> ----------
> From: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:14 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: WC:>: RE: >: (Fwd) Futurology (announced
> phylosophycal topic...)
>
> On 9 Sep 98, at 8:01, Gill, Kathy wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "control over aspect" v
> > "dynamic content." Frankly, I think a lot of "control over aspect"
> needs
> > to be left in the hands of the end user -- what rez, color settings,
> > font, font size, etc. that they prefer to match their personal
> needs.
>
> Sorry. An ingenuous error I've used an italian word as if it was
> english not aspect but apparence.
>
> PostScript is a language that let you have control over apparence...
> Does it sound more clear?
>
Hi, Ivan -- I thought you meant appearance -- and my objection holds. PS
works because, in part, the **output** device is "spec'ed" as well (ie,
PS printers). Until we have the equivalent of PS monitors, the analogy
doesn't hold -- their homogenaity is much greater.
Plus -- I *like* the fact that I can pick colors, font sizes, etc. that
work for **my eyeballs** -- moving to a PS kinda world takes this end
user power away.
[the populist speaks ;-) ]
> > > I see the "dinamic contents part" as just a means to transfer part
> of
> > > the "input processing/interface" on the client side rather than on
>
> > > the server side (eg: form validation, menues, lists etc...).
>
> > ??? Are you saying that you'll serve up different pages (control
> aspect)
> > based on input from the client?
>
> Suppose you need to collect some imput from the user.
> Some answer will affect the questions you'll ask next.
> If you do this completely on the server site you'll have to send
> many pages to the client... maybe you can find a better way using
> client side scripts.
>
yes.
> OK?
>
> > > There is a lot of material out there on the internet, people who
> want
> > > to show their cat (I'm one of those),
> > or motorcycle <g>....
>
> Sorry if I miss it. If you'll send again the URL I'll give a look to
> your
> BMW.
>
just pix, no copy yet <g> -- look at the august ones,
http://www.dotparagon.com/R65/
> > Your questions:
> > > What does really make internet different from TV?
> > - breadth and choice ... i can read/see what I want when I want, not
> > when a TV exec decides to post a program head-to-head with another
> one
> > (with the exception of "live" events) ... and I think there is more
> > "good" stuff on the Net than on TV (but I'll admit to being
> extremely
> > biased against TV in general).
>
> So there are chances we won't sell toothpaste.
>
Well, that's *my* opinion!
> > > Do you think that it's "moral" to follow the way of flashing
> idiots
> > > sites?
> > Don't know about "moral" but would dub it "stupid."
>
> Mumble well sometimes flashing means without conents and
> attracting, without content and attracting, as the snake with Eve.
>
<chuckle>
> > > Do we ever will succede in selling toothpaste?
> > On the net? Why? Here [stateside] I can buy toothpaste at a
> pharmacy,
> > gasoline station store, grocery store, department store, airport
> vending
> > machine .... why would i want to order it and have it shipped to
> me?
> > that is one of the key things about net commerce (which few seem to
> talk
> > about) .. the need to ship the item(s) and thus the lack of instant
> > gratification that many Americans associate with "shopping" as a way
> to
> > fill a psychological void.
>
> Well maybe the most important problem is not compulsory need to
> shop but the costs involved in sending you a tube of toothpaste.
>
yes, for this example ...
> > good point -- info about why I should buy one toothpaste
> > (metaphorically) over another.
>
> OK but this mean information not flashing things.
>
correct. but you know *I* don't like flashing things <g> ....
> > remember, though, research bears out that consumers dont' do a lot
> of
> > research for items where there isn't a lot of risk associated with
> the
> > purchase. there is NOT a lot of risk associated with buying a tube
> of
> > toothpaste for $1.98! and if that purchase price constitutes a risk,
> > then that person is unlikely to have the assets necessary to have a
> > computer and be online anyway!
>
> Equation:
> Consumers don't care what they buy => consumer are dumb =>
> we have to serve flashing sites... :-(
>
NO. Wrong conclusion.
Consumers care about their purchases most when there is a risk involved.
This explains all the FUD evident in commercials (in the US at least)
... car ads where the driver (a woman w/children in the car) dodges a
falling tree in a blowing rainstorm .. that sort of thing.
If the business can position the purchase as reducing risk, the consumer
is more apt to buy. But sometimes the business must simultaneously
inspire risk (which the aforementioned commercial does quite well).
> > > I haven't seen a site that I find useful and that use "new client
> side
> > > technology" and have a very sophisticated design.
>
> > Agreed. My experience is, in general, that they are showcase sites
> for
> > the developer. <shrug>
>
> OK, so what the use of DHTML, CSS etc...
>
DHTML not ready for prime time, IMO, for a "mainstream" site. CSS is
much closer.
> > > "Last" problem accessibility...
> > > Since there won't be good reason I think that people as Javilk
> won't
> > > use a "modern" browser and I'll continue to surf with JavaScript
> off.
> > > And we cant forget there are people that cant decide (they don't
> > > know or they really can't) how to browse a site.
>
> > Agreed -- the net just highlights the fact that we are all
> individuals,
> > doesn't it? Mass market is truly abandoned ....
>
> Well our opinions start to diverge...
> I'm not scared about mass market... I'm scared about bandwith
> bottleneck and finding useful things in a lot of mess.
>
agree with both of these fears.
> Appearance is a means to organize contents, but the web is
> following the opposite direction
> There exists HTML tags that should be used to organize contents
> as <H1> <ADDRESS> <CITE> etc.. that aren't used anymore.
>
well, they are used by SOME designers .... but WYSIWYG editors often use
'em to spec font sizes.
> > > Do you think these "new technologies" have a future?
> > > So will/should we support/develope for these "new technologies"?
> > > Do you think browsers developers are following the right
> direction?
> > >
> > I think the technologies have a future, but it's not "just around
> the
> > corner." There's bandwidth to be dealt with -- consumer education --
> how
> > to 'package' sites for PDAs <?> ....
> >
> > I think you use the technology appropriate for your client and their
> > audience(s).
>
> What the right technology is?
depends on the goal.
> The one that help you to sell toothpaste???
>
Not sure you'll get one to sell toothpaste ....
> Thanks for the nice conversation :-)
>
you're welcome -- i'm enjoying and it's helping me prep for next week!
Kathy
> Kathy E. Gill
> DCAC/MRM Production Visibility Support -- 425.234.2004, pager
> 425.568.0195
> Most people would rather be certain they're miserable, than risk being
> happy. ~ Robert Anthony (American educator)
>
> Microsoft Exchange: the perfect name for its users' greatest desire!
>
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
