Re: The Final Word on Browsers and the Future

Scott E. Preece wrote:
++ 
++ Well, clearly we all have different expectations of the Net.  I almost
++ always expect and need to see graphical information when I go to a Web
++ site - I'm usually looking for kinds of information that simply cannot
++ be presented usefully any other way (e.g., maps, screen shots).

Hah. You only _think_ they can't be presented in another way. Maps are
usually used to find a route from A to B. But more often than not, I am
able to tell someone on the phone how to get somewhere.  And I don't
read up a uudecoded gif of the map. Of course, there is nothing wrong
with presenting a map, just as long as you realize it's not the one and
only way.

Besides, I find the statement 'when I go to a Web site - I'm usually
looking for kinds of information that simply cannot be presented any
other way' highly curious. You mean, you are not interested in the
subject, but just the way how it is displayed? I think a lot of people
visit a web site because that site promises to give information about a
certain subject they are interested in. Some information is almost only
available as a picture, put the image there, a lot of information is
best shown as a picture, but there is a text alternative as well: put
the image there, and provide a text alternative. Other information is
equally well given as text and as image: make the image available, but
not as inline (or just a thumbnail as inline).  The last category is
best presented as text: no need to put in images just for the heck of
it. This includes most of the buttons, <hr> replacement gifs, etc. And
no, I don't buy the "I have to attract readers" arguments. I'm talking
about the web and information, not about money and ads.



Abigail

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 1996 10:35:15 UTC