| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Constantine Hannaher wrote:
> > What is the case about how many visitors (who aren't bots or otherwise
> > masquerading) are using Netscape 1-4 that makes a statement of corporate
> > purpose to support a 1998 browser at the expense of later developments
> > necessary?
>
> I had trouble parsing this sentence. Would you consider restating it, perhaps as
> several sentences with less convoluted sentence structure? Clearly, it's a point
> you'd like to make, but I am not yet getting what point it is.
>
> Thanks.
Are humans visiting Brickshelf and displaying the site in Netscape 1-4? Does
this level of usage of Netscape 1-4 in displaying Brickshelf make the support of
Netscape 1-4 in designing the viewer experience of Brickshelf necessary? Does
supporting Netscape 1-4 by insisting that the display in Netscape 1-4 be the
same hinder supporting more developed technologies (Mozilla, Opera, Safari) and
other, emerging, technologies (smaller displays)? Why is "does not work in
Netscape 4" a con? What level of usage would permit Brickshelf LLC to drop
Netscape 4.x as a preferred visual browser? What is the balance between past and
future in determining the direction of Brickshelf?
I consider "work" to mean something along the lines of "Can every word be read
and every image be viewed? Can every link be discerned and followed?" and have
been known to let the visual experience in an old browser like Netscape 4.x
degrade. But that's just me.
Constantine
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickshelf Viewer
|
| (...) I had trouble parsing this sentence. Would you consider restating it, perhaps as several sentences with less convoluted sentence structure? Clearly, it's a point you'd like to make, but I am not yet getting what point it is. Thanks. (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
