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