This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:44:35 -0700 (MST)
From: "Karl F. Larsen" <k5di@zianet.com>
To: <svlug@svlug.org>
Subject: [svlug] Browser problems
I have 3 browsers I can use which are linux Netscape 4.71, and
Mozilla late version and win98 Internet Explorer. I have made a web
page(s) for a client and I must say looking at the pages with each browser
makes it look different as in BAD!
There seems to be no standard font or size and <font size+3> is a
differnet size on all three browsers...
--
Yours Truly,
- Karl F. Larsen, k5di@arrl.net (505) 524-3303 -
http://www.zianet.com/k5di/
===
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:48:53 -0800
From: Don Marti <dmarti@zgp.org>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
begin Karl F. Larsen quotation of Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 03:44:35PM -0700:
> There seems to be no standard font or size and <font size+3> is a
> differnet size on all three browsers...
Web "design" can never specify a page pixel-by-pixel, and should not
try to. Font sizes will vary depending on what fonts a user has
installed, how his or her system is configured, and what preferences
he or she has selected for the browser.
Line lengths will sometimes vary depending on the width of the user's
browser window.
This is a good thing, and part of the reason people like the web.
If something is not clear on one platform you have, it is probably
not clear on other platforms, too. Web design needs to work well
with a variety of possible text sizes and page widths.
--
Don Marti What do we want? Free Dmitry! When do we want it? Now!
http://zgp.org/~dmarti
dmarti@zgp.org Free the web, burn all GIFs.
KG6INA http://burnallgifs.org/
===
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:10:39 -0600
From: Walt DuBose <dubose@texas.net>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
"Karl F. Larsen" wrote:
>
> I have 3 browsers I can use which are linux Netscape 4.71, and
> Mozilla late version and win98 Internet Explorer. I have made a web
> page(s) for a client and I must say looking at the pages with each browser
> makes it look different as in BAD!
>
> There seems to be no standard font or size and <font size+3> is a
> differnet size on all three browsers...
>
> --
> Yours Truly,
>
> - Karl F. Larsen, k5di@arrl.net (505) 524-3303 -
> http://www.zianet.com/k5di/
Sad but true Carl.
What I would do is use the W3 validator
(http://validator.w3.org/file-upload.html)
and try to write in HTML 3.0 compliant
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32)
.
Try HTML 4.0 (http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_reference.asp or
http://www.loc.gov/iug/html40/) if you want.
BTW, as far as I know, HTML 4.01 had been un-officially adopted
as the HTML version for the U.S. government plus using Bobby
(http://www.cast.org/bobby/) to validate it as Section 508
(http://section508.gov/) compliant...this is a requirement of U.S.
government web pages.
I personally check what I write (in HTML 3.0) on Netscape 7.2 and the
latest Mozilla. If it looks Ok in Netscape, it should look in
Mozilla.
Walt DuBose
===
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:23:14 -0600
From: Walt DuBose <dubose@texas.net>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
Don Marti wrote:
>
> begin Karl F. Larsen quotation of Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 03:44:35PM -0700:
>
> > There seems to be no standard font or size and <font size+3> is a
> > differnet size on all three browsers...
>
> Web "design" can never specify a page pixel-by-pixel, and should not
> try to. Font sizes will vary depending on what fonts a user has
> installed, how his or her system is configured, and what preferences
> he or she has selected for the browser.
>
> Line lengths will sometimes vary depending on the width of the user's
> browser window.
>
> This is a good thing, and part of the reason people like the web.
>
> If something is not clear on one platform you have, it is probably
> not clear on other platforms, too. Web design needs to work well
> with a variety of possible text sizes and page widths.
>
One thing I failed to mention that you should make sure your web pages
are no more than 800 pixels wide. I set up a 750 pixel table and fir
everything else in it just to make sure.
Walt
===
To: Walt DuBose <dubose@texas.net>
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:44:46 -0800
From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu>
On Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:10:39 -0600
Walt DuBose <dubose@texas.net> wrote:
> What I would do is use the W3 validator
> (http://validator.w3.org/file-upload.html) and try to write in
> HTML 3.0 compliant (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32).
At this point I'd recommend using XHTML. Its not that much more
difficult (well, there are some case sensitivity issues and ALL tags
are closed now). You're going to have to do XHTML down the road
anyways. Might was well get used to is now.
> I personally check what I write (in HTML 3.0) on Netscape 7.2 and
> the latest Mozilla. If it looks Ok in Netscape, it should look in
> Mozilla.
The biggest thing I've trying to wean myself from is using tables
for layout. Its not needed and it makes things unnecessarily
tougher on people using non-GUI browsers:
http://tara.scdi.org/coding/tableless/
http://alistapart.com/stories/tohell/
Pay careful attention to (not my work):
http://www.netspace.net.au/
Look Mum, no tables! (Unless your using 'scrape 4.x in which case
you'll be redirected to a tabled page).
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
===
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 01:31:33 -0800
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
on Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 03:44:35PM -0700, Karl F. Larsen (k5di@zianet.com) =
wrote:
>=20
> I have 3 browsers I can use which are linux Netscape 4.71, and Mozilla
> late version and win98 Internet Explorer. I have made a web page(s)
> for a client and I must say looking at the pages with each browser
> makes it look different as in BAD!
>=20
> There seems to be no standard font or size and <font size+3> is a
> differnet size on all three browsers...
A few points, largely amplifying what's been said.
The first law of the web is: user determines presentation.
Font face and size are, by default, selectable by the user. If you're
specifying a font face and size, you're violating this basic tenet
(you're in large, if bad, company). Worst is if you specify font size
in points or pixels.
The problems are several:
- Font points don't scale to the same size on all platforms, or
between fonts. E.g.: my preferred proportional font (garamond)
scales about four points smaller than my preferred monospaced font
(courier new). There are various possible fixes for this, none of
them particularly transparent.
- Fonts are not uniformly available, or presented, across different
platforms. Combined with the above, you've got problems with
websites that specify font face *and* point size, which become
largely unreadable on other platforms. This is one of my current
beefs for websites. I've opened and am pursuing several bugs
against Mozilla to allow specific user overrides of this behavior.
- Page design which is brittle WRT to font face and size is bad.
You're going to have problems no matter what, as viewers change
around you. Best results are to present your data in a clear and
coherent manner, and let the chips (or pixels) fall where they will.
Content, not presentation. HTML is not WYSIWIG.
Peace.
--=20
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8CfT1OEeIn1XyubARAtIjAJ96GQdSz00hFbJlAu5dIQMij9IWTgCgjyIC
ZQz36HwH339nb3LTCOqZ6aw=
=KxT3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU--
===
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 02:23:11 -0800
From: Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com>
To: SVLUG <svlug@svlug.org>
Subject: [svlug] cyrus & sieve: how to troubleshoot?
I am using cyrus 1.6.24 and no matter what I do I cannot make sieve to
filter the email. I have set the delivery protocol to lmtp (in postfix),
set the cyrus deliver to deliver it using -l option (and it does, it is
in services and I actually see log message from cyrus deliver).
I get no error messages (or any messages regarding sieve) and I have
no idea how to troubleshoot this, it's just not being filtered.
I enabled cyrus log using:
local6.* /var/log/cyrus.log
but the only messages I see there are:
Dec 2 01:49:01 localhost deliver[3538]: connection from
[198.144.206.234]
... lot of same message as above ...
Dec 2 01:40:17 localhost imapd[3420]: login: localhost[127.0.0.1] erik
plaintext
Dec 2 01:45:48 localhost imapd[3495]: open: user erik opened
user.erik.In.Alsa-user
... or open other folders/mailboxes ....
there are no details about mail delivery or sieve.
I tested my ~/.sieve file using test program in sieve directory of
cyrus distribution, the result is as expected (it said the message with
given subject would be rejected, but it's not).
is there any way to find out whether cyrus reads the file? or tries to
read the file? I su-ed to cyrus and was able to read the file, here are
the permissions:
drwxr-xr-x 141 erik erik 8192 Dec 1 22:01 /home/erik
-rw-r--r-- 1 erik erik 297 Nov 25 20:44
/home/erik/.sieve
I also linked it to .sieverc, even though the docs say .sieve
here are the relevant parts of config files:
------------------------- /etc/postfix/main.cf
...
mailbox_transport = lmtp
...
------------------------- /etc/postfix/master.cf
...
lmtp unix - - n - - lmtp
...
