S
Stan McCann
Whitecrest said:
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?
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?
A
Alan J. Flavell
Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content
WHAT???
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.
Have you actually looked at the proportion of page accesses which
result from a search? Across a wide range of types of web site, I
mean?
Well spotted. Now tell us again how that "drives people to their
site"?
You said:
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?
Hence or otherwise deduce how realistic it is for the majority of web
sites to design web pages which emulate them, and take no account of
indexing robots.
If I was in business (the regular readers have seen this before...),
you're the kind of competition I'd just love to have.
T
Toby A Inkster
I do. This page:
http://www.goddamn.co.uk/help/textsize/
uses my very own HTML standard (based on HTML 4.01 Strict).
W
Whitecrest
Never said it did
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.
See above.
TV, Radio and print ads.
Well pretty much any fortune 500 or better company in the world, and
virtually all web sites made for movies or tv.
I have always said if you site is there to directly make money, then by
all means your site should be accessible to as many as possible (which
includes search engines) ALL other web site must be dealt with in a
case by case manner to decide what is best for them. One size does not
fit all.
If you make entertainment web sites, then you already have me as your
competition. And your right, I love it.
W
Whitecrest
And if I disagree with them?
B
Brian
Whitecrest said:
Well, that is certainly true. They seem to play to the www's weaknesses
instead of its strengths.
Oh? And how, praytell, did you reach that conclusion? Because what I've
read suggests that the 2 means of getting visitors to your site are
search engines and email referrals. (I cannot find Jakob Nielsen's
column that discusses this; does anyone have the link?)
Maybe because it's an odd search phrase to find cola?
Uh, ok. But if they *did* search for it, wouldn't they search for "coke?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=coke
Or "cola?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=cola
Or perhaps "coca cola?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=coca cola
O
Owen Jacobson
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.
A
Alan J. Flavell
(Never heard of it, but no matter...)
Is it? (SCNR)
So, now you're saying that they go there because they've seen
advertisements for it?
Previously you said, and I quote:
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?
Right. Not the design of the web site. Got it.
Thanks.
L
Lauri Raittila
In said:
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)
They don't have anything to do with looks of website, do they?
No, punisherthemovie.com, thepunisher.com, www.punisher-movie.com
Which one is official? You don't remember that. So it is easier to
search.
W
Whitecrest
Wouldn't know, I probably won't see the movie.
Nope, but it takes "better engine placement" out of the equation for a
lot of companies as a reason to follow a standard.
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.
W
Whitecrest
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.
B
Brendan Taylor
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.
S
spaghetti
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...
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.
S
Stan McCann
If you are the only one using it, it's not a standard.Toby said:
S
Stan McCann
Whitecrest said:
That's entirely your choice. Your code is not standard.
G
goodhart
spaghetti said:
A
Alan J. Flavell
SGML is an ISO standard. HTML is a W3C recommendation. XHTML is a
W3C trademarked product. Hence or otherwise deduce which are
literally standards.
However, the cited document isn't useful in SGML terms without some
way for users to get a copy of the author's MyHTML4 DTD.
U
Ulujain
Brendan Taylor said:
Not everyone thinks the recommendations (which is what they are) are a
Great Thing(tm). Have a read of Jukka Korpela's review of HTML 4. I
agree with him every step of the way when it comes to <object>. Most
over-engineered implementation the W3C ever dreamed up. Why
reduplicate the <embed> tag? Because the W3C didn't dream it up?
<embed> is proprietary, you say? So where <frame>'s at one stage, so
was <layer>, but a lot of its functionality ended up in CSS...
And what purpose does <q> serve? Short in-line quotations...something
that typing out "this is a quote!" couldn't do to begin with?
No wonder browsers were slow to pick that one up.
For the most part, I agree with the W3C recommendations, but those who
write them definitely need to refine their Keep It Simple, Stupid
theories. (as well as bone up on what the word "illegal" means in the
English language.)
'Later
Peter
W
Whitecrest
usenet3 said:
To many of the purist here, but in the real world (fortune 500), it is
the exact opposite. Now if they change, then I will change too. But
they see no financial gain from doing so, and neither do I.
Article or not, if it were true, then Coke would be the first link you
saw if you searched google for "sparkling cola beverage"
Ah yes searching for the name of the company. Even my own site is in
the top 4 if you search for Whitecrest entertainment. And I don't
follow any standards! Actually I do and I validate, but that is not the
point. Search for any company name and you get the company in the first
page. That is not searching.
W
Whitecrest
Yes you are slow, You know exactly what I'm saying but would rather
troll.