From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Dec 09 04:45:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 9 Dec 2001 12:45:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 30653 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2001 12:45:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2001 12:45:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2001 12:45:29 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic72.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.72]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fB9CjQK99811 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 07:45:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011209065644.00b01f00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 07:45:42 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] [WWWW] Big update! In-Reply-To: <186.1a7ec8.29439d84@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab Let's see if I can calm down this flamewar, which seems a tempest in a teapot to no point. At 11:44 AM 12/8/01 -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >I apologize for raising this issue again on the basis of out-of-date >statistics (and for forgetting what a difference aol changing its browser >would make). So, the instant case was not a good example; the general >point -- which is practical, not ideological -- remains: if we are to >appeal to a wider population, we need to take that population's equipment >into account and, insofar as an introductory page is primarily for those >people, we need to make that consideration primary, painful as tthis may >be to some aesthetic or other. I don't think that anyone, including Robin, suggested anything OTHER than making reaching a wide audience being the prime consideration in web site design. Indeed, Bob Chassell suggested that Robin follow guidelines on several sites that were created specifically to define what sorts of things constitute respecting the widest possible audience. >doesn't look good on is a piece of shit' never became the main page. He >put it up at lojban_broken.html as an example of why Netscape 4 sucks, >an opinion he is entitled to.> > >The complaint was about mentioning that at all and then sloughing off >infelicities of what he did put up onto problems with "Nutscape" which is >occasionally identified as a piece of crap and a violator of various >"rules" (which are, admittedly, violated by every 0other browser as well). Look, he did the best he could to meet the varying standards, including apparently *checking* the site with the multiple browsers to verify that they worked adequately. Having done so, and knowing that the people in the current Lojban community include people who are very knowledgeable about web site design, he made mention of the fact that different browsers would show the site differently, that he HAD checked them, and done what he could even to accommodate the less reliable browsers. In so doing, he vented a (very) little steam about the work necessary to so accommodate, but accommodate he did. > This was unnecessary even for salving ego. he is entitled to his > opinion but it would be politic not to express it. His opinion, as I read it, is that one particular tool used by a small subset of the public was a pain in the butt to deal with, but he did the best he could anyway. In so doing he criticized the tool; not those who use the tool. > > even, compromisingly, "It is impossible to get this looking right on all > > browsers and this looks asgood as it can on as many as I have; at least > > presentable on those it doesn't work as well on."> > >Could have been, as I said, but wasn't. I think if you look back, that was pretty much what he DID say. He just identified which those were, which it did not work as well on. >practical fact is that the site works.> > >Note please that I have had almost nothing but complements about the site >and what criticisms I made were minor and diffidently expressed. My >comments were about comments made and about the attitude they exposed, >which seemed ultimately counterproductive, even if justified in this case. And I think, especially having met Robin here at LogFest, that you are reading a contempt into his words that simply is not there. >Cowan >oversold piece of junk.> > >This is offered as an excuse for not providing material that is accessible >to people stuck with what came in their boxes: > Windows, Netscape, Quicken, etc. But as was noted, and indeed as you just said a couple paragraphs back, you had nothing but compliments for the site, so apparently people "stuck with what came with their boxes" HAVE been well-treated. >It is, of course, backwards. If you don't like providing for crap, then >provide some non-crap to provide for. Cowan works (as a compugeek) for Reuters Health, which is not when last I heard a company that is in the business of building web browsers or operating systems. Robin works for some other company, which likewise is not in that business either. Most compugeeks are not in a position to develop, much less sell, better tools for public use (better tools might well exist, but if they aren't successfully marketed, it doesn't matter). A public-catering web browser these days is not a one-man product, nor probably less than a hundred man product, and an operating system is even bigger - BECAUSE of the features that the lay public expects of a product that will compete with the sales leaders from Microsoft. Thus most compugeeks have no more ability to change the situation than you do; they just know the technical details on specifically what the problems are for lay users. They do need to communicate these details to others who need to know, and Robin did so. >As long as the "good stuff" is not what people get -- or even can get out >of a box -- then you will leave the users stuck with the crap and will >either have to provide for it or leave the users out of the picture >altogether. Since runners seem not to have gone toward the first option >-- providing the "good stuff" for the users -- and to admit to not doing >much to correct the faults of crap, one is left with the clear view that >runnners have decided to leave users out of the picture altogether. I do not see this. Rather, "runners" in THIS community have said that users are stuck with crap, but since we cannot leave them out of the picture, we checked such and such user tools, and corrected the site to look as best it could on all of them, resolving conflicts so as to affect the more-used browser less severely than the less-used ones. >And this, for Lojban, is a mistake. It would be, but no one took that attitude. (The real position that gets ignored, and often is even shown contempt for, is that taken by Athelstan on behalf of the half of America and 90% of the world that is not net-connected at all. But the fact that we cannot meet that group's needs is no reason for saying that Robin and others should not ply their expertise voluntarily to do what they can for those who are connected, leaving to you and me who are not expert to solve the problems of reaching everyone else %^). >(Incidentally, from a profit motive, correcting crap is a good industry: >fixing windows makes quite a bit of money and I know a guy who made full >bull just on the basis of papers correcting the successive editions of a >notoriously sloppy -- but very popular -- logic text.) And creating web sites for the vagaries of multiple browsers is a good industry as well, which many users pay enormous amounts of money for. And we have (more than) one person who does this kind of "correcting crap" for part of his living who is doing our web site for free. But he is getting "full bull" only from you. It isn't necessary nor productive. >once king of the hill, is already nothing but a bit player, and on >the way down. Coddling broken and insignificant software at the >expense of real standards and market leaders is stupid.> > >As I said, the example was unfortunate, because the situation has >changed. But the attitude remains (apparently) that market leaders at >least can be ignored if they do not come up to some theoretical snuff, so >all but the cognoscenti are excluded. The market leader is Microsoft. Show us any evidence that Robin has ignored Microsoft. He may have railed against it, but his attitude is NOT that it can be ignored, but in fact that it must be "coddled". One can voice disgust that one must coddle, while doing that coddling. This is not the same as showing contempt to those who use the coddled stuff (which would be self-condemning, for many of these people, because they are users of Microsoft even while railing against it). You are reading attitude that is not there into comments that report the reality. The bottom line is that Robin made great effort to coddle, and seems to have succeeded. He showed no contempt towards anyone, but only contempt towards a piece of software which doesn't have feelings to be hurt. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org