------------------------- /etc/imapd.conf
...
sieveusehomedir: true
...
------------------------- /etc/services
...
cfinger 2003/tcp lmtp # GNU Finger / Local
Mail Transfer Protocol
...
------------------------- /etc/inetd.conf
...
lmtp stream tcp nowait cyrus /usr/sbin/cyrdeliver
/usr/sbin/cyrdeliver -l
...
------------------------- /home/erik/.sieve (whole file is below)
require "reject";
if header :contains "subject" "123 testing sieve" {
reject "testing sieve message rejected!";
}
any ideas? TIA
erik
===
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 07:31:16 -0500
From: Bill Jonas <bill@billjonas.com>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
--s8ux8MQukyWAm3r7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 01:31:33AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> If you're specifying a font face and size, you're violating this basic
> tenet (you're in large, if bad, company). Worst is if you specify
> font size in points or pixels.
I might as well jump in and ask for an opinion here. On my site, I play
a few stupid font tricks, but not many. I never specify absolute sizes
or a particular font, though, and it's only things like '<font
size=3D"+2">' and '<font size=3D"-1">'. It's mainly for subtly emphasizing
and de-emphasizing certain sections of the page. It displays well in
text browsers. In the opinion of the group, is this acceptable, or
should the <font> tag be avoided entirely?
--=20
Bill Jonas * bill@billjonas.com * http://www.billjonas.com/
Developer/SysAdmin for hire! See http://www.billjonas.com/resume.html
--s8ux8MQukyWAm3r7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8Ch8TdmHcUxFvDL0RAgEjAJ9WWOCZEUcL06Tt6q4tPxILfKgUMgCfdZxX
rf2lSTGlkN4h8aJPBubO02g=
=BF4x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--s8ux8MQukyWAm3r7--
===
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 09:39:07 -0800
From: J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu>
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 07:31:16 -0500
Bill Jonas <bill@billjonas.com> wrote:
> I might as well jump in and ask for an opinion here. On my site,
> I play a few stupid font tricks, but not many. I never specify
> absolute sizes or a particular font, though, and it's only things
> like '<font size="+2">' and '<font size="-1">'. It's mainly for
> subtly emphasizing and de-emphasizing certain sections of the
> page. It displays well in text browsers. In the opinion of the
> group, is this acceptable, or should the <font> tag be avoided
> entirely?
I use the font tag in exactly the way you specify, and also use
percentage values to get a more fine grained/deterministic result.
This seems reasonable. What I don't like (and see all too commonly
(eg most NUKE sites)) are literal font sizes in HTML. Aiieee!
Happily Galeon provides an easy control (accessible from the
toolbar) to scale the size of the fonts on a given displayed page
or or down.
===
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:27:36 -0800
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
--wwX5Nmi7feudBrEr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
on Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 07:31:16AM -0500, Bill Jonas (bill@billjonas.com) w=
rote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 01:31:33AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > If you're specifying a font face and size, you're violating this basic
> > tenet (you're in large, if bad, company). Worst is if you specify
> > font size in points or pixels.
>=20
> I might as well jump in and ask for an opinion here. On my site, I
> play a few stupid font tricks, but not many. I never specify absolute
> sizes or a particular font, though, and it's only things like '<font
> size=3D"+2">' and '<font size=3D"-1">'. It's mainly for subtly
> emphasizing and de-emphasizing certain sections of the page. It
> displays well in text browsers. In the opinion of the group, is this
> acceptable, or should the <font> tag be avoided entirely?
The official W3C response is that such gimmicks are to be deprecated
strongly and CSS used instead.
Unfortunately, this raises a number of other issues. One site in
particular, The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/) specifies _line
heights_ in its CSS (http://www.theregister.co.uk/Themes/Normal/Style.css).
The "problem" they're trying to correct is this:
- The Reg uses Arial rather than the users' specified default font.
- Arial displays larger for a given point size than, say, Times Roman
(a common default font) or Garamond (mine in particular). So the Reg
squashes their body face to 12 points. Garamond is comfortable at
about 16 points in my browser. So that's four points too small.
- Because they're conscious about presentation, the Reg ensures that
the inter-line spacing is harmonious. For the font face and size
they've specified. Which means that when I've extended the font
size another four points, the line hight is several points too
small. Really pisses me off.
So my advice: leave that shit well enough alone.
In *no* circumstances should you adjust the size of body text. There is
some call to make text of other body components relatively larger or
smaller, but I'd say this speaks to poor design and should be avoided.
Relative sizes are preferable to absolute sizes, but only marginally.
You can adjust sizes through a CSS, which in theory gets around some of
the limitations of explicit presentation encoding in documents. The
problem is that CSS opens the door much further in defining what _can_
be done to a webpage. For one of the worse (IMVAO) examples of what can
be done with CSS, look no further than the W3C's own CSS page:
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
For a good overview of many of these issues, see:
Toward a standard font size interval system
Todd Fahrner, Verso
http://style.cleverchimp.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html
My own intended solution is to come up with a *user* CSS which
specifies, and explicitly overrides:
- Font size, for base, +/-, and header elements.
- Font face, for base and other elements.
- Line height <sigh>. Because it Needs To Be There=AE.
- A margin. I like to have a bit of whitespace between the edge of
the text and the edge of the browser.
- Other stuff As I See Fit=AE, possibly to include font and background
color (it would be particularly nice to have "smart" color rendering
to allow light backgrounds, but of no more than a certain saturation
or less than a certain brightness), and other annoyances as I run
across them.
One of the saving graces of the revised CSS spec is that the *user*
overrides the author on elements, with the "!important" keyword
(otherwise, author specs supersede users). Frankly, *I* want control
over how crap renders.
===
To: Walt DuBose <dubose@texas.net>
Cc: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
From: Scott Henry <scotty@rahul.net>
Date: 02 Dec 2001 14:27:34 -0800
>>>>> "W" == Walt DuBose <dubose@texas.net> writes:
W> One thing I failed to mention that you should make sure your web pages
W> are no more than 800 pixels wide. I set up a 750 pixel table and fir
W> everything else in it just to make sure.
That may be insufficient to allow universal access to your page
without problems. For example, I prefer to have browser windows no
more than about 640-ish pixels wide. That started from wanting to
have 2 browser windows (or a browser and xemacs window) side-by-side
on a 1280x1024 display.
This can constrain image-heavy layouts, but it should not constrain
text-centered layout, as it is well-known in the UI field (but
obviously not well-enough known in the "web design" field) that the
optimum reading width for text is in the 40-70 char(-equivalent for
non-monospaced fonts) width range. And that will *always* (barring
rediculous font sizes) fit in a sub-640-pixel width browser.
The correct rule is to avoid specifying pixel-widths in web pages
except for image sizes. And use them sparingly and minimally even
when need is determined.
===
From: "Arlo Belshee" <arlo.belshee@horizongot.com>
To: <svlug@svlug.org>
Subject: RE: [svlug] Browser problems
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:21:01 -0800
on Sunday, December 02, 2001 1:32 AM, Karsten M. Self explained:
>
> A few points, largely amplifying what's been said.
>
> The first law of the web is: user determines presentation.
Unfortunately, while that's nice in theory, and is the frame
of mind within which the web was built, it fails to meet
business (and other related) needs. Philosphically, it is
commendable, and as long as the only web users and the only
web publishers are techies, it works well in practice, but
observe the following business scenario (pulled randomly out
of a hat):
J. Random business is organizing an advertising campaign
around a new product launch. They have decided the three
message points that they want everyone to learn, have
identified their target audience, and have determined what
image they want to express. Furthermore, they have
identified how they want it to fit into their overall
company brand. They hand this information off to their
advertising production group.
The advertising production group determines what media they
are going to use. In this example, the target audience would
be best fit by a TV, trade journal and radio awareness
campaign, working in tandem with a web-based and
distributor-based product education campaign. So, they need
all of these component to tie together in the minds of the
target audience - the need to see something on TV, do a
search, and find a site that looks just like what they saw
on TV - otherwise they tend to think that they've come to
the wrong place, and vanish forever. They need to see the
same graphical elements, in the same presentation, as they
saw on TV. They need to see similar message points, with the
same layout, but with further explaination. Most
importantly, the product image and how it ties into the
brand are tied _directly_ to the graphical layout of the
page - the differences between sleek, sexy, silky, and so on
are very subtle, and require fine-grained control of all
graphical and text elements to carry out. They business
needs absolute control of presentation. This is its
corporate image - do you really expect them to let fate
determine how the masses view them?
