Subject: Re: Mismatch at Newslink From: jjlinden@gold.interlog.com (Jay Linden) Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 17:07:30 -0400

Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

At 07:05 PM 4/28/95 -0400, Donovan White wrote:

Pardon yet another long delay, not to mention a lot of quoting.  I know
Don and others have addressed this; I have strong feelings about the
issue and I think it's of significance to the whole web community.

>"J.J. Linden"  said:
>
>>Those of us who are in the businesses of marketing, publishing or 
>>broadcasting on the Internet need to realize that we are in the 
>>communications field, and that the desirability of communicating with our 
>>whole audience should be paramount.
>
>Actually, there isn't a publication in the world that works from that "whole
>audience" standpoint. To the contrary, publications use a well-defined model
>of their target reader, and everything is done to address the information
>needs of that small subset of the circulation base that fits that target
>reader profile. I once worked on a paper with a circ. of 100,000, whose
>target reader was 100 people. The other 999,900 readers were eavesdroppers
>on a conversation the editors conducted with those 100 guys.

That's fair enough; but unless you only want to show your website to
those 100 guys, it would be foolhardy to have the other 999,900 telling
everybody how lousy and thoughtless your publication is.  Those 100
may be your key; the others pay your bills.

>> 
>>> Look at your own experience for the solution path - You were using a low end
>>> tool that wasn't designed for the purposes you were using it for, you
>>> complained, someone pointed you to better technology, you went and got the
>>> proper tools, started using the new tools, and now you don't have the
>>> problem anymore.
>>
>>If the tools consist of having your own leased or shared T1, or at least 
>>a 28.8 modem connection to a fast server on a relatively uncluttered 
>>site, *plus* Netscape as opposed to I-Assistant, then you'd have a point.
>>
>>You would also be part of the elite 5-7% at the top of the Internet 
>>community's tech scale.
>
>Elite nothing. Today's elite is tomorrow's baseline. 

"Tomorrow" is still at least a year or two away.  Most people are using
the modems they already own, the PCs or Macs they already own.  They can
afford their connection, but not a complete hardware upgrade.  Over time,
most of them will upgrade.  I'd hate, as a web developer, to have earned
a reputation as someone who thumbs his nose at 95% of the web community.

I can always upgrade a client's site tomorrow too.

>>
>>Oh, yeah, I almost forgot the SVGA monitor and video card that you'd need 
>>in order to see more than 16 colors in Netscape or any other browser or 
>>any other Windows application.
>
>Funny, that's the basic, entry-level system that's being sold at Lechmere
>and Circuit City today, driven by either a doubled 486/66 or a Pentium 60.

Yes, and if I were buying today, instead of using what I already own,
that's what I'd end up with (only since I'm not in the U.S., it would
cost me twice as much to buy them.  Thinking "American" in this way is
not only elitist, it's jingoistic.

>>  More and more non-unix people are on the 
>>web each day, and most of 'em run PCs.  Your big, fancy graphics not only 
>>load slowly, but they also look like crud.
>
>As a non-Unix person, I think they look fine, and so long as they're
>interlaced graphics, there really isn't a problem very often.

I have a big problem with *any* graphics which take 5-10 minutes to
download.  I'm at your client's competitor's site before your page loads
up.  And I'm telling all my friends.

>>
>>Suggesting that web developers should take "the high road" is not only 
>>insulting to the vast majority of netters who will be annoyed by this 
>>attitude, and not only counter-productive to making a site a fun place to 
>>visit, ...
>
>And which all-text sites did you say were fun to visit? 

Don't put words into my mouth.  An all-text site will do a world more
good for most companies than a graphics-intense site; but nobody has a
problem with a combination of nicely designed and laid-out graphics on
a content-heavy site -- as long as you use  markups for the roughly
one-third of all web users who either use a non-graphical browser or
turn the graphics off.

Some sites -- art galleries for instance -- cannot help but use graphics.
The good ones use small thumbnails linked to larger JPGs.  Even people
with slow-loading machinery will appreciate this *basic human 
consideration* enough to patiently load a few JPGs.

Nothing stupider than going to a site in lynx and discovering a single
word:  "IMAGE" (meaning an imagemap you can't use.)  If you are the 
site's developer, boy do you look stupid.

>>...it also shows a singular lack of, and disregard for, an 
>>understanding of how to work in the medium of the WWW.
>
>That's the WWW that has produced so many millions of dollars in online
>information revenues, or is it the one where nobody's been able to figure
>out how to made a nickel yet?

It ain't the graphics-intense sites that are making money.  "Information
revenues" come from the sale of "information" -- text.

>>
>>If you can create a site which loads and runs like a pure text document, 
>>with a look like a big graphics site (but well written text is still far 
>>more important than good graphics to most netters, many of whom use lynx 
>>or turn off the graphics on their browsers anyway), then you will have 
>>begun to figure out how to use the medium.
>
>
>
>>
>>Better still, why not consider your website as a chance to communicate and
>>interact with people, and make it attractive without being ostentatious?
>>
>>A few choice small graphics are like a well-tended lawn and a nice flower
>>garden.  You don't need an Amazonian rain forest in your front yard in
>>order to make your home attractive.  You don't even want one.
>>
>>> But by your suggested resolution - don't use graphics or anything but text -
>>> and you wouldn't have been pushed to upgrade your technology. And much of
>>> the products of value on the Web would have been unavailable to you. 
>>
>>And what about the 90% of netters who can't afford upgraded technology?  
>>Netscape is free or cheap, depending on who you are.  But high-speed 
>>connections to the net are not, nor are fast CPUs, high-speed modems or 
>>top-quality monitors and video cards.
>
>I pay the same for 28.8 as for 14.4 as for 9600. There isn't any difference.

And every access provider in the world is just like yours, right?  And
every netter starts out with a 28.8 modem and buys down, right?

>The entry-level system these days is a Pentium 60. It costs the same as the
>entry-level system always has cost - $1,500. The last time I checked, a 14.4
>modem cost $50. An SVGA monitor costs $150. And an SVGA card costs $100.
>That is inexpensive technology. It's entry level, and the cost of entry
>hasn't changed in 10 years. It's also sufficient to support a decent web
>browser. 

Your "entry level system" costs about $3,000 in Canada.  Unless your
provider has its own T1 line and a clear path to the backbone, your 14.4
modem is inadequate for heavily graphic pages.  Up here, a decent 28.8
costs close to $300, and many of the ISPs don't have 28.8 capability
anyway.  The same holds true, other than the prices, for many parts of
the U.S., and almost all of the third world.

In fact, up here (in one of the ten largest and most modern cities in
North America), the "entry level system" is still a 486. It costs $2,000.

But more importantly, if you're telling me it's the user's faults for
not paying enough money for equipment, I'm going to suggest that your
attitude is not only elitist, but from a marketing perspective, 
completely foolish.

>>People in many areas are stuck with the Prodigy's and CI$'s, like it or not,
>>and in some cases, limited to 2400 Bps.
> 
>People who live in those types of areas have to suck it up in a lot of ways.
>You pay a price to live in nice, out-of-the-way places: the schools tend to
>suck, there isn't a decent restaurant in 100 miles, forget ever drinking a
>decent bottle of wine, every call is a toll call, you have to drive 90
>minutes each way to get to a decent paying job, the kids all wear black
>clothes and listen to heavy metal rock, and online access is either a toll
>call or it's low baud rate. Forget ever getting a decent haircut. You look
>at your kids and wonder who the hell they'll ever date when they grow up. So
>what? If you want fast, cheap online access, good meals, decent schools,
>great wine, first-run movies, all that - live in the city.
>
>Or you can pay the higher price and live like a normal human being and
>assume that technological change will come to your neighborhood eventually,
>just like cable TV. It may even come ON cable TV. 

Why don't we make a separate Internet just for you and your friends?
Who died and made you God, and told you that your lifestyle is the only
valuable one?

The whole value of the information revolution is that it is now possible
to live where you want to, work out of your home, and be connected to
the rest of the world.

If this were not the case, then we'd all be idiots for wasting our time
trying to develop a better, more valuable, more accessible Internet.

Your viewpoint isn't "big city" -- it's small town parochial.

>>> In this instance, it's better to preach what you practice, than to practice
>>> what you preach.
>>
>>In this case, what you are preaching -- and presumably also practicing -- 
>>is not only elitist, but downright insulting.
>
>In that case, what I preached wasn't meant to be insulting. But some of this
>probably is.

Well, let's see:  you've insulted everyone who doesn't live in a big 
city, and even those who do, but don't think that big city life is the
world's greatest.

You've insulted everyone who doesn't live in the U.S., by presuming that
we all have the same standards, opportunities, costs that you have.

You've insulted everyone who can't afford, or doesn't want to spend,
thousands of dollars in order to fully enjoy the Internet experience.

You've insulted all the netters who turn off their graphics, whether for
reasons of time, money, or pure personal preference.

You've insulted an entire industry of Internet presence providers who
believe that the purpose of our industry is to bring better communication
to more people, not to put down everyone who doesn't fit into our tiny
vision.

If those insults were all accidental, then I'm sure the other 
5,999,999,899 of us will also be happy to accept your apology.

Meanwhile, I hope your clients realize that their entire markets are
limited to the other 100 people.



Jay Linden                                          Phone: (416) 510-8948
Toronto, Canada                                 Fax/Modem: (416) 510-8949
Net Presence/Marketing/Netsurfing       email: jjlinden@gold.interlog.com
     


From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Thu May  4 20:40:21 1995
Received: from marketplace.com by cnj.digex.net with SMTP id AA09191
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 4 May 1995 20:40:17 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22467 for online-news-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 1995 15:06:49 -0600
Received: from gold.interlog.com (root@gold.interlog.com [198.53.145.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA22460 for ; Thu, 4 May 1995 15:06:45 -0600
Received: from jjlinden.interlog.com (jjlinden.interlog.com [199.212.154.57]) by gold.interlog.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA19801; Thu, 4 May 1995 17:07:30 -0400
Message-Id: <199505042107.RAA19801@gold.interlog.com>
X-Sender: jjlinden@gold.interlog.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: dwhite@april.iii.net (Donovan White), online-news@marketplace.com