Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages
Mike Meyer (mwm@contessa.phone.net)
Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:32:42 PST
In-Reply-To: <v03102814b02d0648e4e6@[205.149.180.135]>
From: mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:32:42 PST
Message-ID: <19970829.7927B60.F0D5@contessa.phone.net>
Subject: Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages
> From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
>
> At 4:12p -0400 08/29/97, Jordan Reiter wrote:
> > At 7:09 PM -0000 8/29/97, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> > >At 9:36a -0400 08/29/97, jptxs wrote:
> > > > At 05:04 PM 8/28/97 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> > > > >How about some sort of "geek code" (but not as geeky) where we
> enumerate
> > > > >what the page uses, something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > Level 0: does not use
> > > > > Level 1: optional
> > > > > Level 2: required
> > > > > Y: yes/true
> > > > > N: no/false
> > > > > *: any
> > > >
> > > > but how well would something like this degrade...
> > >
> > >It's meant for disclosure to *humans*. Displayed on the page as content. :)
> >
> > Hmmm... I think I've actually seen this before. I think it's commonly
> > parsed as
> > "This web page best used with [Netscape (2.0, 3.0, 4.0); Internet Explorer
> > ]"!
>
> Oh, you missed my intention completely. :/
>
> It's meant to be a sort of "Get Info" about what to expect from a site,
> so people will know whether it's worth enduring. Visible metadata, sorta.
> Maybe it is too geeky after all... ;)
Gee, I think the "Best viewed with ..." icons are an EXCELLENT guide
to what to expect from a site, and whether or not it's worth enduring
:-).
<mike