Subj : Freebies To : CHARLES ANGELICH From : Roy J. Tellason Date : Sun May 08 2005 09:06 pm CHARLES ANGELICH wrote in a message to ROY J. TELLASON: RJT>>> and explains why those who continue to try and push are RJT>>> doomed to fail. CA>>> Those who push are not only NOT failing they are becoming CA>>> billionaires in the process. RJT>> Read the book, and you'll better understand where I'm RJT>> coming from with this. CA>> I will read the book if you will spend the next year or so CA>> discussing this with professional webmasters. ;-) RJT> I have, from time to time, been dropping notes to RJT> webmasters with my opinions and comments on their sites. RJT> Sometimes I even get a reply. Sometimes RJT> "webmaster@whatever.com" isn't a valid address, since they RJT> seem to have become a target for spam. I've been at this RJT> for somewhat longer than a year. CA> I mean _discuss_ this with webmasters. Not just drop them a comment CA> or two or three but _discuss_ the pros and cons and reasons why. There haven't been too many of them that seem to be open to such discussion... RJT> It's not them that make the final decision, though, but those who RJT> direct them. CA> Somewhat. Customers are usually unaware of what the alternatives CA> might be and, in that sense, can easilly be led. RJT> Case in point: For some folks, a suggestion (which a browser tag RJT> is more often than not) isn't good enough. They can say what font RJT> they want to use, and what size, and so forth. But suppose you RJT> don't have that font on your machine? CA> The established practice is to specify three different fonts just CA> in case your preferred font is unavailable on a particular machine. Yep. One of the things that tends to bulk up pages unnecessarily. Why not let me decide what font I want to use here? RJT> The solution (and there are times when I *hate* that word!) on a RJT> lot of sites is to load a graphic to substitute. This is _OFTEN_ RJT> done for menu items, typically going down the left side of the RJT> page. CA> I've never found a webpage that defaults to graphics if a font is CA> not available. They didn't specify a font in these cases, just the "ALT=" tag to say some text if you didn't get the graphic. Sometimes I feel like I'd be better off viewing these pages in text-only mode... CA> Webmasters I have communicated with put graphics into those menus CA> intentionally with no intent to use text at any time. Yep. Which leaves some folks out entirely. Those who are visually-impaired ferinstance. RJT> Now, my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. I really like the RJT> feature of firefox where you can hit a single keystroke and make RJT> the type get bigger. But when the menus and such are all graphics RJT> rather than words, this doesn't work. Which makes it hard for me RJT> to view those sites. CA> Use OPERA, it will enlarge both text _and_ graphics for you. :-) Payware, ain't it? :-) RJT> Thier loss, I'll get what I want somewhere else... RJT> Once a lot of those people realize that I have that choice, maybe RJT> they'll wake up. CA> Those who sell webpages _do_ realize that you have that choice CA> which is why many take the time to learn how to code the most CA> generic code possible considering the variety of browser support CA> for various code. They test with multiple browsers or have others CA> test for them. All too often this isn't the case, though. The most concession people seem to be willing to make is IE or Netscape... CA> Not unlike Microsoft dropping support for 'older' software, the CA> webmaster will eventually decide that such-and-such a browser has CA> outlived it's useful lifespan and stop making concessions for that CA> browser's problem areas. CA> Granted there are some webmasters who out of arrogance or CA> ignorance write webpages that only one browser can accomodate and CA> those who do their work in that fashion are helping no one, not CA> even themselves. Exactly my point. I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar pages. :-) --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-838-8539 (1:270/615) .