Re: Start here

Paul:

Ah--It's nice to be home again. I've just spent two days with Thallium
Stress tests and then had to come home and try to explain to laymen why a
printed screen pattern was more obvious on printed B&W newsletters than the
"great" pictures they produced with their color ink jets. The "dots" of
course, made the pictures all fuzzy. Too bad I could not of had that
discussion first. The good doctors would have had all the rapid heart rate
they could ask for.

But I digress ...

>Bottom line, should you take web design advice from a
>site that causes
>browser meltdown???

Hard to be totally objective in this area as web design--or perhaps to be
more correct--web building, is going through a very disquieting state at
this point in time. Very similar to back when word processors evolved from
programs that used inserted code--remember [ll;32, ft;2, fs;12, etc.]--to
the WYSIWYG programs like Word we use today.

At first thought it would seem silly to seek the advise from one who's code
"crashes" anything. On the other hand, we have just heard from several,
pointing out their experiences with NN-6 that crashed, just trying to
load--let alone, visit a website.

Last week--In a fit of editorial nonsense, I suggested that we all adopt the
"standard" of IE-5 as it appears statistically to be far more popular with
the web surfing public than any of the efforts by either, we list members,
OR W3C.

The author of this web , may indeed, be taking this course of action. And
even though, I threw out the proposal, more or less, to give Capt. Fuzzy a
bad time, and hopefully promote a discussion--There are more and more out
there who ARE going that route simply because their clients are NOT HTML
geeks like us. And like others mentioned--they don't give a damn how correct
the code is--they just want the results--in their browsers--and most are
using IE-5.

So--does this web author wait around for another half decade for W3C to get
on the ball. And does he do so with the blind faith that once all these so
called academic "standards" have been established--that Netscape, Microsoft
and others will immediately jump on the bandwagon at the expense of their
long established features their browsers now brag about.

One could--without going too far into the arena of the unexpected--voice the
advise ... "Don't hold your breath!!"

Now--Does this really answer your question?? Don't be silly!!

I guess it all depends on whether you want to stand firmly in the camp of
academia -- or forsake everything for practicality and go out and buy a copy
of FrontPage 2000--set it for BOTH Netscape and Internet Explorer and never
look back, in the sure and certain knowledge that statistically, better than
90% of the surfers out there will see your site just fine. That's far better
statistics than the percentage enjoyed by "Network TV".

Either way you choose, you will no doubt, be far more at ease than those of
us who still try--with ever decreasing grace-- to stand with our two feet
planted firmly on both sides of the fence.

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/novels/
www.newsredding.com/
www.ramac-rc.org/


> I checked out this site.  The first thing that comes up is a panel
> warning Netscape 4.X Users the site could cause your browser to crash
> due to the dreaded Netscape 4.X Crashing Bug.  Truer words were never
> spoken.
>
> I'm using Netscape 4.6, which I thought was no more buggy than any other
> browser and rather main stream (Please don't start a flame war about NN
> vs IE.  I've seen the damage those infernal statistics bombs can do.
> They should be outlawed under the Geneva Convention!!!)
>
> Bottom line, should you take web design advice from a site that causes
> browser meltdown???
>
> Paul Kmecak
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA