«

rf wrote:
> [1] Two blokes are having a swim in the creek when they spot a Tiger
> lurking. Bloke 1 bolts while bloke 2 carefully puts on his running shoes.
> Bloke 1 calls back: "Mate, running shoes will not enable you to out-run a
> Tiger". Bloke 2 replies "I don't have to out-run a Tiger. I only have to
> out-run you".

(1) Bloke 2 was carrying his running shoes with him while he was swimming?

(2) The tiger will reach Bloke 2 before Bloke 2 catches up with Bloke 1.

In article <>,
Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

> rf wrote:
> > [1] Two blokes are having a swim in the creek when they spot a Tiger
> > lurking. Bloke 1 bolts while bloke 2 carefully puts on his running shoes.
> > Bloke 1 calls back: "Mate, running shoes will not enable you to out-run a
> > Tiger". Bloke 2 replies "I don't have to out-run a Tiger. I only have to
> > out-run you".
>
> (1) Bloke 2 was carrying his running shoes with him while he was swimming?
>
> (2) The tiger will reach Bloke 2 before Bloke 2 catches up with Bloke 1.

The first point might seem to be nitpicking. But the second one is all
class.

--
dorayme

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed DLU <> writing
in news:1572b$4936c92c$439f9013$:

> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed DLU <>
>> writing in news:ac36e$4935d2ce$439f9013$:
>>
>>> Since it looks good on the web page the
>>> problem has to be with Expression Web, but I can not see what CSS is
>>> used to set the position of the graphics.
>>>
>>
>> In addition to what others have said, Expression Web's rendering
>> engine would be IE because it is a Microsoft product. Think about
>> that for a moment - IE has the worst reputation for rendering CSS
>> correctly.
>>
> Yes that is exactly the problem, so in most cases, what it looks like
> in Expression Web, which is just an upgrade of Front Page, is what it
> usually looks like in IE.

Which is exactly the reason to avoid it. This is like a kid whose
friends all take drugs - should that kid take drugs because 80% of his
friends are?

> Fortunately Firefox is much more forgiving.

No, Firefox is NOT forgiving, it is compliant - there is a difference.

> Unfortunately IE is the browser of choice for about 80% of those on
> line.

Isn't that wonderful? I remember when it was 90%. Still, why pander to
something that is inherently broken?

> The judge who heard the anti-trust suit against microsquish did
> not have a clue as to how programs are constructed. MS tole the court
> that they had to "integrate" the browse into windoze in order to make
> it run properly. The attorneys for the Justice Department did not
> have enough knowledge to challenge this, or maybe did not want to. No
> one suggested in court that IE was really a separate program activated
> by a call to a sub routine. MS got away with giving away a program in
> order to drive a competitor out of business. A clear violation of
> anti-trust law.
>
>

The universe works in the way it works, anti-trust laws notwithstanding.
As a result of the lawsuit, the issue came to the public's attention,
and people started looking at other browsers.

That didn't happen to me, I started out using Netscape 2.0, and
continued with it until version 6, when I finally switched to Opera 5.1
(and paid for it).

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

"DLU" <> wrote in message
news:2acd1$4936c725$439f9013$.. .

> I open IE and Firefox to start and look at the results. Then if
> everything seems to be OK I try Opera, Sea Monkey, and Netscape 7.2.
> If no one complains then I let it go.

Throw in Lynx as well. This gives you a rough feel of how your page will
sound to a blind person.

Hint: No CSS. No images (hence the importance of the alt attribute). No
Javascript. Just text.

> So far, the viewers are not as sophisticated as the people on this NG, so
> most of them probably do not have any understanding of web site design.
> There are some who are very good at publishing however.

Good at publishing is usually inversly proportional to good at web design.

Look at:
> http://www.desertreport.org/
> for instance.

A perfect example. This design would look good on a peice of glossy papar
*exactly* 8 inches wide. It does not look good on my browser. I either have
unused blank space either side of the content or a horizontal <spit/> scroll
bar.

The font size is specified at 7.5pt, stupidly small. And points are for
print (publishing), not web. Ems are for web. And if I don't happen to have
verdana on my computer then this text will drop to arial, or sans serif, and
be miniscule, totally unreadable.

Use of images of text, not the real text (the welcome and current issue
headings).

A 4.3 megabyte file containing the "current issue"? What is wrong with a
link to a plain text page?

Gratuitious use of flash, containing the main heading of the site and a
bloody wolf trotting around. At least it's not a Tiger.

Email link is unusable to anybody without an email client that actuall
interfaces to their particular browser (mailto. These people include
anybody using a public library. One would have to re-type the address from
the status bar.

Running the browser in quirks mode. Transitional doctype. Extensive use of
tables for layout. Using <br><br> to "force" a blank line (<p> should be
used).

XHTML closing / all over the place when the doctype says HTML 4.01. Several
other HTML errors as well.

rf wrote:
> "DLU" <> wrote in message
> news:2acd1$4936c725$439f9013$.. .
>

>
> Look at:
>> http://www.desertreport.org/
>> for instance.
>
> A perfect example. This design would look good on a peice of glossy papar
> *exactly* 8 inches wide. It does not look good on my browser. I either have
> unused blank space either side of the content or a horizontal <spit/> scroll
> bar.
>
It is mailed to most members. It is online only for those who want to
look at it there. As publication it is quite good. However, if funding
dries up due to current economic problems, they may have to make the web
site primary.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed DLU <> writing
> in news:1572b$4936c92c$439f9013$:
>
>> Unfortunately IE is the browser of choice for about 80% of those on
>> line.
>
> Isn't that wonderful? I remember when it was 90%.

Actually, most of the sites I manage are reporting IE at 70% or less.
Depends on the site, though. One is still near 85%, but several are
closer to 50%. The type or location of the biz/organization doesn't seem
to matter.

--
Berg