Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages

Mike Meyer (mwm@contessa.phone.net)
Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:46:43 PST


In-Reply-To: <l03110702b02ca2f78007@[198.77.183.205]>
From: mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 13:46:43 PST
Message-ID: <19970829.768CB90.CA2B@contessa.phone.net>
Subject: Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages

> already!  People *know* that sites always look better on the latest
> browsers--they don't need to be told.  *sigh*

Uh - I don't. I know the author thinks they look better, but that
doesn't mean I agree.

As one counterexample, I find pages that use frames look better in the
pre-real-frame support browser I run (which gives me links to the
framed pages) than in the with-real-frame support version of the same
browser. This is sufficiently bad that I sometimes find myself opening
links in new windows out of habit in netscape after having dealt with
framed sites for a bit.

Likewise, there's a very large number of sites with absolutely
ATROCIOUS color choices. I typically disable author colors a day or so
after installing a new browser, because I run into something like
light yellow text on white background. The latest version of netscape
doesn't let me do that, so those I think those pages generally look
better in an older netscape - when it's properly configured.

Hmm - maybe that should be "I know the author thinks they look better
using their config of their browser, but I may not agree, and they may
not agree if they could see those same pages on MY config of the their
browser".

	<mike