Does anyone pay attention to standards?

In article <40893c7c$1 (AT) news (DOT) zianet.com>, stan (AT) surecann (DOT) com says...

The problem with standards on something as diverse as the web is I might
not like your choice of standards, and you might not like mine.
You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?

And if I disagree with them?
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:15:09 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:

In article <40893c7c$1 (AT) news (DOT) zianet.com>, stan (AT) surecann (DOT) com says...
The problem with standards on something as diverse as the web is I might
not like your choice of standards, and you might not like mine.
You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?

And if I disagree with them?

Publish your own. Convince others to use it. Provide tools and support
for your standard. Document how and why it's better than the existing
standards.

--
Some say the Wired doesn't have political borders like the real world,
but there are far too many nonsense-spouting anarchists or idiots who
think that pranks are a revolution.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Whitecrest wrote:

What drives people to "The Punisher" web site?

(Never heard of it, but no matter...)

It's position in the search engines?

Is it? (SCNR)

Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the site.

So, now you're saying that they go there because they've seen
advertisements for it?

Previously you said, and I quote:

But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation, because THAT is what drives people to their site,

Forgive me if I'm slow on the uptake, but I had the distinct
impression there that you were saying that it was the appearance of
the web site itself which "drives people to their site".

Now you're saying that what sends them there is radio, tv and
print advertising. Am I clear now?

People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,
Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?

TV, Radio and print ads.

Right. Not the design of the web site. Got it.

Thanks.

In article Whitecrest wrote:

In article <Pine.LNX.4.53.0404231852150.8984 (AT) ppepc56 (DOT) ph.gla.ac.uk>,
flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk says...
But keep in mind MANY sites are more concerned with appearance and
presentation,
Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content

Never said it did

because THAT is what drives people to their site,
WHAT???

What drives people to "The Punisher" web site? It's position in the
search engines? Nope, the radio, tv, and print ads send them to the
site. What keeps people there? The presentation of the information
about the movie.

Well, it is esier to search for the punisher, that guess what the url
will be. In fact, i don't think I would have gotten it right by guess.
Much easier to write "Punisher" to addressfield and hit ctrl+l. If
official page would be unsearchable, I would most likely end up different
site, possibly some that tells me how the movie really sucks. (of course
I could use normal goole search instead of lucky, but usually lucky is
good enaugh)

Perhaps you'd like to share with us how that's done. Don't be afraid
to spell it out, step by step: I won't feel patronised.

See above.

People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,
Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?

TV, Radio and print ads.

They don't have anything to do with looks of website, do they?

So: how many thousands, out of the total number of web sites, have the
luxury of having their URL known already by the web audience, would
you estimate? What proportion is that of the whole?

Well pretty much any fortune 500 or better company in the world, and
virtually all web sites made for movies or tv.

No, punisherthemovie.com, thepunisher.com, www.punisher-movie.com

Which one is official? You don't remember that. So it is easier to
search.



--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

In article <MPG.1af3a5dfdead1959989ed4 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>,
lauri (AT) raittila (DOT) cjb.net says...

I would most likely end up different
site, possibly some that tells me how the movie really sucks. (of course
I could use normal goole search instead of lucky, but usually lucky is
good enaugh)

Wouldn't know, I probably won't see the movie.

People go to the Coke site because they already know the url,
Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?

TV, Radio and print ads.

They don't have anything to do with looks of website, do they?

Nope, but it takes "better engine placement" out of the equation for a
lot of companies as a reason to follow a standard.

Well pretty much any fortune 500 or better company in the world, and
virtually all web sites made for movies or tv.
No, punisherthemovie.com, thepunisher.com, www.punisher-movie.com
Which one is official? You don't remember that. So it is easier to
search.

I guess if you are doing a lot of drugs or you were getting head while
trying to remember the url that is true but in all other cases you would
probably remember it after reading, or hearing it.


--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

In article <pan.2004.04.23.19.26.09.218043 (AT) lionsanctuary (DOT) net>,
angstrom (AT) lionsanctuary (DOT) net says...

And if I disagree with them?
Publish your own. Convince others to use it. Provide tools and support
for your standard. Document how and why it's better than the existing
standards.

Or only use the pieces I want to make it work the way I want it to,
which is what 99% of the entire web does right now.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:41:01 -0400, Whitecrest wrote:

In article <pan.2004.04.23.19.26.09.218043 (AT) lionsanctuary (DOT) net>,
angstrom (AT) lionsanctuary (DOT) net says...
And if I disagree with them?
Publish your own. Convince others to use it. Provide tools and support
for your standard. Document how and why it's better than the existing
standards.

Or only use the pieces I want to make it work the way I want it to,
which is what 99% of the entire web does right now.

Which is most certainly not a good thing.
If browsers supported standards as they were supposed to, it would make
everybody's life easier.
The only way to encourage browsers to change is to do HTML properly.
Besides, even with IE being horribly wrong about everything coding to
standards isn't a great deal of effort - easier than not, I would say.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:06:19 GMT, Isaac Grover <ephesys (AT) myexcel (DOT) com> wrote:

Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at
as guidlines for web design?

Why do I pay attention to standards? I'm on dial-up, and have respect for
other dial-up users.

I know people who consider dial-up users the minority when in fact we are
MAJORITY. It reminds me a few years back when programmers weren't so
concerned about "code bloat" because computers were continually getting
better and bigger, so the time spent streamlining code didn't seem worth
it. Then along came handheld devices, where streamlined code was
mandatory...

People think spending time developing for dial-up doesn't matter because
more and more people are getting broadband everyday. But then comes along
the WIRELESS handheld devices... :P

Standards don't entirely solve the bandwidth problem, but they are
three-fourths of the solution. And pages developed with standards almost
always still work for me even if I choose to turn off graphics or sync the
page to my handheld.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Toby A Inkster wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:42:05 -0600, Stan McCann wrote:

You and I don't set the standards.

I do. This page:

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/textsize/

uses my very own HTML standard (based on HTML 4.01 Strict).

If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked)
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg

Whitecrest wrote:

In article <40893c7c$1 (AT) news (DOT) zianet.com>, stan (AT) surecann (DOT) com says...

The problem with standards on something as diverse as the web is I might
not like your choice of standards, and you might not like mine.

You and I don't set the standards. We should agree on a set used all
over; there is *one* BTW. Ever hear of W3C?

And if I disagree with them?

That's entirely your choice. Your code is not standard.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked)
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg