> Indeed, your choice seems to be less users, their choice is to boycot
> a repelling site.
My choice, actually, is to provide a plain text version that's readable
by all browsers, and a fancied up version for browsers that support the
standards. I don't recall ever having discussed _my_ choice until just now
though, and I really don't care about _your_ choice. It's a pretty safe
assumption that everyone on this list is aware of the pros and cons of
upgrading or remaining in a static environment, and to be frank, the Browser
Upgrade initiative isn't for us.
> > just rather they make the choice knowing that by chosing an
> older browser
> > they're choosing to miss out on content.
> I`d like to see which relevant content does require the use of such
> bloated monstrosity as Netscape 6.0. And if you mandate the use of
> IE, I`d rather not upgrade the browsers by downgrading the OS,
Thank you for blatantly ignoring me. I'll rephrase my final comment -
"I'm talking sheer quantity, not quality." - and hopefully I'll be able to
phrase it clearer. By not using NN6.0, you're _missing out_. Period.
Whether or not you're missing anything good, relevant or worth your time is
a completely different argument, and one that's far too steeped in
subjectives to waste bandwidth on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:00 PDT