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

CA> --8<--cut 

RJT>> Maybe. Or maybe they'll guess that they're seriously alienating  
RJT>> folks and at least consider looking into it. I can't ask for much 
RJT>> more than that.

CA>> Many do look into browser compatibility when designing their 
CA>> webpages but it is really discouraging that those who write the 
CA>> browsers can add 'features' and eye-candy but can't accommodate 
CA>> years old coding recommendations from the W3C. FF is as guilty of 
CA>> this as the others are btw. 

RJT> I look at it this way... It's a "pull" medium, I find what I want 
RJT> or I look someplace else and find it there instead. If I want what 
RJT> somebody is offering, then great. If not, they lose.  Traditional 
RJT> media are "push", they put it out there and you take it, and the 
RJT> choices are few. This _should_ lead to a fairly radical difference 
RJT> between one and the other, but there are still a lot of folks who
RJT> don't have a clue. 

CA> The business model that has made the creators of Google wealthy 
CA> today is that they push advertising that their software believes to 
CA> be relevant to your search terms. So successful it's becoming the 
CA> model for others to emulate including MSN.

May be,  but that doesn't change the way things work.

CA> You are online as a hobby or as entertainment. Those who are online
CA> to make money have other priorities.

No doubt.

RJT> Have you ever read the cluetrain manifesto? 

CA> Nope.

Might be worth a look.  I found it rather an interesting read.

RJT> I got the book, first, but I'm pretty sure that the whole book is 
RJT> online at this point. That pretty well summarizes a lot of my 
RJT> thought processes on this stuff,

CA> As one who uses the internet casually and not as a money-making
CA> venture I really do empathize with how this affects you. I have
CA> many of the same desires for ease of access and greater 
CA> efficiencies displaying webpages but I've spent a great many hours
CA> conversing in usenet with those who put up webpages for money and I
CA> can tell you they will continue to do what pays the best. I can't
CA> fault them for wanting to optimize their incomes even though most
CA> of what they do is contrary to _my_ best interests.

Yep.  But my point (and the point of that book) is that the very nature of
the 'net changes things,  and that trying to use the old traditional
methods flat out won't work.  At least not in the long run,  and certainly
not in proportion to the amount of time and money invested as compared to
the more traditional concepts.

CA> If I had to chose a side I would be on the same side you are on but
CA> I know what's driving developments and I know it's not going to 
CA> redirect itself to simplicity any time soon.

RJT> and explains why those who continue to try and push are doomed to 
RJT> fail.

CA> Those who push are not only NOT failing they are becoming
CA> billionaires in the process.

Read the book, and you'll better understand where I'm coming from with this.

---