- From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:12:26 -0400
- To: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
At 7:09 PM -0000 8/29/97, Walter Ian Kaye wrote: >At 9:36a -0400 08/29/97, jptxs wrote: > > At 05:04 PM 8/28/97 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote: > > >How about some sort of "geek code" (but not as geeky) where we enumerate > > >what the page uses, something like: > > > > > > Level 0: does not use > > > Level 1: optional > > > Level 2: required > > > Y: yes/true > > > N: no/false > > > *: any > > > > but how well would something like this degrade... > >It's meant for disclosure to *humans*. Displayed on the page as content. :) Hmmm... I think I've actually seen this before. I think it's commonly parsed as "This web page best used with [Netscape (2.0, 3.0, 4.0); Internet Explorer ]"! I think if a person loads a page and it looks bad, then they'll either think "oh, they can't design" (possibly true) or "oh, right, I'm using [Mosaic,Lynx]". I think it's about time designers recognized that by this time, if someone's not using Netscape 2.0 or 3.0 or Internet Explorer 3.0 (the number of people who use IE2.0 is pretty pathetic, and for good reason), then they're doing so by choice, not out of ignorance of the existance of these browsers. So, designers who put those icons on your pages, shut up already! People *know* that sites always look better on the latest browsers--they don't need to be told. *sigh* -------------------------------------------------------- [ Jordan Reiter ] [ mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu ] [ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ] [ The universe got you involved." --Hal Lipset, P.I. ] --------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 29 August 1997 16:12:40 UTC