| gabriel rosenkoetter on Tue, 8 Oct 2002 01:20:04 -0400 |
|
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:40:24PM -0400, Iman Mayes wrote: > 1) I'm sure there are plenty of sites that are "HTML Compliant" that won't > look right in lynx, particularly ones that support the more modern standards > (CSS, DHTML, etc). No. HTML is, and always has been and (barring pure insanity in the W3 Consortium) always will be a gracefully degrading format. The standard allows you to use CSS while still providing compliant HTML so that if my browser doesn't support CSS, I still get a useable page. Just let everything through. Do what you want as *additions*, but keep valid HTML as the basis. This is what the standard requests, and it's the Right Thing to Do. > 2) As far as feelings about having a more graphical site, I respect your > opinion and would like to hear from others. What's the problem with browser > detecting? If your using a browser that can identify itself via the HTTP > protocol, you shouldn't have a problem. No, because the onus is on you to match *every* browser out there and provide the right thing. This is okay, I suppose, if your fall-through page is still the right content, but that's a huge amount of extra work for you, which is why so many people throw up those "upgrade your browser!" pages. But those people also feel that their content requires graphics/flash/Java[Script]/whatever. The thing is, almost every one of those sites DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE CONTENT I WANT. So I just ignore it. I'm not the only one. http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/design.html > 3) The mailing list is good for being a mailing list. If you think it is all > you need, then there is no need for a website. Does the mailing list have > archives? Is it searchable? Obviously, a website could give you more > functionality (and I'm not just talkin perty graphics). Actually, the mailing list both has archives and is searchable, by way of its very own, quite functional (and quite spare!) web interface, as does every Mailman mailing list. That functionality is also reachable, of course, in a traditional, majordomo-like, file request interface. (Various bits of that funcionality may be broken right now, temporarily, as we're living on mct's server till things get back in order with our regular provider... speaking of which, anyone know what's up with that? mct, how 'bout some archives? Or do you not want to deal? I'd be glad to take the load in eclipsed.net if you don't want to deal in netisland.net... I've got a couple of alphas sitting around doing precisely zip.) > 4) The current format does look great in text browsers, which is why I feel > that if there is a new site it should still work fine in in that case. But what I'm missing from your argument is how it looks bad in graphical browsers. In point of fact, I spend the majority of the little time I spend web browsing in Opera 5 (tabbed windows are far more convenient than multiple xterms running w3m). The PLUG website is refreshing in that it renders immediately and provides useful information immediately. Why change that? *Adding* groupware utilities is fine, but there's no reason that I can see to rototill existing, useful pages. Don't fix what isn't broken; focus instead on adding new, useful functionality. > Trust me, I'm not trying to drag the site kicking and screeming where the > group does not want it to go. I want this to be a *group* decision. I think, > however, we can if need be get to a happy medium. I'm worried not about your intentions but about unintended side effects. :^> -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpaRtL52qZuA.pgp
|
|