HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)

Subject: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
From: David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:47:27 -0700

Hi all;

Arlen commented that....

>Besides, whose standards are you going to embrace for your page design?
>Netscape's? Microsoft's? Mosaic's? I can set up a page that will look
>entirely different on each one of these browsers. The only was to achieve
>consistency is to write to the lowest common denominator of the three

The simplest way to achieve consistency is to feed various browsers to
parallel pages designed for that browser. Web servers check to see what
browser is being used to see the site. So just build a case statement:

if Netscape, go see <blah, blah>
if MicroSoft, go see <blah, blah>
if Mosaic, go see <blah, blah>

Note that this activity occurs invisibly to the user - you don't have to
_force_ people to click.

Does this increase the workload by increasing Web sites? Sure does. On
the other hand, a good design will minimize the conversion process.

An alternate approach is simply to ignore some browsers. It's entirely
reasonable - for now - to build a Web site for Netscape browsers only.
They still control between 75 - 80% of the market.

Re. HTML v. Acrobat. You can have your cake and eat it too by using
Netscape 2.0 with the Adobe Amber plug-in.

David (The Man) Blyth
Technical Writer & Web Site Designer

The usual disclaimers apply - I don't speak for QUALCOMM, they don't speak
for me....

Previous by Author: Re: Doing your own art
Next by Author: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Next by Thread: Re[3]: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads