Re: A Perfect Web Site<uh oh>

Fuzzy:

Although we talk in different tongues and worship different gods, I think we
are surprisingly close on this one. You mention 3.2 and I mention IE-5+. For
all practical purposes, they are pretty much of a much-ness.

For example--If one was to set FrontPage 2000 to limit itself to features
supported by BOTH Netscape, (prior to ver.6), and IE, it would in fact be
working to more or less, the same standard as Validating to 3.2. In
fact--unless set differently--I am told it inserts 3.2 in the DOCTYPE. Of
course, A WHOLE BUNCH of the features in that program would be grayed out as
a result.

I can not say this for a certainty for two reasons.
1. I am a poor man and have yet to upgrade to FP-2K. So I rely on hearsay
evidence.

2. The versatility of FP allows one to set whatever DTD they want, sometimes
even, to something they shouldn't.

So--Not having actually worked with this new version, I can not say exactly
how messing about on the insides will affect the result.

But still-- I don't think we are very far apart on the resulting code and
yes--it will probably show up rather nice in IE-5+.

Will it work OK in Netscape 6?? I have not a clue. But I figure by the time
there is any significant number of NN-6 users out there, I'll be able to
afford the next version of FrontPage which by that time, will have
incorporated NN-6's idiosyncrasies.

Best wishes
Ted Temer
temer(at)c-zone.net


> Let me start by saying that I expect credit from the Gods of the Web for
> keeping my mouth shut so far on this issue.
>
> In the last few days there have been some *really* excellent and thought
> provoking posts on this (these) issues. Gregor's most recent post struck a
> nerve.
>
> He's right. He's right in ways some of you are not thinking about.
> Accessibility in the "modern" sense, is but one sense we need to consider.
> In my post earlier today asking about the correlation between (actual)
> validated pages and a lack of "pretty" graphical content. I mentioned the
> possibility that those coders knew something "we" didn't. Something "we"
> may need to learn.
>
> Think about this, and please feel free to agree or disagree, either
> publicly or privately:
>
> The Internet has actually been around a pretty long time. The "WWW" has
> too. Waaay back when black and white screens were cool. And waaaaaaaay
> before Napster and video.com.
>
> Have you ever heard the phrase: "The Internet is content driven."? Would
> you *really* disagree?
>
> In the last few years the WWW has *exploded* in popularity. This
popularity
> has far outstripped browser manufacturers ability to create products that
> "meet the demand of the public".
>
> Don't those factors combined support a reasonable conclusion that the
> "explosive growth" experienced is based on a content driven medium? One
> that has been (to date) dreadfully lacking in Multi_media/JavaScript/CSS
> support?
>
> The same content driven medium with which the browser manufactures "can
> not" produce products fast enough for?
>
> Doesn't that also support the reasonable conclusion that MORE THAN CONTENT
> is _ nice _, as long as it ~in no way~ interferes with a viewer's ability
> to interact successfully with the content on the site?
>
> Can you argue that the INITIAL GROWTH explosion that occurred in a market
> markedly ~devoid~ of a Media Rich environment occurred because everyone
> thought *someday* we could have .png/css/shtm/asp etc.?
>
> I think it is/was based on what is there *today* and what was there
> *yesterday*. I want  it to grow, you want it to grow, but it's not growing
> because of mouseovers, frames, layers etc. It is growing because of the
> content available, the INFORMATION if you will.
>
> Now, if I'm not completely off my rocker, that all put together should
> support the reasonable conclusion that IF for some reason you do . . .
need
> . . . to add something besides unobtrusive extras to the content, it
should
> not even be considered without _ careful _ demographic research.
Preferably
> by an outside contractor. So that when AOHell folks and NN 6 folks start
> filling the site owners mail box with "your site crashed my computer, you
> &**^%^$" messages, you do not feel the heat.
>
> 3.2 suddenly doesn't sound too bad to me as a professional tool.
Especially
> when it is accompanied by a link to the W3 validator.
>
> Fuzzy
> <the thinker who thunked>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Captain F.M. O'Lary
> webmaster(at)canopy.net
> Copywight 2001 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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