On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:01:51 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:02:08 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Well, one of course wonders why nobody tested it with Firefox in the
first place..

TBH as someone who has written many webpages and created a number of
sites, I've mostly wondered why people haven't simply followed the basic
W3C recommened approach.

This is to use the simplest possible W3C compliant HTML for any task so
that you don't *need* to have to keep wondering if it will render with all
the browsers you've never heard of, let alone tried. The basic point of
HTML is that it indicates the logical status of the content items and the
relationship between them as structured content. It is then up to the
browser and its user to decide what to do with it.

The problem, I guess, is that many companies and website builders are
obsessed with 'eye candy' and fancy presentation rather than conveying
useful content. And tend to assume that their main aim is a site that looks
impressive on the machine their boss will use to view it. Who cares if the
customers can't make head or tail of it if the person who paid for it was
impressed. :-)

And others keep trying to force webpages to behave like printed text where
the producer has rigid control over layout and appearance. When the
strength of HTML is that each user should be able to set what layout, etc,
suits them.

Hence all the sites which come out with tiny dark blue text on a black
background, 'require' javascript, flash, etc, etc. In effect, putting as
many barriers as possible in the way of getting at the content in a form
that each user could otherwise tailor to their personal preferences/
situation.

Parallel here with the way TV programmes are presented. e.g. Horizon
documentaries with flashing lights and wobbly camerawork, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

When all you have to present by way of content is a list of radio
programmes, you have to dress it up somewhat. Obviously they make
their revenue from the ads, so these need to be prominent and eye
catching; a little too much so in this case.

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver
more or less the straight goods.


No, it's almost any programme with content that's slightly
intelligent. Recently watched the first of a series about Venice,
complete with steadicam swoops around the presenter and pointless
mocked up historical re-enactments done in slow motion blurry wobbly
vision. Likewise a series on the Victorians had a new (to me)
variation on rostrum camerawork. Point the camera at a picture at an
angle then move and zoom at the same time to produce a rather
disturbing effect which adds nothing to the programme or the picture.