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

RJT> but there's a lot of sites out there that do some really
RJT> bad stuff... 

CA> Yes, there are and the number is increasing every day. 

RJT> For example, using graphic elements for the menu items. I
RJT> can diddle the size of text in firefox with a simple
RJT> keystroke, but if they're using graphics for the menu
RJT> items like that, they're unaffected. 

CA> If they use the 'alt' tag to label the graphic it helps for
CA> those having problems with the webpage. 

RJT> Lots of really *bad* web sites out there! 

CA> Newbies are being encouraged to use W3C recommendations without
CA> being told that no browser has caught up to those new codes as yet.

Or worse yet,  they're using some program to generate the pages (the stuff
"front page" puts out is truly awful),  never look at the
resulting code,  and as long as it looks good on the machine that generated
it they don't worry about it.  I've taken pages that I wanted to save info
from,  which started out at 150K in size,  and pared it down,  removing all
the junk,  and ended up with something under 20K as a result.

CA> Then, when they want audio/video/animation they are told to use
CA> FLASH even for small audio files. I intervened for awhile on usenet 
CA> then just gave up. It was becoming too time consuming with everyone 
CA> working against me. :-(

I refuse to install that particular plug-in.  Some sites won't work without
it.  Oh well,  their loss.  Usually I have firefox telling me that the page
wants something of the sort and offering to install the plug-in for me, 
but I just dismiss that,  and then use that "remove this object"
option while viewing it.  Between that and the adblock plugin I look at
pages that are a LOT less cluttered than they start out being.  :-)

And my adblock list just keeps on growing... 

---