hi.

it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely broken.
neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it looks ok.

can we maybe get this fixed?

thanks and regards...
michael
--
Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
http://www.mirime.de/Michael
Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de

seems to be just a problem with those browsers, works fine in Opera 11.64, Firefox 14.0.1. Konqueror 4.7.2 however doesnt render the page correctly.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:31:23 -0400, Michael Merkel <Michael.Merkel@gmx.net> wrote:

>
> hi.
>
> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely broken.
> neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it looks ok.
>
> can we maybe get this fixed?
>
> thanks and regards...
> michael
> --Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
> Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
>http://www.mirime.de/Michael
> Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> seems to be just a problem with those browsers, works fine in Opera 11.64, Firefox 14.0.1. Konqueror 4.7.2 however doesnt render the page correctly.

The same defect that I see in Safari, I also see in Firefox 14.0.1

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com

And that defect is what exactly? i you can point us to a screen capture of the defect.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:49:33 -0400, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:

>
>> seems to be just a problem with those browsers, works fine in Opera 11.64, Firefox 14.0.1. Konqueror 4.7.2 however doesnt render the page correctly.
>
> The same defect that I see in Safari, I also see in Firefox 14.0.1
>
> --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It doesn't appear anymore broken to me now than it normally does. Alas,
I have no means to affect a fix and to my knowledge there has been no
new development on that front since it started.

Tim Doty

On Aug 14, 2012, at 14:31, Michael Merkel <Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
<mailto:Michael.Merkel@gmx.net>> wrote:

> hi.
>
> it seems that www.pagestream.org <http://www.pagestream.org> is
> broken. it looks definitely broken.
> neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it looks ok.
>
> can we maybe get this fixed?
>
> thanks and regards...
> michael
> --
> Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
> Michael.Merkel@gmx.net <mailto:Michael.Merkel%40gmx.net>
>http://www.mirime.de/Michael
> Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Merkel wrote on 14.08.2012
about <[PageStreamSupport] www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?> the
following:

> hi.
>
> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely broken.
> neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it looks ok.
>
> can we maybe get this fixed?

ok! here is the screenshot of owb mui.
(if the list allows attachments? i don't think so )

regards...
--
Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
http://www.mirime.de/Michael
Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Merkel wrote on 15.08.2012
about <[PageStreamSupport] Re: www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?>
the following:

> Michael Merkel wrote on 14.08.2012
> about <[PageStreamSupport] www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?>
> the following:
>
>> hi.
>>
>> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely
>> broken. neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it
>> looks ok.
>
>> can we maybe get this fixed?
>
> ok! here is the screenshot of owb mui.
> (if the list allows attachments? i don't think so )

well try this:

this is mui owb:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvx97bb3dgli6o/PGSORG_OWBMUI.jpg

this is timberwolf (ignore the broken picture in the middle - that's caused
by sgrab - the layout is the actual probelm):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1madm8nuzjrg08/PGSORG_TIMBERWOLF.jpg

on my win7 machine with firefox 14 it looks identical to timberwolf. also
broken.

regards...
--
Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
http://www.mirime.de/Michael
Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de

well the page relies haevily on Java Script and when I submitted it to
the w3c validator it came up as not valid with 22 errors.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.pagestream.org&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

I try and use validator.w3.org to check my pages as it makes it much more
likely that they will display in a similar manner on different browsers.

however javascript gives you nice flashy web pages but can result in
both vulnerabilities to viri and failures in display since the java
script set up is quite complex.

The more bells and whistles - the more can go wrong.

Looking at the pages from Firefox 14.0.1 Ubuntu Canonical the pages look
fine I think. I will install epiphany browser which is built on the same
kit as Safari and see what it looks line under Xubuntu Linux.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bonnie Dalzell, MA
mailO box 9767 Baldwin, MD, USA 21013 | EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net
shipping address:5100 Hydes Rd 21082 (Hydes Post Office closed Jan 2012)
Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com.
HOME www.batw.net ART bdalzellart.batw.net BUSINESS www.boardingatwedge.com

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:10:43 +0200, Michael Merkel wrote:

> Michael Merkel wrote on 15.08.2012
> about <[PageStreamSupport] Re: www.pagestream.org -> looking not so
> good?> the following:

>> Michael Merkel wrote on 14.08.2012
>> about <[PageStreamSupport] www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?>
>> the following:
>>
>>> hi.
>>>
>>> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely
>>> broken. neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it
>>> looks ok.
>>
>>> can we maybe get this fixed?
>>
>> ok! here is the screenshot of owb mui.
>> (if the list allows attachments? i don't think so )

> well try this:

> this is mui owb:
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvx97bb3dgli6o/PGSORG_OWBMUI.jpg

> this is timberwolf (ignore the broken picture in the middle - that's
> caused by sgrab - the layout is the actual probelm):
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1madm8nuzjrg08/PGSORG_TIMBERWOLF.jpg

> on my win7 machine with firefox 14 it looks identical to timberwolf.
> also broken.

It looks similar on my miggy with IBrowse, but then, it's always looked like
that. It's not a new thing.

Bye for now,
--

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to
reform.
-- Mark Twain

Russell Butler A1200 Power Tower, Blizzard 50mhz 060 with SCSI
Mediator TX1200, Fast Ethernet, Soundblaster, Hauppage TV
196mb RAM, 256mb Radeon, Spider USB, IDE 2Gb & 40Gb drives, CDRW

wurzel@jerseymail.co.uk
wurzel@hotmail.co.uk Member, Team AMIGA The Amiga lives on!
www.wurzel.co.uk Past President, Jersey Junior Chamber (JCI)

weather: Partly Cloudy : 18.00 C, 64.40 F
Winds : South 16.11 MPH, 25.93 KPH, 14.00 Knots
Jersey Airport (EGJJ), United Kingdom

using epiphany(same kit as safari) on xubuntu linux te home page has the
top bar broken into two places but otherwise looks ok

however the download page for the linux version does not seem to result
in a download using epiphany but i do get a download using Firefox 14.0.1
under Xubuntu Linux 12.04 (Precise)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bonnie Dalzell, MA
mailO box 9767 Baldwin, MD, USA 21013 | EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net
shipping address:5100 Hydes Rd 21082 (Hydes Post Office closed Jan 2012)
Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com.
HOME www.batw.net ART bdalzellart.batw.net BUSINESS www.boardingatwedge.com

Hello,

>>> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely
> this is mui owb:
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvx97bb3dgli6o/PGSORG_OWBMUI.jpg

It looks identical in Chrome Win32 but it's ok in FF Win32.
So it may annoy some potential customers

Bye
--
Philippe 'Elwood' FERRUCCI
Sam460ex 1.15 Ghz
AmigaOS translator/betatester
http://elwoodb.free.fr

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, wurzel wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:10:43 +0200, Michael Merkel wrote:
>
>> Michael Merkel wrote on 15.08.2012
>> about <[PageStreamSupport] Re: www.pagestream.org -> looking not so
>> good?> the following:
>
>>> Michael Merkel wrote on 14.08.2012
>>> about <[PageStreamSupport] www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?>
>>> the following:
>>>
>>>> hi.
>>>>
>>>> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely
>>>> broken. neither with amigas owb (mui) nor with timberwolf/firefox it
>>>> looks ok.
>>>
>>>> can we maybe get this fixed?
>>>
>>> ok! here is the screenshot of owb mui.
>>> (if the list allows attachments? i don't think so )
>
>> well try this:
>
>> this is mui owb:
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvx97bb3dgli6o/PGSORG_OWBMUI.jpg
>
That is how it looks on Epipahny under Xubuntu 12.04. The element with
the left button and the center scroll and the right button displays as a
single graphic under Firefox 14.0.1 Xubuntu 12.04 but the left and
right buttons do not do anything. The middle section scrolls on its own .

Clicking on the navigation buttons within the center element stops the
scrolling for a while but then it starts back up. However the
images it scrolls are just the same image so why bother?

read more does not seem to do anything.

As a web master I really dislike fancy java implemented pages.

Looking at the page source the only image in the "ad" is:

<img src='pagestream/ad-middle.jpg' alt=''>

so no wonder it is scrolling all the same image.

I think the same page could be done in more standard html (with css)
without the javescript with a lot less code.

Given that I am very good at html but just learning css it would probably
take me a day to do it.

>> this is timberwolf (ignore the broken picture in the middle - that's
>> caused by sgrab - the layout is the actual probelm):
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1madm8nuzjrg08/PGSORG_TIMBERWOLF.jpg
>
>> on my win7 machine with firefox 14 it looks identical to timberwolf.
>> also broken.
>
> It looks similar on my miggy with IBrowse, but then, it's always looked like
> that. It's not a new thing.
>
>
> Bye for now,
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bonnie Dalzell, MA
mailO box 9767 Baldwin, MD, USA 21013 | EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net
shipping address:5100 Hydes Rd 21082 (Hydes Post Office closed Jan 2012)
Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com.
HOME www.batw.net ART bdalzellart.batw.net BUSINESS www.boardingatwedge.com

On 08/15/2012 04:04 PM, Bonnie Dalzell wrote:
> I think the same page could be done in more standard html (with css)
> without the javescript with a lot less code.

