CHARLES ANGELICH wrote in a message to ROY J. TELLASON:

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
"webmaster{at}whatever.com" 
RJT>> isn't a valid address, since they seem to have become a target 
RJT>> for spam. I've been at this for somewhat longer than a year. 

CA>> I mean _discuss_ this with webmasters. Not just drop them
CA>> a comment or two or three but _discuss_ the pros and cons
CA>> and reasons why. 

RJT> There haven't been too many of them that seem to be open
RJT> to such discussion... 

CA> My own experiences have been that the _female_ webmasters are more
CA> willing to discuss standards than the male. Not unlike FIDO there 
CA> are a few zealots and general misfits that become insulting but not 
CA> all are that way.

No big surprise there.

CA> --8<--cut 

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 
CA>> machine. 

RJT> Yep. One of the things that tends to bulk up pages unnecessarily. 
RJT> Why not let me decide what font I want to use here? 

CA> To a degree 'fit' is a consideration. Some fonts aren't kerned to
CA> the degree that others are and text may or may not fit within the 
CA> allocated spaces if the font type changes.

Yeah.  But the whole "allocated spaces" thing assumes that a page
is going to render at the end user's machine in the same exact way that it
renders at the page author's machine,  which is probably a big mistake.  I
see a lot of that, where they painstakingly lay stuff out assuming some
particular screen resolution,  800x600 being a common one,  and I'm viewing
it at 1024x768,  so there's a big empty space on the right side...   Or
someone else who is a bit more visually impaired is viewing at 640x480, 
and has to scroll horizontally.

The whole point of HTML is that the person viewing it should have their
browser rendering the page optimally for their situation.

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. 

RJT> They didn't specify a font in these cases, just the "ALT=" tag to 
RJT> say some text if you didn't get the graphic. Sometimes I feel like 
RJT> 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. 

RJT> Yep. Which leaves some folks out entirely. Those who are 
RJT> visually-impaired ferinstance. 

CA> The "ALT" tag you mention is intended as an aide to the visually 
CA> impaired to allow their screen readers to read the ALT tags aloud. 

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. :-) 

RJT> Payware, ain't it? :-) 

CA> There is a version that is adware supported (free) if I remember 
CA> correctly.

I think I'll stick with firefox,  with the adblock plugin...  :-)

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.

RJT> All too often this isn't the case, though. The most concession 
RJT> 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.

RJT> Exactly my point. 

RJT> I far prefer "best viewed with ANY browser" and similar pages.  :-)

CA> My own webpages at my 'tech' website are 'any-browser' compatible 
CA> but I also have another website that requires minimal javascripting 
CA> to be fully appreciated. All pages will _display_ properly but 
CA> something will be lost on _certain_ pages without javascripting at 
CA> the 'entertainment' website.

Which is still way better than them saying that I *NEED* all this
miscellaneous stuff they want me to install,  like flash,  etc.  Your pages
are definitely not the ones I'm griping about.  :-)

---