On 20 Dec 96 at 14:06, Lazlo Nibble wrote:
[Mark]
quoted 5 lines The trouble is, everything was going okay when it was just
>> The trouble is, everything was going okay when it was just
>> Netscape's Mosaic and Navigator doing the running. Now Microsoft
>> have thrown a spanner in the works by introducing their special
>> "fucks up pages designed for Netscape" browser and giving it away
>> with their operating system.
[Lazlo]
quoted 3 lines Hey, as far as I'm concerned, any site that isn't at least
> Hey, as far as I'm concerned, any site that isn't at least
> *decipherable* with the most bare-bones text-based browser *is*
> fucked up.
Fear not, my web site will have two versions. One for Netscape freaks
and a text-only alternative. Even the Netscape one will be
decipherable (and isn't as Netscape-orientated as it sounds). I think
the <FONT> tag is the only non-HTML tag I've used.
The 'heavy' version will require a browser than can handle frames
(possibly) and tables (definitely) though. The 'light' version will
just be 100% text (with links, of course).
The site isn't finished yet, so there's still room to take on board
suggestions. Thankfully there are people on here who are capable of
offering a more balanced, helpful criticism than Aran Parillo's
full-out personal attack.
quoted 4 lines Intentionally designing informational sites that require
> Intentionally designing informational sites that require
> you to use one particular piece of software to access them
> completely misses the point of putting an informational site up on
> the web in the first place . . .
But not if you're designing the site for about a dozen mates, each of
whom you know uses that one particular piece of software. Of course,
a few thousand strangers with compatible browsers may also wander in,
which would be nice.
.+'''+. mark@sonance.demon.co.uk
M A R K
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/sonance/
`+.,.+'
http://www.sonance.demon.co.uk/