Extreme Confusion

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:22:44 +0000, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell (AT) physics (DOT) gla.ac.uk> in
<Pine.LNX.4.62.0602202050030.30345 (AT) ppepc70 (DOT) ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, help (AT) osmosian (DOT) com wrote:

We're not trying to sell to a "mass market". We're looking for
programmers (a small group) who are interested in compilers (an even
smaller group) who want to extend the frontiers of computer science.

Sounds a bit like the kind of people described in
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

Just because we're looking on the web doesn't mean we think everyone
on the web is eligible.

It seems you want to rule out most of the small minority that you say
you're aiming at.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#believe5

Now where did I read about that recruitment system, which was designed
to attract the only eligible applicant who would be willing to comply
with the terms of the appointment?

IIANM, _Parkinson's Law_ by C. Northcote Parkinson. Required reading
for anyone who spends time in a group larger than, say, three.

Saves a lot of work and resources
in trying to decide which applicant to employ: if applied correctly,
exactly one person will apply - and will be 100% suitable for the job.
You seem to be working towards refining a similar system for web
sites. But I'm sceptical about how successful it's going to be.

have fun
--

Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

On 19 Feb 2006 16:55:24 -0800, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , help (AT) osmosian (DOT) com in
<1140396924.422333.76450 (AT) g44g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com> wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the medium.

Are you serious? Are you really claiming that there is nothing wrong
with a kluge of incompatible hardware devices, incompatible languages
(HTML, JAVASCRIPT, DHTML, XML, XHTML, CSS) and incompatible standards?

Your preconceived notions of what it should be.

Let's ask the public: Should a graphic designer be allowed to specify
the size, shape, colors, and fonts used in his designs, or not? We're
not talking "[our] preconceived notions" here, we're talking COMMON
SENSE and THE HISTORY OF PUBLISHING.

Obviously you consider Ayn Rand the last word on this topic.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

On 19 Feb 2006 17:52:56 -0800, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , help (AT) osmosian (DOT) com in
<1140400376.801763.3260 (AT) g44g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com> wrote:

That's the history of publishing on paper.

I'm going to try one more time, and that's it. We're not talking
"paper" here. We're talking design. Should a car designer be allowed to
choose his shapes and metals?

They don't. Look up the history of car design some day.

Should a dress designer be allowed to
choose his fabrics and dyes? Should a movie producer be allowed to
choose his settings and costumes?

Again, they don't.

Should a painter be allowed to choose
his canvas size and pigments?

Usually not. Did Michelangelo decide the size of the Sistine Chapel?

Should a web designer be allowed to
choose his colors and fonts?

Should? I would love to be able to choose fonts. I also figure I live
in this world not another.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> writing in
news:b54nv11t0t8eqq848p7h5ov2cupcr6csf0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:

On 19 Feb 2006 19:28:10 -0800, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , help (AT) osmosian (DOT) com in
1140406090.918428.144560 (AT) o13g20...oglegroups.com> wrote:

That's the whole point - it's a product, _not_ art. You want to
_sell_ a product to as many people as possible. This is not
something that is going to gain value in time, in fact, it will
depreciate. Therefore, it is imperative to consider everyone,
including those with smaller screens, non-computer browsers, devices
for the disabled, persons who are not downloading images, etc.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our products ARE "works of art". We labor hard to
make them not only functional, but things of beauty. And we don't want
to "sell to as many people as possible". That is not our goal. We want
to advance the art and science of computer programming. If others are
inspired by and build upon our research, it WILL increase in value over
time. And no, we don't have to consider everyone. The program only runs
on a screen at least 1024 pixels wide. You can't write the kind of
programs we write on a cell phone. And we don't have to consider people
who aren't and don't want to be programmers. It's a compiler, for God's
sake. It's NOT for everyone.

Would any of the developers here, people who purchase and use
development tools, buy from a company with this attitude?

No. As a developer, believe it or not, I expect sites that have products I
might use to have clean sites that mostly validate and are accessible.
It's like going to a new doctor's office, if the front office doesn't look
clean, then I leave.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:39:22 GMT, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , Adrienne Boswell
<arbpen2003 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> in
<Xns97721B053F3E3arbpenyahoocom (AT) 69 (DOT) 28.186.121> wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Matt Silberstein
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> writing in
news:b54nv11t0t8eqq848p7h5ov2cupcr6csf0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:

On 19 Feb 2006 19:28:10 -0800, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , help (AT) osmosian (DOT) com in
1140406090.918428.144560 (AT) o13g20...oglegroups.com> wrote:

That's the whole point - it's a product, _not_ art. You want to
_sell_ a product to as many people as possible. This is not
something that is going to gain value in time, in fact, it will
depreciate. Therefore, it is imperative to consider everyone,
including those with smaller screens, non-computer browsers, devices
for the disabled, persons who are not downloading images, etc.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our products ARE "works of art". We labor hard to
make them not only functional, but things of beauty. And we don't want
to "sell to as many people as possible". That is not our goal. We want
to advance the art and science of computer programming. If others are
inspired by and build upon our research, it WILL increase in value over
time. And no, we don't have to consider everyone. The program only runs
on a screen at least 1024 pixels wide. You can't write the kind of
programs we write on a cell phone. And we don't have to consider people
who aren't and don't want to be programmers. It's a compiler, for God's
sake. It's NOT for everyone.

Would any of the developers here, people who purchase and use
development tools, buy from a company with this attitude?


No. As a developer, believe it or not, I expect sites that have products I
might use to have clean sites that mostly validate and are accessible.
It's like going to a new doctor's office, if the front office doesn't look
clean, then I leave.

While I think that his website is, well, a work of art compared to his
attitude. For me "functional" means doing what I want, not doing what
the artiste wants.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Matt Silberstein, quoting me:

Now where did I read about that recruitment system, which was
designed to attract the only eligible applicant who would be
willing to comply with the terms of the appointment?

IIANM, _Parkinson's Law_ by C. Northcote Parkinson.

Spot on. Thanks for reminding me ;-)

Required reading for anyone who spends time in a group larger than,
say, three.

Yes, and I can't honestly say that some of the committees I've had
to serve on since seemed to have learned much from it. Ho hum.

(See also the IgNobel Prize for the [fictional] discoverer of
Administratium.)

help (AT) osmosian (DOT) com scribbled something along the lines of:

Our website is a combination of line art and text. If you can't see
both, we'd rather you see neither. Kind of like a movie director not
allowing his work to be played on the radio.

Well, no.

Let's presume a visually impaired person (and there ARE visually
impaired programmers) tries to visit your website. By your logic you'd
rather not show him anything than let him let his software adapt your
brochure to his needs.

Let's presume someone is in a hurry and tries to access your website
from a mobile device (with a very small screen). By your logic you'd
rather not show him anything he could read rather than let him use his
software to display the text in a way that fits his display.

Let's presume someone who is forced to use an outdated or otherwise
cruddy browser tries to access your website, for example an employee of
a company that would potentially be interested in your product and asked
him to do research on that kind of products. By your logic you'd rather
let him stare at an empty background or your "front page" (because the
scripting wouldn't work -- maybe it's not even the browser's fault but
the company's security policy) than inform him about your product.

If you want paper, use paper. But you decided to use the medium of a
website instead.

If you want to compare it to making a movie, fine. But in that case it's
like making a movie and then not allowing it to be subtitled, translated
or released on DVD, VHS or any other format, let alone show it on TV
(remastered or not).

That's surely not how you intend to advertise your product -- and if it
is, I don't see why you bothered exposing your brochure to a medium so
incompatible with your idea. You would have been better off making it a
PDF and hosting it on your website instead of the page you created with
so much effort.

If your intention was not to create a brochure, but a piece of art that
should not be changed or shown any other way than as you intended, I can
respect that.
But you seem to intend to use it as a brochure, to sell a product. And
if that's your intention, you chose a bad solution with huge flaws.

It's not a good website if it fails to do it's job. You might as well
restrict access to users from an arbitrary U.S. state or your local
Intranet -- this would be similarly efficient.


Yours,

Ashmo