In-Reply-To: <01BA1713.3A67AB40@imperium.gofast.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Sun, 30 Apr 1995, Jeremy Allaire wrote:

> 
> 
> ----------
> From: 	Ivan Pope
> Sent: 	Sunday, April 30, 1995 2:48PM
> To: 	online-news@marketplace.com
> Subject: 	Re: If you don't use NetScape... :-(
> 
> >Daniel P Dern (ddern@world.std.com) wrote:
> >
> >: Call me Ishmael@luddite.com.  I'm using a shell account via a terminal
> >: emulator for most of my net activity, though I do have a SLIP account
> >: and fire up NetScape there, and sometimes use SLIPknot on my shell account.
> >
> >: In the past few weeks,
> >
> >: o I've seen home pages that start with the equivalent of
> >:   "If you're not using NetScape with   the 1.1 extensions, this page
> >:    will look weird or just plain butt-ugly"
 
> Within a couple of months, nearly all browsers (excpet for Lynx and those
> making commercial browsers who are either incompetent or underfunded 
> such that they can't innovate) will support HTML 3.0.  Mosaic and 
> Netscape currently do.

There is a tendency, in the "exponential innovation" market of the 
internet to get a new toy and "try on every bell and whistle".  It's a 
bit like the difference between the kid who gets a Muscle Car and drives 
too fast and get tickets and loses his license and can't drive it, and 
the Mature adult who gets the same power and uses it strategicly for 
accessing on-ramps, making left turns when the slots are smaller, and all 
of those things you can't do with an Escort.

HTML 3.0 gives publishers a great deal more power.  This power needs to 
be applied appropriately, and with careful judgement.  Providing some 
"What's new" pages that are off of the Home Page, and shadowed by a 
selectable HTML 2.0 page will give publishers a chance to survey the 
market.  As more and more select the 3.0 pages, you phase in more 3.0 
pages.  Eventually, your 2.0 pages become "Working Drafts", and 
eventually dissappear, usually after the 4.0 version is released.

This mature use of internet standards and power while maintaining 
backward compatibility, has resulted in a steady growth in the internet 
as a whole for 10 years, and the infrastructure which makes up the 
internet (UNIX, TCP/IP, HTML...) for 25 years.

> There is an enormous amount which can be done with HTML 
> 3.0, and even without 'killing' the end-user with huge graphics, etc. 

Do so, but don't demonstrate your immaturity and ignorance by offending 
80% of your new visitors within the first 30 seconds with a screen full 
of empty buttons.  The WEB Browser was designed for the user who knows 
almost nothing about the internet.  He/She WONT be impressed by a "Buy 
NetScape you Ignorant Slut" screen.

> I have seen no truly compelling reason (outside of benevolence or altruism)
for publishers NOT to alienate that increasingly small portion of the Web
browsing audience by using standard HTML 3.0.

It isn't a question of Whether, but When.  X11r6 has been out for about 1 
year now.  It has great features, like C++ Foundation Classes, 3D Phigs 
graphics, PostScript Viewers, and really powerful multimedia editors.  If 
I put up a 3D PEX image imbedded in my HTML, LINUX users could browse it, 
but MS-Windows users would Choke on it.  You can get an X11R6 server and 
browse "Electronic Shopping Malls" on the WEB, but you won't see that 
media embedded on a home-page (you think GIFs are slow, try loading a 3D 
16million color dual-image MPEG file over a 9.6 Kb link.  It would take 2 
or 3 DAYS.

Microsoft probably won't even announce those features for another 9 
months (Right after the Windows95 release?).  It might deliver them 
around 1998 (beta) and Windows99 will finally be ready for production by 
the year 2000.  By then, Unix will offer 3D interactive Cities and 
Grope-Suits for X-Rated "Safe CyberSex" (Scheduled for X11R7 and X11R8).

By the time I'm too old to walk the streets at night, I won't care :-).

> The most important
> consideration should be how one's service looks on the major browsers; 
> that's it.  If the cost of developing a service for terminal based or 
> low-bandwidth users is too high, forget it.

The primary justification for Upgrading to NetScape is that it provides 
optimal use of limited bandwidth.  Mosaic was designed for the T1 crowd.  
Should we just imbed our MPEG and tell you "tough cookies" if you don't 
like waiting 5 hours for the download?  I can get a 2 hour movie over T1
in 15 minutes, what's holding YOU up?

There is a point where you stop dealing with 2400 baud modems (I can get 
you a great deal on 300 baud jobs).  There is a point, 6 to 9 months from 
now, when 90% of your content will be HTML 3.0  By then, Mosaic, Cello, 
WinWeb, and the other browsers that comprise about 80% of the market
will be ready to go with you.  Now NetScape keeps you on the leading edge.

 Also, services will increasingly use forms and
other types of user-driven input (including external client-side
applications), which terminal systems are simply unable to deal with.  That's
just too bad for terminal users, IMHO. 


> Jeremy Allaire
> 
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue May  2 21:50:56 1995