Hi Thomas, <<"Thomas Mueller": My point on standard HTML and the upcoming XML was that the WWW should be for information rather than glitz.>> Okay, but where is the line between glitz and expectation? I certainly don't have a way of knowing, as there are such a wide variety of people and viewpoints on what's needed/wanted, eh :) You mentioned a weather site. Some folks, like me, can quite happily use a text only version of today's weather, but other's want to see a weather map and others want icons on their web pages that show a sun, or clouds, etc. What's glitz for some is 'correct' for others. :) Now there's http://www.ananova.com that has a digital news/sports/weather reading 'person' and I've got some friends who think it's great, and others who thought it was worth *one* visit. I don't have any MP3s (too big of a download) but I'd guess others have lots <g>. Some folks want to have streaming T.V. shows or radio stations on their PCs over their modem, others just turn on the T.V. or radio and are content with that. <<Maybe the webmasters who create those fancy image-laden pages have a fast Pentium or Athlon with a LAN connection?>> Not always. In fact a lot of 'webmasters' are only administrator/ tech types, with the site 'design' (look, feel) gets termed 'our website experience' coming from the marketing folks and from advert firms and graphic design companies :) Some of them create T.V. ads and movie trailers too <g>. <<All those images on ZDNet fall on blind eyes when I use Lynx to speed past the images.>> Yep. Even in Windows you can use ad-blocker software that can do that, while leaving images on. One nice feature of Arachne is to be able to see graphics but turn off the animations :) <<A web page should not be designed to force computer users to keep up with the latest hot air. Web pages should be "best viewed with any browser" (http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign or http://www.cast.org/bobby). >> It depends on the audience. If the website is targeting folks who are 'high consumption rate' (i.e. money for hottest web toys) they may not be interested in whether folks outside of their target market like or use the site. I know of one that said they weren't concerned if a current design cost them *only* 1-2 million customers. I haven't a clue how you can offer good service if you think that customers/potential customers are 'expendable', but I suppose people with Rolls Royce dealerships don't expect too much from showroom visitors who like their 79 Olds Cutlass :) <<There are people with disabilities who can't use the latest frills even if they have money to burn.>> Ummm, a lot of folks with disabilities will benefit from the newer developments (i.e. stores want voice powered browsers because they can then 'present to you' and 'take your order' while you're in your car for example), but yes the financial issue is a tough one. One thing that XML/XSLT should be helpful with is that a web page could be provided in different context versions on the fly based on the browser type detected, but only if you get a company that produces the website to thinkg they either 'have to' or that it's something they want to put resources into (sigh). Not arguing with you, just from the experience I have with companies and how they think that if they make the 'tons of money from our website' that they expect (hyped) from a tiny investment that then they will consider doing things like that from the extra income. A common 'push' in companies is 'time to market' (i.e. get the web page up fast, get the customers, then adjust, then worry about other stuff...) [they want to get their milions while it's still a 'hot thing' <g>]. (sigh). <<Web sites like cnn.com, about.com and www.zdnet.com, among others, have a lot of extra stuff, not necessarily bad, except that putting that fluff on every page means a lot of extra stuff to download redundantly.>> Is the redundant content redownloading or just be checked for in the cash and reloaded? <<It is annoying when a story goes to multiple pages and I have to redownload that fluff again each time.>> Yes, I usually look first for the 'printer friendly' link <g>. On the 'Why Javascript' (among other features) it's when people want to visit a site that 'requires' the feature (I mean to them it's really what they want to do, use that site) if the tool they have doesn't do it then it's not unusual that they'd go shopping for different tool. True of cars, toasters, power tools, and a variety of other categories I suspect :) Folks go with what they need/want/can afford. Bob Buckland ?:-)
