Re: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire

Jason O'Brien wrote:
> Since this seems to be a day for rants, I'd like to include my own -- in   
> response to this discussion concerning slapping a label on a web page   
> stating that this page is best viewed with (favorite browser of choice)   
>  -- see below :

Since my deadline for a certain project is tomorrow morning, I'd rather
do anything else than programming. I'll probably do it in the last two
hours and save the documentation for later ;)

> Write or NotePad -- Microsoft Word was an incredible advancement for word   
> processing, and documents could be presented in much better formats with   

On a PC under Windows. If you had sufficient hardware.

> Microsoft and   
> Netscape ARE going to determine and shape the future of the Internet,   
> like it or not, that's the reality.
Are you sure? Would you say this before Microsoft entered browser market?
I'd say that Netscape DID shape the past, Microsoft is trying to catch up
and they ARE shaping present, but I wouldn't say anything about the
future. And, BTW, it's not Internet you are talking about. You are talking
about the web.

> As a web designer, I will place these statements for "optimized for best   
> viewing under" and provide a link to either MS or Netscape because I feel   

As a web reader, I don't know how can you guess what *I* consider under
"best viewing". I might want to print the page. I might be color blind.
I might be completely blind. I might have b&w monitor. I might have
images autoloading off. I might have hardware that is not strong enough
to run the latest resource eater.

> an obligation as a web designer to always utilize what is available, and   
> inform more people of the fact that upgrading is the only future there is   
> for internet growth

As a person with enough common sense, I will upgrade without being told
by web author. We, the consumer masses, are not complete idiots, but
sometimes you cannot upgrade. What then?

> many other features.  Netscape 4.0 may change this view back -- that war   
> will always continue -- they must agree on a set of standards -- I've   

Does this mean that they will tell the rest of us what the standard is?
Or it means they should adopt standards defined by relevant organizations?
W3C is not a relevant organization, IMHO :)

> said this numerous times to this group -- it is impossible to design your   
> sites to be viewed by every possible browser in every single desktop size   
> configuration in any consistent font or color -- it's impossible right   
> now.

Of course not. How about the best browser for every platform and hardware
configuration? We won't be able to define which one is the best, but I
hope you know what I mean. ;)

> Unless all you type is text and think this is where the future of   
> the Internet lies, but I find it hard to believe anyone would believe   
> this.

If you are not using HTML editor, all you type *is* text, is it not? :)

> Therefore, the only option is to design for the future -- if you   
> don't believe this, then let's just use txt files to try to type   
> professional looking resumes or more advanced publishing features --   
> computing and the Internet will always advance, always mature, always   
> change, always get better -- as web designers, we must move with that   
> future, or be left behind.

I wonder if above statement describes you. Tell me, did you use style
sheets before the Explorer came? There was Arena, there were drafts,
SS were clearly superior to "styling" via HTML tags and it was evident
that style sheets are *the* future. But did you use them?

Life is a sexually transmitted disease.

Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 16:48:57 UTC