On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:53:39 +0100, Jel Coward wrote:
>Hey it strikes me that that you cant complain about Marys posting not
>being clear enough when you turn off the (fairly standard) two colour
>facility on your reader ;-)
Still not the point :-)
*My* 2 colours could be very different from *your* 2 colours!
Even if I had colours on, separating the paragraphs with line breaks
would make reading much easier. This is good writing anywhere not just
e-mail!
>Well again I think any half decent client will see it ok - so on the web
>are we moving to no graphics, no frames, no sounds, no Java? (Actually
>I could do without most of them.
1. You answered yourself at the end of above :-)
2. No, we are not moving towards that, but do remember that one of
the most successful sites on earth has none or very little of what you
describe (Yahoo).
The point is: one can make a very good site without any of the bells
and whistles (they often get in the way anyway).
We (BHIA) looked at this a while back. It seemed that most browsers in
academic units were at Netscape 1 or 2 (can't remember the exact
figures).
If you have a web site, look at your log files to see what browsers
are accessing your site.
Many years ago, when frames were just starting, I asked Andrew Herd
why did he have 'sections' on his site (I didn't even know they were
called frames!). He answered by saying because he could! He probably
won't remember and I bet he's changed his mind since :-)
>PS Out of interest - how many list members' mailers will not handle the
>two colours - private email please and I will collate.
Might be interesting to know what level browser people are using ;-)
Ahmad
________________________________________
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://mednetics.org
home: +44 1273 748198
work: +44 1737 240022
fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|