Browser rant.

[Paul Mather]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Richard Lockwood wrote:

=> Sorry - can't let this one go...  Browsers are free you know - either
=> download the latest version, or get one off a CD on the front of just about
=> any magazine.  Web designers and coders get really fecked off with this "I
=> can't be arsed to update my browser / install Flash / get off my own arse"
=> attitude y'know...

Then Web designers are stupid, I'm afraid.  If they require even a
modicum of effort of their audience to view the fruits of their labours,
then that audience will go elsewhere.  It's not as if there aren't
zillions of other sites vying for those eyeballs.  I know plenty of
people who will simply go elsewhere if a site is "taking too long to
load..."

=> If the luddites had their way we'd all be looking at grey backgrounds, no
=> images, Times Roman text, and blue underlined hyperlink text.

But it would be a big step up if you could read the information vs. not
being able to read it.  (The medium is not the message.)

It is not a simplistic matter of "luddites."  Do you imagine everyone
has control over their hardware?  The librarians in our local library
would take a dim view of someone trying to install the latest software
on their public-access terminals.  Ditto for computer labs at schools
and colleges.  Those who manage large collections of PCs (such as in a
company setting) also often "lock down" those PCs to prevent individual
users from screwing them up by installing sundry items.

I once spoke with a Webmaster who managed a WWW site at the Vetinary
Medicine College here at Virginia Tech.  Because it was an FDA site, it
had to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and so she had
to make sure the site was navigable via the lynx [text-only] browser to
keep the right side of the law.  Any site trying to comply with the ADA
will have to provide a simple text-only portion of the site, for use
with screen readers, etc.  Shockwave and Flash may get Web designers all
excited, but it just leaves sight-impaired readers cold, I'm afraid.

=> And don't fob me off with the "a significant proportion of users are still
=> using level 3 browsers" argument.  3% isn't significant, it's an error
=> margin.

Most responsible sites I encounter provide a "text only" link to the
content, so that even the most basic setup (even a lynx browser on old
hardware in schools and libraries) can read the information they
provide.  They realise that often that "error margin" 3% can be a very
vocal 3%, and it is easier to provide such a link than to have
themselves badmouthed over the Internet for providing a "crappy site" by
a strident few.  (It is also, as I said, more accommodating to users
with disabilities, which may be a legal requirement for state-funded
agencies.)

=> At the very least you should be using the latest version of your preferred
=> browser less one.

But what if you *are* meeting that requirement, and the site is still a
pain to read?  I hardly check the "Mission Control" WWW page, because it
is so much faff on to get to the information quickly.  IMHO, that's bad
site design.

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
 deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
        --- Frank Vincent Zappa