In article <slrng25gka.1ial.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <doraymeRidThis-C4AAD5.14424608052008@web.aioe.org> > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article <slrng24pqr.g1r.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, > > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > >> In message <uce-473833.15244107052008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net> > >> Gregory <uce@splook.com> wrote: > > >>> Depending on who "your" visitors actually are. About 1/6 of US users > >>> are still at 56k or less. (Silly me. I think there's a substantial > >>> difference between 17% and "nearly none." > >> > >> Based on my webserver logs (across a varied collection of sites, most > >> not written by me but hosted by me) it is well under 5%. > >> > >> The 16-17% that have dialup are not cruising around the web. They > >> are getting their email and going to a small handful of sites that > >> they know, and that is all they are doing. > > > You need to be careful basing any world wide or even all America wide > > trends on your own server logs. > > I'm not basing world wide or even America wide anything.
You need to be careful interpolating outside your own logs. You are not likely to be using samples and techniques to be expected of a reputable market research firm. To put it bluntly, your basis is slender.
> I am saying > that I, myself, stopped worrying about dialup users a long time ago.
You have said this a number of times now. It does not make it a wiser policy.
>I > also know quite a few web designers, including some that specialize in > flash laden crapsites and some who write very lean and compact code, > then use heavy graphics in addition. No on is designing for dialup,
Your contacts are not therefore ones with best practice practitioners and your statement that a designer designs for dial up or broadband or this or that screen as if this is something possibly good or wholesome is not the best ideal for a website developer.
> nor > should they be unless they are some edge-case site where a lot of their > users will be on dialup. >
> And the contracts that I've had for web design make no mention of dialup > and if dialup is mentioned, they react as if I mentioned Atari ST > compatibility. Most my time is spend talking people out of heavy flash > monstrosities that would choke the average broadband connection. Dailup? > > Puh-lease!
> >>> Would you give me $100 every time I rolled a one on a die if I gave > >>> you $10 every time I rolled 2-6? > >> > >> That does that have to do with anything? Are you saying a dialup user > >> is just as likely to make a purchase online as a broadband user? > >> Because if so, that is demonstrably false. > >> > > > Why would you jump to a demonstrably false interpretation? There is a > > simpler one staring us all in the face. That the dial up user is just > > as worthy a person as a broadband user and only the ignorant or the > > obsessively money minded website author would ignore the dial up user. > > Where did worthiness get into this?
Yes, I thought you would be surprised and dumbfounded by this. It was never in the foreground for you that technical excellence should be harnessed for higher purposes. I know all about this blindness. It is at the very heart of your ability to ignore dialup users and to hobnob with those with similar views.
> The dialup user is in a very small > minority and I do not consider them at all when I am coding a site.
We have been through this one and points have been put to you about the numbers involved that go beyond the impression of unimportance afforded by the comparative terminology. The absolute figures are still large and that was the point of G's "roll the dice" - no wonder you could not see the point. You are quite happy to leave a large number of people who, through no fault of their own quite often, cannot cut it with the 'like Atari' brigade.
> If > they are unhappy with the speed of one of my sites, then they need to > get off dialup or learn to deal.
Really, you have no understanding of why some people are on dialup still. If you did, you would not say this.
> Now, in point of fact my sites tend to > be heavily CSS and very light on crap like flash and multi-megabyte > graphics, but that's because that's how I work, not because of any > interest in the dialup user. >
Yeah? Then why aren't you into multi meg graphics, they are super quality and since you have no interest in slow connections, why would you forego the opportunity? Guilty conscience perhaps? In your heart of hearts, you don't want to make it absolutely impossible for slow connections? You have the interests of the wider net at heart. The anti soical consequences of clogging the bandwidth?
Perhaps you are a softie underneath and are just macho-ing on here? <g>
> > I say ignorant because there is a way to design so that it is win win > > for all, you provide for bigger pics by linking to them. It is not an > > either/or situation. > > My gallery code shows thumnails which link to scaled images which link > to the original image. But the original pops up right away because the > scaled image is being scaled by the HTML code from the full size image.
You cannot imagine how bad this practice is and you have been told by others too and you take not the slightest notice.
> If I cared about dialup users, I'd make the scaled image an actual > smaller image, like I do for the thumbnails. But this would simply make > the broadband user take an extra step, in effect punishing them for > their fast connection in an effort to make allowances for the dialup > user. This is what I mean by not being concerned with the dialup user > anymore. >
Punishing them? Don't you think you are being a trifle melodramatic now? It reminds me of how the Conservatives in this country scream blue murder if any of their tax payer funded benefits are means tested. Sorry if I don't cry along with you.
> >> Designing sites for the lowest common denominator merely impedes > >> progress. > > > Designing for a win win for all is not designing for the lowest common > > denominator. This is simply distorting the picture. > > No, making a site conform to the needs of a dialup user means that you > are shortchanging the broadband user and making them jump through extra > steps as punishment for their high-speed. >
You are not short changing anyone by being decent to all. You need to realign your priorities, young man. <g>
> >> I don't design for 640x480 screens, nor do I worry about 'web safe' > >> colors because my assumption is that the vast majority of people have > >> at least 1024x768 or better and are running with 16bit color. > >> Likewise, the vast majority are not on dialup lines. > > > You should not be designing for any screen size. It is as simple as > > that. > > That's just silly. The web is visual, and layout is important. Sometimes > layout is the MOST important thing, even. >
It is very far from silly. There are visually impaired folk, there are people with hand helds, with small screens, with slow broadband, with dialup. You have a weak, morally offensive, view of the role of the website developer. St Peter will have a word to say about this when you turn up at The Pearly Gates seeking entrance.
> For example, I don't set my text to be the width of the window because > text looks bad when it is 250 characters wide. ....
Yes, of course. You should say more true and good things like this. Remember Lewis, one swallow does not make a summer.
