Once again, your final point is telling, Bill. What many web designer forget, is that what they are trying to do is get people to look at their web sites. The people you want to look at your web site are not other web designers who are going to say that is neat, but real people who are looking for the information you have, or the product you are selling. If they can not find that quickly and easily they will go someplace else if they can. Sometimes you have a captive audience like some one looking for a driver for a device your client used to sell and that is the only place they can find it. But, even then, if they have a hassle, they will remember and when it comes time to upgrade that device, think, "I don't want another X brand, it was a real hassle getting a diver for the last one".
So, even when you have a captive audience you can still in the long run cost your client a customer because you thought all that stuff was neat. And if your client thinks that it is neat and your can't dissuade him? I guess that depends on your personal outlook on life and making a living. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:14 PM Subject: Re: OT: What Do You See? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: dave o'brien > Subject: Re: OT: What Do You See? > > > > > Should I only provide pictures on my website as .gifs because > Netscape 1.x > > doesn't support anything .jpgs? > > If you are writing an image gallery, and you know that a > significant proportion of your viewers are using Netscape1.x, > then you damned well should be using gif images, at least as a > mirror to the jpgs. > I think that as web page writers we need to be aware that our > viewership may be several generations behind in their level of > available technology. I tend to be slow to embrace anything that > is supposed to be new and better until it is middle aged and > proven. > In our example with CSS, there are significant problems with > implementation, no matter what browser you choose. > The browsrs you quote may well work with the standards of the > moment, but the standards themselves keep getting changed. > Now, are we going to force our viewers, who may be on slow > internet connections with older hardware to download a bunch of > new software and keep trying to make our pages work? > There are too many intercompatability issues with computers. The > newest software might cure the common cold, but it might not run > on the OS in use. > Do you really think that a person will bother to try? I suspect > they will just go elsewhere for their web based information. > William Robb > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
