizes, with monospaced and monocase
>type fonts (or I should probably say "type font" (singular). Despite
>technology challenges which are far greater, the Web is responding to these
>requirements at a remarkably rapid pace.
>
>The Web does not _require_ content, nor does it require quality of content.
>That is up to its viewers. Ultimately it is content which meets viewers'
>interests and needs, best presented in a useful and satisfying manner.
>
>I've serious doubts that C|Net put up such a massive amount of content
>about businesses, just because they found it ~fun~ to do. Nor for the
>professional sports leagues. Rather, they do it because they have
>identified and responded to interests, and strive to satisfy (and in a
>sense also cultivate) such interests.
>
>I lead two Internet Special Interest Groups for the Chicago Computer
>Society. I can assure you that these folks are interested in the content of
>the net. The gee-gosh-wow is fun to discuss and view, but it quickly turns
>to the 'great, but what can it do for me' questions.
>
>I just got back from a relatively large family reunion (disguised as a
>cousin's wedding). Very much the same thing... some are on the Internet
>because of ... and others are planning to because they can get ... Split
>about half/half between email first and Web content first.
>
>A closing example... a lot of folks want stock and investment information.
>Having several choices, presentation becomes particularly important... but
>that is in a sense because the presentation becomes part of the content...
>having to do with the usability of the information.... as well as the
>~comfort level~ of its use.
>
>One might describe the full-time job of an infant as learning to
>distinguish between noise and signal in its personal universe. Having
>become proficient at that (each in one's own way), people continue to spend
>the rest of their life striving for signal over noise.
>
>/Harold
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Harold A. Driscoll                       mailto:harold(at)driscoll.chi.il.us
>#include <std/disclaimer>      http://homepage.interaccess.com/~driscoll/

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA