123c5f5c6f9c
tech



Hello Roy - 

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. 

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

RJT> It's not them that make the final decision, though, but
RJT> those who direct them. 

Somewhat. Customers are usually unaware of what the
alternatives might be and, in that sense, can easilly be led. 

RJT> Case in point: For some folks, a suggestion (which a
RJT> browser tag is more often than not) isn't good enough.
RJT> They can say what font they want to use, and what size,
RJT> and so forth. But suppose you don't have that font on your
RJT> machine? 

The established practice is to specify three different fonts
just in case your preferred font is unavailable on a particular
machine. 

RJT> The solution (and there are times when I *hate* that
RJT> word!) on a lot of sites is to load a graphic to
RJT> substitute. This is _OFTEN_ done for menu items, typically
RJT> going down the left side of the page. 

I've never found a webpage that defaults to graphics if a font
is not available. Webmasters I have communicated with put
graphics into those menus intentionally with no intent to use
text at any time. 

RJT> Now, my eyes aren't quite what they used to be. I really
RJT> like the feature of firefox where you can hit a single
RJT> keystroke and make the type get bigger. But when the menus
RJT> and such are all graphics rather than words, this doesn't
RJT> work. Which makes it hard for me to view those sites. 

Use OPERA, it will enlarge both text _and_ graphics for you. :-) 

RJT> Thier loss, I'll get what I want somewhere else... 

RJT> Once a lot of those people realize that I have that
RJT> choice, maybe they'll wake up. 

Those who sell webpages _do_ realize that you have that choice
which is why many take the time to learn how to code the most
generic code possible considering the variety of browser
support for various code. They test with multiple browsers or
have others test for them. 

Not unlike Microsoft dropping support for 'older' software, the
webmaster will eventually decide that such-and-such a browser
has outlived it's useful lifespan and stop making concessions
for that browser's problem areas. 

Granted there are some webmasters who out of arrogance or
ignorance write webpages that only one browser can accomodate
and those who do their work in that fashion are helping no one,
not even themselves. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/