comment embedded
At Wednesday 2/17/99 12:29, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 12:34:19PM +0100, Nicolas Brouard wrote:
>> [...] the need of rich, structured, colored documents is real.
>
>I strongly disagree with this. Oh, there's no doubt that many people
>*want* to send all-singing all-dancing documents with multiple fonts
>and colors and all kinds of formatting...but do they *need* to?
>
>Having been on the receiving end of thousands of these, my observation
>is that the documents which have had the most time lavished on their
>appearance tend to be those with the least useful content, and vice versa.
>In a perverse sort of way, this makes sense: someone who is trying to
>decide between mauve and maroon for the subheaders is spending their
>time on that instead of on proofreading, spellchecking, etc.
>
>When (if?) we have a networked population which is capable of mastering
>the rudiments of email communication, then I'll be happy to entertain
>thoughts about "enhancing" it. But we are a long way off from that.
<flame>Gee, why don't we all go back to monochrome monitors or maybe our
beloved ASR-33s and forget all this progress. Sheeesh</flame>
>
>---Rsk
>Rich Kulawiec
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
