Re: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire

You, Jason O'Brien, wrote:
++ 
++ 
++ Peter Flynn writes:
++  ----------
++ From:  Peter Flynn[SMTP:curia.ucc.ie!pflynn@uunet]
++ Sent:  Saturday, October 19, 1996 4:39 PM
++ To:  jaobrien
++ Cc:  www-html
++ Subject:  RE: The Netscape / Microsoft / Future Quagmire
++ 
++ 
++ >This is because you design your pages with appearance only in mind.
++ >Many of us design pages for _content_, which needs to transcend
++ >appearance if it is to prove durable and persistent. I cannot afford
++ >the luxury (and nor can my clients) of restricting their market to
++ >users of a specific browser.
++ 
++ I do not design my pages with appearance in mind -- it's content first   
++ (believe me, I'm a free-lance writer as well as web designer and I know   
++ what's important) and then appearance -- however, I do give great weight   
++ to appearance as well -- let me give you an example of a situation :
++ 
++ You're walking around hungry as can be and decide you want a nice chicken   
++ sandwich and fries -- you walk up and see two restaurants -- both have   
++ signs outside saying how great their chicken sandwiches and fry specials   
++ are and they are both charging the same price for this entire meal -- so   
++ your decision has to be made on appearance.   You open to the door to   
++ Restaurant #1 -- the floors are dirty, there are only a couple of seats   
++ so the place looks very barren, the place smells bad, smoke fills the   
++ air, and the rating sheet shows a 52.  You close the door.
++ 
++ You open the door to Restaurant #2 -- a person is there to greet you   
++ right away -- the air smells good, there are plenty of seats, light music   
++ is playing the background, the place is spotless, and the rating on the   
++ sheet shows a 99.
++ 
++ Now you tell me which restaurant you choose.
++ 
++ No different with web pages -- it's a known fact that people have a   

Oh yes. _VERY_ different. You try to compare clean webpages without
much glitz with dirty, bad smelling restaurants. That's not fair.
Compare it with:
Restaurant #1: The restaurant is quiet. Just a couple of people sitting
               there, talking softly. There is just normal lightning.
               Not much things on the walls, no fancy things on the table.
Restaurant #2: Hard music is playing. Flashy lights in 16M colours.
               The java-driven tables move all over the place. It is
               crowded, and the floor goes up and down.

If you are hungry, and are interested in getting your food fast,
which restaurant would you choose?

It's still based on appearance.

++ better chance of exploring your web site if it's appearance "grabs" them   
++  -- when you're dealing with corporate sites and competition, that's a   
++ very important thing.   A potential customer will get a good feeling   
++ going to a page designed by a company that has an interesting style, is   
++ designed with nice graphics, offers a lot of new features, AND of course   
++ offers a lot of good textual detail of their products and services.   
++   When choosing a certain company, they are more likely to quickly leave   
++ a page which contains only text, and stays behind the times.

Once again. I don't think the web should be there for the corporate
sites. 



Abigail

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 1996 12:32:39 UTC