David W. Fenton wrote:
On 23 Aug 2004 at 22:39, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I know they haven't heard of them.
But I don't understand why they are happy with the crap they have to put up with and are not actively asking why they have to put up with it (which would then lead to them finding out about the alternatives).
Until I saw how bad it could be, I thought using IE entailed just the minor annoyance of a bad UI and non-standard HTML rendering. Now I see that using it requires that you put up with an enormous amount of crap and a very high annoyance level, a level high enough that if I had to put up with it, I'd stop using the Internet entirely -- it's absolutely that bad.
Until I finally got them on ADSL a few weeks ago, my mum claimed that she couldn't see any reason to change. She wouldn't say that now. The problem is that you actually have to demonstrate to them that (a) nothing is different, and (b) a lot is better. My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing - nobody can ignore that. But it'll take a lot of man-hours to sit in front of 95% of internet users and demonstrate this. And there's only one firm that has the money to fund it....
(FWIW, is there *any* non-defunct browser other than IE that doesn't have tabs?)
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
