(unknown charset) Re: disappointed

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, [ISO-8859-1] Martin Skjöldebrand wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 chimbis@bahnhof.se wrote:
> > 
> > > Towards the very end on the 2nd millenium a being known as Irene.Vatton@inrialpes.fr wrote:
> > > > In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:15:14 +0200."
> > > >              <199904201715.TAA01112@Vendra> > > 

> > > the same way as, say, Navigator? Perhaps one should be able to have an
> > > option somewhere switching between methods to display frames? 
> > 
> > 	So they have to write the code at least twice?  And this is when
> > 	they have all the other stuff to write?
> > > 
> 
> Now, you are contradicting your own argument. You say that that difference

	You were asking for an option to change how it is done.
	This means it must be capable of peforming in at least 2 different
	styles according to how they set your option, -- how it does it now
	AND how you want it done. That is what I mean about writing 
	the display functionality twice.

> isn't wrong and Amaya supports a different kind of frame rendering. So you
> go on to argue against the standard (by volume) way of rendering frames.
> As you say there is more than one way to do frames.
> 
> > > And my main gripe about Amaya is that as over 90 percent of the
> > > visitors to my site uses either Navigator or Explorer, and I use frames
> > 
> > 	So up to 10% of your visitore are not worth the trouble?  You have
> > 	obviously not considered those in poorer countries who are
> > 	browsing the WWW using e-mail alone.  Those methods
> 
> And you obviously have not seen the site - or you wouldn't write such

	No, -- I did not see (possibly missed) the URL for it.

> rubbish. There is a non-frame version available for the framed section.

	The existance of the "no frames" version could
	not be inferrred from what you wrote (you said you used frames
	on part of the site, with no reference to a no-frames version
	of that part).  You also told us that a blind person said that
	they could not see the site and then went on to mention this
	percentage, so that is what I was talking about
	here:  assuming your users are using Netscape or IE, when 
	blind users could be using Brookestalk, PW Webspeak, IBM homepage
	reader, or some other browser than those two, and other users
	could, for quite valid reasons, be using many different browsers
	include mobile phones and e-mail.
> > 
> > > on one part of the site, AND Amaya is an graphical editor it would be
> > > very nice if I could view the results in Amaya and not have to change
> > > to some other app for this.
> > > 
> > 	[...]
> 
> Apologies if I was wrong I thought Amaya was a tool, not a religion.

	It is a tool, and I don't believe it is perfect either.  If 
	the forcefulness of my comments seemed religious, it was 
	brought on by your assumption about blind people.  I currently
	cannot use Amaya, because I cannot configure it to use large
	print, and use light on dark colours.
> 
> M.
> 
	Hugh
	hgs@dmu.ac.uk

Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 09:54:53 UTC