Re: A Perfect Web Site<uh oh>

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