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{at}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.  :-)

---