[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: RE: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats
From: Andy Proyer
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:49:48 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owneratchinwag [dot] com [owneratchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:owneratchinwag [dot] com]On Behalf Of Ray
> Taylor
> Sent: 23 April 1999 17:14


Why state (quite correctly, in my opinion):

> I just cannot understand the daft argument that says that "html is better
> than flash" or "flash is better than html" or "Netscape is better than IE4"
> "Macs are better than PCs" etc etc. The customer makes a choice. If you
> can't keep in line with customers having choices go get a job in the civil
> service (but realise that gov agencies are coming on board with the notion
> of customer service too).

But preface it with the ridiculous:

> Of course there is nothing wrong with plain old html either (sans frames
> preferably).

If you're going to create good customer-focused web sites, then frames are a
huge advantage to navigation if the customer's browser supports them. And if
the customer's browser doesn't support them, then they will view the version
of your pages that you have designed for the non-frames brigade.

It might be trendy amongst geeky programmers to slag off frames, but
remember before you join them that it is also trendy amongst geeky
programmers to masturbate over pictures of Patrick Stewart.

Take care

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.
Email Khalil Ibrahimi khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com) to advertise on Excite.
Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html

  UKNM: Frames, schmames, Robert Hamilton (brandwid
  RE: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats, Tomski

  Re: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats, Ray Taylor

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]