In other words, the business needs absolute control over how
this will be seen by users. If they don't have it, their
advertising loses much of its effectiveness - the message is
muddied. The advertisers don't care whether their site looks
good to text browsers. They sometimes care that it is
readable by browsers for the blind, but that's it: text
browsers are extremely rare and not often part of the target
audience, so it is OK to marginalize them if it makes the
campaign stronger to the 99+% of all users that use GUI
browsers and are more likely to be the target audience
anyway.
The decisions that were good for the techies are absolutely
to the businesses. Unfortunately, the web is still extremely
immature as a mode of communication. There are several
distince groups of users, each trying to meet fundamentally
different requirements. These groups don't often have any
need to talk to each other. The only real problem is that
one of these groups - the techies (including those that work
at browser companies) - gets to sets all the rules dictating
how people are allowed to communicate. Naturally, they look
to themselves to determine what people will want to do, and
how. They try to be inclusive, because this is a really
nifty technology. However, they don't fundamentally
understand the needs of the other audiences. They are unable
to see that the difference between logical layout and
physical layout can be worth millions in lost revenue due to
muddied advertising revenues. And because they are the ones
who set the standards (no other user group is even aware
that they could participate - or would be interested in
doing so if they were), decisions get made that work well
for them, but not for everyone else.
Thus, I must disagree heartily with:
> Font face and size are, by default, selectable by the user. If you're
> specifying a font face and size, you're violating this basic tenet
> (you're in large, if bad, company). Worst is if you specify font size
> in points or pixels.
True for the technology.
The reason that there's so much company on that side of the
line is that there is a tremendous need to be on that side
of the line. It can be measured in real dollars.
Thus the technology is fundamentally flawed.
The technology fails to meet the needs of a huge (at this
point probably the largest, and certainly the wealthiest)
group of its users. Therefore, they attempt to use any means
necessary to batter away at it, to bend it, and generally to
mangle it beyond all recognition, in the vain hope that it
might becomes something really _useful_. They hope that it
might live up to its promise - for them. A technology that
fails to meet the needs of its largest user group is doomed
to change. If it is a product, it will probably die. If it
is a free service, it will live on, but it disenfranchise
people until someone eventually manages to twist it into
what they need, or replaces it with something better.
Arlo
===
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:15:19 -0800
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
To: svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] Browser problems
--2/Dpz40iF3jpiHxF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
on Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:21:01AM -0800, Arlo Belshee (arlo.belshee@horizo=
ngot.com) wrote:
> on Sunday, December 02, 2001 1:32 AM, Karsten M. Self explained:
> >
> > A few points, largely amplifying what's been said.
> >
> > The first law of the web is: user determines presentation.
>=20
> Unfortunately, while that's nice in theory, and is the frame of mind
> within which the web was built, it fails to meet business (and other
> related) needs.=20
The first irony is that Arlo's post used long line widths -- about 90
characters from the look of it. So I reflowed the post (about five
seconds work with mutt and vim).
The medium is fundamentally malleable.
> Philosphically, it is commendable, and as long as the only web users
> and the only web publishers are techies, it works well in practice,
> but observe the following business scenario (pulled randomly out of a
> hat):
>=20
> J. Random business is organizing an advertising campaign around a new
> product launch. They have decided the three message points that they
> want everyone to learn, have identified their target audience, and have
> determined what image they want to express. Furthermore, they have
> identified how they want it to fit into their overall company brand.
> They hand this information off to their advertising production group.
>=20
> The advertising production group determines what media they are going to
> use. In this example, the target audience would be best fit by a TV,
> trade journal and radio awareness campaign, working in tandem with a
> web-based and distributor-based product education campaign. So, they
> need all of these component to tie together in the minds of the target
> audience - the need to see something on TV, do a search, and find a site
> that looks just like what they saw on TV - otherwise they tend to think
> that they've come to the wrong place, and vanish forever.=20
"Just like" offers a number of variables. Sufficient branding comes
from (IMO) logo, brand names, and, possibly, color elements relatively
close to what you're used to seeing for the firm. The last is already
going to fail markedly for many monitors as gamma varies widely (the
particular laptop display I'm using is tuned for indoor, incandescent,
light, and looks decidedly orange under natural (outdoor) lighting
conditions).
