Re: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire

 From: murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim)
| 
| Scott, I agree with most of these statements, but I fail to see where I've
| ever advocated ASCII text.
---

Perhaps I over-generalized from frequent references to lynx users and
support for the *-challenged.

---
|  Even HTML 2.0 can produce some beautiful pages
| in the hands of a good designer. Add to that tables, background color and
| images, and you've got plenty to work with.
---

Yes, indeed.  But is there really a qualitative difference between those
(which already impact users with slow lines, monochrome displays,
non-table-ready browsers, and non-graphical displays) and slightly more
recent enhancements?

---
| Good design doesn't require
| yellow ink on a silver background, contrary to what some may think at
| WiReD.
---

Absolutely!  But using conservative tools doesn't guarantee good design,
either.  Just as it's possible to write poor programs in any language,
it's possible to design poorly using any design tools...

---
| And as soon as you design into a page something that shuts out a
| substantial part of your intended audience, that's poor design. I have a
| friend who frustratingly can't read much of WiReD due to some sight
| problems -- he has no difficulty with The Economist.
---

Actually, I have more trouble with the Economist than with WiReD, due to
the age of my eyes and their preferred font/size choice.  But I agree
with what you say, so long as we note the "intended" in there.  The
designer may need to choose to serve some users at the cost of not
serving some others, or to serve some better than others.

I strongly agree with the value of including ALTs, alternative paths
for less-powerful browsers, and content negotiation.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 1996 09:21:13 UTC