RE: RE : The Final Word on Browsers and the Future

See my response below Murray's:

>Murray Altheim, Program Manager
>    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts writes:
>>>
> Go ahead. But don't expect people to use your choice of browser. Not
> because they won't upgrade, but because they have made an informed >   
decision
> NOT TO, or because they CANNOT, for whatever reason (device >   
limitations,
> physical limitations, lack of control over device environment, the   
browser
> isn't available for their platform, etc.). What is hot, fast, and   
efficient
> today will be obsolete in _three_ months. You're behind the times.


_-------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 --------

They make an informed decision not to upgrade -- why would anyone do   
this?   I understand device limitations, but why would a person serious   
about accessing the Internet access it with Netscape 1.0 when 3.0 Gold is   
available?  Why access it through Mosaic, when Microsoft Internet   
Explorer is better?   I'm not rating these through a corporate eye -- I'm   
simply looking at the product itself and what they offer -- once again,   
your arguments which make so little sense can be equated with someone   
saying well, I can't afford to go to DisneyWorld, so I'll watch this   
video of DisneyWorld and get the same experience -- you won't get the   
same experience -- remember, the whole problem here is design standards   
 -- this is where this issue is coming from, not some innate desire I have   
to publicize even more this browser war --

Understand, I am so sick and tired that still at this point we have no   
standards -- so what's the solution?   You say your pages reach 98% of   
the browsing market -- with only text and tables -- is this really the   
future of the Internet, a place where audio, video, and more textual and   
presentational advances are possible?   Please tell me it isn't -- once   
again, that's brilliant and fine if you're designing a page just with   
text -- however, most of my clients look for more advanced techniques in   
their web sites, and as such I struggle with the whole standards issue --   
my final conclusion time and again is that there will never be any agreed   
upon standards, as much as we try and argue, Netscape and Microsoft will   
continue their little war and web designers will be stuck in between.   
  That's why it's time for true web designers who are going to be in step   
with the future to take a stance one way or the other on this --

I am not attempting to have an arrogant attitude -- it's simple fact --   
if you sign up on the Internet and start using Netscape 1.0 or Mosaic,   
you have to know right off you'll be missing a lot of what the web has to   
offer -- no Java, frames, etc -- it's not our responsibility to make sure   
we are catering to that audience -- do musicians release their new albums   
on vinyl anymore?   No, only on CD and tape (and tape will soon leave as   
well I think) -- everybody moved on to CD's because of the better   
technology -- the industry moved with it -- it's not the musician's   
responsibility if someone out there has decided to only still play vinyl   
records and not get a CD player or 8-tracks -- so your argument basically   
says that if we web designers were musicians, we should release our new   
music on every format possible, no matter how old -- I can see it now --   
when Netscape and MSIE have versions 12 and 15 out, someone is still   
going to try to tell me that we should be designing for those people with   
version 1.0 out there -- bottom line : it's our responsibility to point   
people in the right direction, and if people decide not to move forward   
with advancement, it's their choice, and their loss --

Jason O'Brien
jaobrien@fttnet.com

Received on Friday, 18 October 1996 16:14:53 UTC