Moreover, with the proliferation of devices -- handhelds, cell phones,
and wearables -- tight branding isn't going to be possible, and the
requirement will drive up development and maintenance costs
significantly.
Study Jakob Nielsen, he gets it.
http://www.useit.com/ =20
=20
> They need to see the same graphical elements, in the same
> presentation, as they saw on TV.=20
Really? How many TV ads focus tightly on website presentation? This
isn't just a rhetorical question -- I don't generally watch any TV, and
see little in the way of web-related advertising. With the exception of
dot.coms (a lost breed) and some TV news and information sites, I can
think of few instances of companies displaying a long, tight shot of a
web page.
Face it, there are a hell of a lot of products which are marketed with
branding campaigns that have little or no bearing on reality. Match the
product to the campaign [1]:
A. Golden, rolling, hills; road; fog; car driving down road.
B. Golden light, field, woman dancing through the wheat.
C. Golden light, meadow, kids and dogs.
D. Golden, rolling, hills; road; fog; rollerbladers skating down road.
E. Golden light, Asian woman, open spaces.
F. Golden light, fields, jazz song.
G. Peace symbol, heart, penguin.
1. Feminine napkins. Yeast medications.
2. Analgesics.
3. Allergy medicine.
4. Airline.
5. Long distance phone services.
6. Automobiles.
7. IBM
Tight branding indeed.
> They need to see similar message points, with the same layout, but
> with further explaination. Most importantly, the product image and how
> it ties into the brand are tied _directly_ to the graphical layout of
> the page - the differences between sleek, sexy, silky, and so on are
> very subtle, and require fine-grained control of all graphical and
> text elements to carry out.=20
Two comments:
- Some advertising companies no doubt feel exactly as you do. They're
full of it.
- Bullshit.
> They business needs absolute control of presentation. This is its
> corporate image - do you really expect them to let fate determine how
> the masses view them?
You neglect to consider whether they've got the choice.
The key (and this is a message I've been trying to hammer into friends
of mine who're doing web graphics, online layout, and similar tasks) is
that the plasticity of the medium is a fundamental aspect of it. Deal.
> In other words, the business needs absolute control over how this will
> be seen by users. If they don't have it, their advertising loses much of
> its effectiveness - the message is muddied.=20
No. You come up with branding that survives this aspect.
<...>
> Thus, I must disagree heartily with:
Funny, I was just getting around to writing that myself.
> > Font face and size are, by default, selectable by the user. If
> > you're specifying a font face and size, you're violating this basic
> > tenet (you're in large, if bad, company). Worst is if you specify
> > font size in points or pixels.
>=20
> True for the technology.
>=20
> The reason that there's so much company on that side of the line is
> that there is a tremendous need to be on that side of the line. It
> can be measured in real dollars.
Fundamental problem for your proposition: free software: the pushers,
excuse me, content generators, don't control it. Look at Mozilla, a
nominally corporately-driven product (Time-Warner/AOL, Netscape), and
where it's headed. Projects challenging Mozilla (Konqeror, Dillo), or
utilizing its core technology (Galeon (rocks!), Skipstone, K-Melleon),
have included a host of options to allow the user to override
authors' preferences, including the aformentioned font, color, and CSS
overrides, as well as image and site blocking, cookie management,
and Java/Javascript/plugin overrides. Additional techologies can be
layered through proxies, including Junkbuster, WebWasher, anonymizers,
and other services.
> Thus the technology is fundamentally flawed.
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. You're describing a world that
doesn't exist. The medium is fundamentally malleable.
> The technology fails to meet the needs of a huge (at this point probably
> the largest, and certainly the wealthiest) group of its users.
They don't control the user experience.
To spare list bandidth, allow me:
$ while echo "The client controls the user experience"; do :; done
=2E..study the output for a while.
Peace.
----------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Answers: does it really matter? If the branding works, you know
the answer(s). If it doesn't, you don't.
NB: the road I'm describing is Ridgecrest Blvd., on Mt. Tam (north
of San Francisco). It's been used in thousands of commercial spots,
print and video.
===