Re: backgrounds

F. E. Potts (fepotts@fepco.com)
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:24:24 -0600


Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:24:24 -0600
From: fepotts@fepco.com (F. E. Potts)
Message-Id: <96Aug30.182615mdt.18433@gw2.fepco.com>
To: wbrooks@trumpet.aix.calpoly.edu
Subject: Re: backgrounds
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, David Perrell wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nice if you could specify a background as an
> > animated GIF - and have it work?
 
On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 13:59:09 -0600, Bill Brooks answered:
> Wouldn't it be nice if people would concentrate on content, rather
> than on thinking up new "features" for whiz-bang presentation?
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if people would use the WWW as a medium for 
> information exchange, rather than as a high-tech replacement for 
> television? 

I generally hate "Me-too" responses, but in this instance I feel it is
warranted.

Rightly or wrongly, I see the web as a medium for electronic
publishing, the first major step forward since Johannes Gutenberg's
Bible in 1440.  Anything that distracts from my visitors' ability to
concentrate on, enjoy, and absorb the content on my site is (IMO) a bad
thing.

Animations very much fall into this class, as do Java applets, marquee,
and server push.  Too many folks seem to be trying to turn the web into
another form of TV (complete with animated advertisements), not seeming
to realize that it is an entirely different -- and to me, far superior
-- form of communication.

Now background animations and BGSOUND are being given serious
consideration, and it won't be long before all we have is a 2nd-rate
clone of the worst elements of TV spreading like the blight it is over
the planet.  Is this what we are all working so hard for, to help the
advertisers hype their consumer garbage in "cyberspace" just as they
do everywhere else?  :-(

-fep

--
fepotts@fepco.com
http://www.fepco.com/