Good, practical business sense shown below! If more of 
the dot-coms had shown that kind of sense, there'd be 
a lot more of them around ... ;-)

David
dvjones(at)ksbe.edu

On 12 Feb 2004, at 19:17, Scott Smith wrote:

From:           	"Scott Smith" <wahikan(at)megapathdsl.net>
To:             	<hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Subject:        	RE: Standards, compliance and accessibility- its here! : (Was:  Just tell me why?)
Date sent:      	Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:17:29 -0600

> Wow! Sweet discussion. You guys are both bringing up good
> points and counter-points. To me, the most important
> message is to know your target audience, then measure the
> risk associated with your decision of how to take no
> notice of the rest, whichever way it goes. We're an
> on-line dating service and our application uses style
> sheets, etc, outputs somewhat proprietary code (C# .Net),
> and we make decisions based on log files, analyzing
> entries for the business impact of the routes we decide to
> pursue. We then re-measure, once in production, to better
> guesstimates for future decisions. Pretty much a common
> sense sort of high-level approach. We don't concentrate on
> delivering all our functionality to, for example, 4x of
> IE, or 4x of navigator. And to be honest we worry to much
> or concentrate on many other platforms other than the
> latest mozella support. As a result our site will always
> function best on the latest MS product, get darn close on
> Netscape, and be useable on most others. Why? Because we
> measure our user base. In doing so we have proven that we
> can generate the best revenue when the formula is based
> upon sound metrics. Something to think about. I just
> wanted to jump in to suggest an additional vantage point.
> 
> Cheers to each of you.
> 
> All this said. If I could use a table to get a job done
> quick and dirty to meet a need instead of manually
> developing an extravagant CSS layout (outside of a tool
> anyway), then that's the way I'd go. But only if my core
> need was completely met. I guess to me, it's not about CSS
> Vs. HTML 4, or whatever we're up too... but instead, it's
> about the return on the investment.
> 
> If you read all this, thanks a bunch,
> 
> Scott Smith
> Sr. Quality Assurance Analyst
> Match.com
> phone: 214.576.9458
> mailto:ScottS(at)match.com
> 
> Do you Match? http://www.match.com/
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of David
> Jones Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:45 PM To:
> hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org Subject: Re: Standards, compliance
> and accessibility- its here! : (Was: Just tell me why?)
> 
> 
> Michael Kear wrote:
> > David, please yourself.  Stay in the 1990s if you wish.
> 
> I think a better way to think of that might be: "Stay
> where your customers are." My customers - I work in house
> - are using what you consider "1990's" technology. Your
> customers are obviously able to use newer technology. I
> have no problem with people who can take advantage of it.
> 
>  > I've moved on and
> > it's made a gigantic difference to my bottom line as a
> > one-person development & consultancy shop and it's made
> > my sites a whole lot better, more flexible, more
> > re-usable.
> 
> More power to you!
> 
> > You do it your way.  Makes no difference to me.  I've
> > been doing it your
> way
> > for nearly 10 years now.  There are gazillions of sites
> > done the old way. There will be for years to come.  All
> > I'm saying is, I didn't think much
> of
> > this new way to look at it, till I got into it, and it's
> > changed the whole way I think about developing sites.
> 
> I've looking into the same things, I agree with pretty
> much all of them except the deprecation of tables. ;-)
> 
> > I don't care enough about what you do to want to argue
> > with you about it.
> 
> I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. I understand your point,
> I just don't necessarily agree with a small part of it.
> ;-)
> 
> David
> dvjones(at)ksbe.edu
> 
> > Cheers
> > Mike Kear
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> > [mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]
> >
> > [snippety snippety snip]
> >
> > <<<That's true. And if you've gone table-less, old
> > browsers that don't support CSS do NOT degrade
> > gracefully.>>>>
> >
> >
> > Yes they do.  Nyah nyah nyah.  <g>
> >
> > [snippety snippety snip]
> 
> 


 

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

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