Dear all

I think I cast-on this strand of wool,  by complaining that a
government web-site devoted to "good website design"
had a home page that I found  hard to read using Microsoft
Internet Explorer 5 at 800 x 600 - the system in widest use
today.

Perhaps we should give a vote of thanks to the Cabinet
Office webmaster for thus stimulating the display of so
much talent and knowledge in the discussion.  The
moral may be that Examples of Good Practice may be
less useful, educationally,  than the opposite.

Oh, and er...Chris Meaney should be careful how
he approaches anyone who bought a Betamax Home
Video in the 1960s and saw it rapidly become valueless
in the face of rampant VHS!  Life can be a jungle, and
Betamax is still used by the pro's.

Chris May

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Meaney <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Plug ins For and Against


> Dear all
>
> To play devil's advocate (and why not?), some other thoughts on this
issue:
>
> - Standards often arise from proprietary formats  - take VHS video
> recorders, for example. These are a standard - yet they are based upon
> proprietary technology created by JVC.... However, no-one would dream of
> creating a mass-format video format in a different medium. Cassette tapes
> were invented by Phillips, as were CDs and DVDs; Sony invented 8MM video
> tape and JVC the DV format - does this mean we should avoid storing audio
> and video on these?
> - Flash allows tremendous flexibility and interactive presentations to be
> developed in a very economic way (in terms of content that can be
delivered
> against bandwidth used); sure there may be other standards being
developed,
> but... Flash is very widely used, as are Acrobat documents - indeed the
DCMS
> site itself uses Flash and most Government web-sites have downloadable
> Acrobat files.
> - If standards apply to presentation technologies, why not to databases?
> (which affect how information is stored and delivered) and operating
systems
> (which influence how the underlying data/file structures are supported)?
> - Should we avoid Netscape and Internet Explorer all together as they are
> proprietary and focus instead on Mozilla and Opera?
> - Most Web browsers already have Macromedia Flash Player installed. It is
> pre-installed on most computers, as it is included with all copies of
> Internet Explorer 4 and above, Windows 98, ME, XP, Netscape Navigator 4
and
> above, Apple Macintosh operating systems, America Online, WebTV, and
> RealPlayer. In March 2001, NPD Research, the parent company of
MediaMetrix,
> conducted a study to determine what percentage of Web browsers have
> Macromedia Flash preinstalled. The results show that 96% of Web users can
> experience Macromedia Flash content without having to download and install
a
> player. Flash and Acrobat work on Unix, Macs and PDAs.
>
> My point is we have to be careful here as trying to achieve a truly open
> format, non proprietary solution can become extremely difficult and
> sometimes impossible. Some of the emerging formats sound great, but try to
> find a developer who can work in them or tools readily available that
> support them! It also begs the question as to why? I'm not suggesting we
> should ignore accessibility - this is obviously extremely important. But,
> rather than blanket-banning technologies that can enhance the experience
of
> most users, isn't a really a case of intelligent, sympathetic design
running
> in parallel using relevant technologies for those with special needs?
>
> Regards
>
> Chris Meaney (AIMC)
> Managing Director
>
> =========================================================================
> Harvard Consultancy Services Ltd, Bexin House, 2/3 St. Andrews Place
> Southover Road, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 1UP
> Tel: 01273 897517, Fax: 01273 471929, E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Registered in England & Wales no. 3766540
> Registered Office: 50 Harvard Close, Malling, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2EJ.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list allows people applying for New Opportunities Fund
> Digitisation fu [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Brian Kelly
> Sent: 06 December 2001 14:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Plug ins For and Against
>
>
> A few comments.
>
> In general I would agree with Mike Lowndes.  However I should add that the
> subject line of this thread is slightly misleading.  The issue is not
> really plugins or not, but proprietary standards or not.  Plugins are
> related, but not necessarily - for example, some of the newer W3C
standards
> (e.g. SMIL, MathML, etc.) will require a plugin in order to use, as native
> support in browser is not yet widely available.
>
> Without the NOF standards projects could develop entire Web sites using
> proprietary solutions, which could well be inaccessible to people with
> disabilities, accessible to limited platforms (only the PC and not Macs,
