Re: Theory of Page Length

Beverly K <bev_k(at)hotmail.com> writes:

>Excellent action on your part, Spanky! i am not on al the
lists due
>mostly to time constraints, so I am glad to think that we can
and wil
>"transfer" discussioins here.

I agree. I much prefer "theory" discussions. I am reluctant to
transfer discussions from other lists, as I suspect the people
I am arguing... ahem, "debating"... with do not subscribe to
the theory list. Still, I will start doing it if you all agree
to stay along for the ride :-)

>There are of course probably some exceptions to this.
Acedemic pages do
>not have to be all that fun, because people are there for
research.
>They are not usually entertaining themselves.  Even if I am
reading
>educational things for fun (come on you guys do it too,
right? ;-) ) I
>do not feel as much need to be entertained.  If I am just
browsing for
>fun, the more interactive pages hold my attention better.

I think 98% of my browsing is for research rather that "fun".
Internet technology isn't good enough for "fun" yet...

Oooo... there's a controversial statement, I hope! Opinions
anybody?


--
David Meadows [ Technical Writer | Information Developer ]
DNRC Minister for Littorasy * david(at)goldenheroes.softnet.co.uk
"Is not this the most reprehensible form of ignorance,
 that of thinking one knows what one does not know?"
      -- Socrates

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