|> Fran obviously cares deeply about making the best web page
|> possible. However, her comments on just caring about what x product can
|or cant
|> do for her means to me that she dosnet think too much about those practices
|> mentioned above. Or what they mean to the society at large. I know it is hard
|> to do such thing when x product does most things you need, it is easy to just
|> use that and do your best. Just as long as you have fun doing it. Have you
|> stoppped to consider that maybe there is something else that can be done
|> that will better do what you want? Maybe there is but no company can make
|> money on it or noone knows about it or how to do it?
>From what I've said about my politics before, do you *really* think that I
would ignore them totally just because I'm talking about NetStuff?!?
Not on your life...
Dylan, you misunderstood me... What I was talking about (and yes, I named
a few products in the process), was that one should be inventive, be
creative, and discover FOR YOURSELF which tools do the best jobs and suit
one's pockets and politics best. Be brave, and get out there to find out
what there is before one goes slagging things without offering substantive
reasons. _That_ was the crux of my argument.
and Taylor wrote:
|> How you are seeing it will not be the same. Many of the extensions that
|> are being introduced by Netscape, Microsoft and the rest are PROPRIETARY
|> extensions. Such as the new FONT tags I've heard tell on the MSN browser
|> that call for specific fonts, specifically fonts that Microsoft itself
|> creates and sells. The game right now is to make your browser capture the
|> biggest market share and then start charging. Netscape has done the best
|> job for it, especially with so many people (Including myself I might add)
|> giving them free add space on their web pages.
Yeah, I do understand about proprietary extensions -- and don't really
think that they are the right way to go. In fact, such expensive deviations
away from free and easy page creation are really counterproductive to
"little guy" page creation. But there are a lot of inexpensive shareware
things out there that do a lot...
and
|> >So... Netscape: yes. HotJava: cool! MPEG and JPEG? great...images!
|> >animation! video! Acrobat? whee! PageMill: Ooo! just you wait! and on and
|> >on...
|> >whatever makes your web pages more interesting! So be brave, get that modem
|> >warmed up and start downloading. Get your checkbook out for those shareware
|> >fees... and Have Fun.
|>
|> How about lets support a free and open system so we can all publish and
|> subscribe to the media around us. ANd if we go out and pay for tools to
|> view or create, it's before we want to, not because we have to.
Again, Taylor, I agree... I was merely stating a case for being inventive,
no matter which way. I think that fear is what keeps people from
subscribing to an adventurous approach to a lot of things (you'd prolly be
hard pressed to argue the opposite point, I'd guess). I also agree that we
should pay for the tools because we want them, not because we must have
them...
And, yes, I do care about making nice pages... all I use at the moment,
though, are Netscape and BBEdit. No Photoshop, no Illustrator, nothing
fancy at all. Readable and coherent comes first, even before graphics....
and _that_ you can deal with in any browser, even if you can't see that I
set the background colour to white. (oh, yeah, I do have a few backgrounds,
made on spud's machine).
fran, hoping she's better understood. geez... sound a little cranky and
look what happens!
fran sendbuehler
>>>>> katiemur@odyssee.net <<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Take note! I've CHANGED my address!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~