> Unix systems, PDAs, etc.)  I think we would all agree that this is
> undesirable.
>
> The question is really about the extend to which use of standards may
> result in boring-looking Web sites, or Web sites with limited
> functionality.
>
> On, for example, the W3C WAI Web site there are pages which describe how
> Web pages can be made attractive while still being accessible (the
> important technology is CSS).
>
> There are also emerging standards such as SMIL, which aim to provide, in
> this case, synchronised multimedia in an open way.  There are some
examples
> on the W3C Web site.
>
> The development of accessible formats is promising much richer
interfaces -
> and not dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.
>
> Brian
>
> --------------------------------------
> Brian Kelly
> UK Web Focus
> UKOLN
> University of Bath
> BATH
> BA2 7AY
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
> Phone: 01225 323943
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:24:15 -0000, Mike Lowndes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >My perception is that plugin content can be used as 'added value'. They
> must
> >degrade gracefully to images and or textual descriptions on older
browsers
> >or those without plugins. They must not be used for navigation of a
> >site/collection alone and content must not be available 'just' within
them.
> >Also, 'Object level' pages should be accessible directly by URL and so
> >should be unique pages / database calls, not episodes in Director or
framed
> >sub pages.
> >Mike
> >
> >| -----Original Message-----
> >| From: This list allows people applying for New Opportunities Fund
> >| Digitisation fu [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Malcolm
> >| Watkins
> >| Sent: 05 December 2001 10:44
> >| To: [log in to unmask]
> >| Subject: Re: Plug ins For and Against
> >|
> >|
> >| Hello,
> >| I hesitate to enter this arena, but my understanding is that
governmental
> >| (including LA) web output is expected to be transparent - in other
words,
> >| able to pass the Bobby test. I don't think that permits such
interesting
> >| facilities to be used, since they are not available to all users (eg
> >| visually handicapped).
> >| This seems to mean bringing all sites down to the lowest common
> >| denominator.
> >| Any views?
> >| Malcolm J Watkins
> >|
> >| > ----------
> >| > From:         Jones, Mark[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >| > Reply To:     Jones, Mark
> >| > Sent:         05 December 2001 09:52
> >| > To:   [log in to unmask]
> >| > Subject:      Plug ins For and Against
> >| >
> >| > Hi,
> >| > I have enjoyed reading many of the threaded discussions in recent
weeks
> >| > and
> >| > noticed in the archives there was little discussion of use of plug
ins,
> >| > such
> >| > as flash, shockwave and QuickTime to name the main players. After
> >| > attending
> >| > the NOF workshop in October I was pleased to see many of the sites
> >| > recommended to us had content which used these plug ins to make
> >| them more
> >| > interesting, engaging and interactive. However, I have not yet found
a
> >| > definitive answer to the use of plug ins. There are pros and
> >| cons to their
> >| > use
> >| > For;
> >| > You can build sophisticated games.
> >| > High level of interaction.
> >| > Younger users are used to them.
> >| > Can be downloaded from the web.
> >| > Information streams so the game can be played as it downloads
allowing
> >| > larger files.
> >| > More enjoyable learning experience.
> >| > Against;
> >| > Cannot be downloaded from the web due to firewalls, thin client and
> >| > ignorance, I have had real problems trying to download QuickTime and
> >| > shockwave in the past!
> >| > Cannot be seen by search engines.
> >| > They keep updating the players!
> >| >
> >| > The simple answer is there is no simple answer. However, if you, like
> >| > myself
> >| > are planning to use these plug ins to help create an immersive web
site
> >| > that
> >| > is fun then talk to your web authors and programmers about offering
> >| > alternatives to these plug ins to those who are not interested
> >| in them or
> >| > just cannot download the players. The use of dynamic and flat
> >| pages offer
> >| > the device sometimes called a plug in checker which will inform the
> user
> >| > they need to download the plug in why not also give them an
> >| alternative to
> >| > download, such as go here for the alternative version? This could be
a
> >| > java
> >| > applet version, which has its own problems or simple and image to
print
> >| > out
> >| > with questions to be answered. The solution is to think laterally.
> >| > Regards,
> >| > Mark
> >| >
> >| >
> >| > Mark Jones
> >| > NOF Digitisation Co-ordinator
> >| > Roebuck House
> >| > Abbey Road
> >| > Torquay
> >| > TQ2 5DP
> >| >
> >| > Tel 01803 208063
> >| >
> >| >
> >| > Mark Jones
> >| > NOF Digitisation Coordinator
> >| > Roebuck House
> >| > Abbey Road
> >| > Torquay
> >| > TQ2 5DP
> >| >
> >| > Tel 01803 208063
> >| >
> >|
>