Re: backgrounds

Mick Shadduck (
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:15:37 -0700

Message-Id: <>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:15:37 -0700
From: Mick Shadduck <>
Subject: Re: backgrounds

On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 <> wrote:

>> 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?  :-(

>I prefer to think of it this way they help us we help the costumer!!
>And properly done sound and animation can add to a page not sudtract
>from it!!

I have been following this list for several months now, quietly in the
background, but I am becoming concerned and disgusted by the attention this
list is giving to subjects such as animated gifs, background sounds,
scrolling marquees, and the like.  They are nothing more, imho, than
commercialization and fluff.

I have seen *very few* sites where these elements add to, or even enhance,
the content.  Sure, they may add to or enhance the "experience", but so
what, in almost all cases they certainly do *nothing* for content.  If you
strip them away from most sites, especially those where they are abundant,
you are left with little or no substance, and thus sites like this are only
eating valuable bandwidth and diminishing the informational value of the www.

I do not feel these discussions are appropriate for a technical list such as
this, nor are the individuals who seem to place so much importance or
emphasis on them.  I would hardly be disappointed if every browser in the
world stopped supporting these elements, in fact I would be quite satisfied.
Imo, anyone who places these issues above content and the structural
evolution of HTML should probably not even be publishing their "content" at all.

Mick Shadduck  *