Re: A fuzzy OPINION<he's baaaack>

Ken,

I'M JEALOUS !!!!

I want some of *your* customers !!!

Most of mine become pretty web literate, and VERY much care about the
quality of the code used to produce their site.

I'm really bummed out now. I thought I had gotten past petty jealousy.
Fuzzy.
P.S. On a much more serious note, I do want to acknowledge the validity in
your argument. There are indeed a heck of a lot of clients out there -
exactly as you describe. And as much as I bang my drum and stomp up on my
high and mighty soap box about standards I would not for a second deny you
or anyone else the right or the option to meet those clients needs. And to
do it creatively.


At 05:48 PM 2/19/01 -0800, Ken Lanxner wrote:
>On 2/19/01 at 07:37 PM, Captain F.M. O'Lary <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net> wrote:
>
>> As I recall, we had two "options" or scenarios if you will.
>> 
>> One where the document was written to the ratified standards for the
>> HTML, recognized world wide, including by the browser manufacturers.
>> This option held that because the document was written to these
>> standards when (and **IF**) a potential client of theirs contacted
>> them voicing displeasure with the site's operation they ("your"
>> client) would be able to point out the link to the validator on their
>> page to the complaining viewer so that *they* could see for themselves
>> it was a problem caused by their browser and that in fact this company
>> they had though "shoddy" had in fact taken the time trouble and care
>> to INSURE the widest possible viewer success with their site. Correct
>> me if I'm mistaken here someone, but I think we just built a little
>> CONSUMER CONFIDENCE in the business the viewer had just written to
>> complain about - woops.
>
>My clients have no interest in whether or not I write valid code. Nor do
>they care about browser quirks. They want a Web site that looks good and
>that works. The rest is technical stuff that does not concern them or
>interest them. I do not have one client who would say: "I no longer mind
>that my site doesn't work now that I know you write compliant code."
>
>They did not hire me to involve them in the inner workings of html code
>and doctypes and proprietary browsers. None of that means anything to
>them. For me to smugly point to a validator link and shift the blame
>elsewhere does not fix their site and it certainly does not give the
>client a favorable impression of my design capabilities or my skills at
>client relations.
>
>> Anyway, option two was for the developer to load multiple browsers and
>> multiple versions for the purpose of testing FUNCTIONALITY, and then
>> realizing they have used stuff that WILL NOT be supported by viewers
>> browsers, they post it to the web and bitch about a new browser
>> version and how it ruined their site.
>
>The purpose of testing on multiple browsers is not to see what doesn't
>work so you can complain it. The purpose it to fix your page so it looks
>good in all browsers. Unfortunately, writing strictly to code is not
>good enough because -- as we have discussed ad infinitum -- all browsers
>play fast and loose with their interprepation of the code.
>
>In addition IE 5 and Netscape 4.5 and 6, I just installed AOL 5 and a
>dial-up modem connection -- just to be able to see my pages somewhat as
>my clients do.
>
>> I'm obviously confused.
>
>That's OK. We still love you, Fuzzy.
>
>> What am I missing?
>
>Don't get me started! :-)
>
>Ken
>
>
>http://www.thirdlives.com
>ThirdLives Web Design
>
>http://simplelives.com
>Simplelives Web Design
>
>http://amillionlives.com
>Lives, the Biography Resource
>
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
It's a biiiig mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you
are in a hurry.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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