I don't believe you can use CSS to do *exactly* what is being done
there. CSS can handle things like roll overs, but doing timed scrolling
using a view window (which IIRC is what is supposed to be going on)
doesn't work. Probably with HTML5 and extensions.

The thing about CSS is that it isn't very portable, especially for more
complicated effects (thank you, Microsoft!). The right-side menu on
morfarpottery.com and friends is done with CSS, but it doesn't work in
IE (possibly the newest versions, but I doubt it) and even in other
browsers I had to tweak parameters for the submenus to be accessible.
That is, it displays differently in FF, Chrome, Safari, Konqueror, etc.
No two browsers work the same, even if they use the same engine.

More basic CSS has greater reliability -- I did a web app for work that
makes extensive use of CSS and tested it to work with both FF and IE8.
I'm a big fan of CSS, but I still had to use fairly extensive
javascript. Granted, it is an application, not a web page, but some
things just can't be done in CSS (despite MS's attempts to break the CSS
standard).

Tim Doty

Incidently have you ever used one of the online crossbrowser testing
sites to at least test appearance of pages

here is one that offers some services for free

http://browsershots.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bonnie Dalzell, MA
mailO box 9767 Baldwin, MD, USA 21013 | EMAIL:bdalzell@qis.net
shipping address:5100 Hydes Rd 21082 (Hydes Post Office closed Jan 2012)
Freelance anatomist, vertebrate paleontologist, writer, illustrator, dog
breeder, computer nerd & iconoclast... Borzoi info at www.borzois.com.
HOME www.batw.net ART bdalzellart.batw.net BUSINESS www.boardingatwedge.com

On 15/08/2012, Philippe Ferrucci wrote:

> Hello,
>
>>>> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely
>> this is mui owb:
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvx97bb3dgli6o/PGSORG_OWBMUI.jpg
>
> It looks identical in Chrome Win32 but it's ok in FF Win32.
> So it may annoy some potential customers
>
If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as low
tech as possible.

Every clever web trick you add loses customers.

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@enterprise.net

Don Cox wrote on 18.08.2012
about <[PageStreamSupport] Re: www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?>
the following:

> On 15/08/2012, Philippe Ferrucci wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>>>> it seems that www.pagestream.org is broken. it looks definitely
>>> this is mui owb:
>>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxvx97bb3dgli6o/PGSORG_OWBMUI.jpg
>>
>> It looks identical in Chrome Win32 but it's ok in FF Win32.
>> So it may annoy some potential customers
>>
> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as low
> tech as possible.
>
> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.

no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css and
javascript almost everything is possible.
just keep away from flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.

trhe current page just has some bugs which need to be fixed.

regards...
--
Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
http://www.mirime.de/Michael
Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de

On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:

>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
>> low
>> tech as possible.
>>
>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
>
> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css
> and javascript almost everything is possible.

Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
their browsers.

> just keep away from
> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
>
Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.

> trhe current page just has some bugs which need to be fixed.
>
> regards...
Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@enterprise.net

Don Cox wrote on 19.08.2012
about <[PageStreamSupport] Re: www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?>
the following:

> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>
>
>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
>>> low
>>> tech as possible.
>>>
>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
>>
>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css
>> and javascript almost everything is possible.
>
> Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
> their browsers.

why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do with the
technique used imho.

>> just keep away from
>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
>>
> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.

where have you seen java on webpages lately?!

regards...
--
Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)
Michael.Merkel@gmx.net
http://www.mirime.de/Michael
Member ofhttp://www.amiga-freunde.de

Michael's right. Don't blame modern browsers for buggy programmers. With Voyager's limited functions one could easily learn how to program correctly

I know of two important sites requiring Java:
•DHL / Deutsche Post postage print
•Citrix Online Client we use in our company for Mac OS & Linux

>
>> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
>>>> low
>>>> tech as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
>>>
>>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css
>>> and javascript almost everything is possible. .
>
> why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
> again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do with the
> technique used imho.
>
>>> just keep away from
>>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
>>>
>> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
>
> where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
>
> regards...
> --
> Michael Merkel (MiMe@IRC)

On 19/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:

> Don Cox wrote on 19.08.2012 about <[PageStreamSupport] Re:
> www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?> the following:
>
>> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
>>>> low
>>>> tech as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
>>>
>>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css
>>> and javascript almost everything is possible.
>>
>> Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
>> their browsers.
>
> why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
> again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do with
> the technique used imho.
>
Yes, but if a simpler technique was used there would be less chance of
bugs.

And why do you want to turn away customers who do not have a
"half-modern" browser? Even if this is only one per cent of potential
customers, you are knocking 1% off your sales.

There are sites which are entirely suitable for advanced web techniques,
but a site whose purpose is to sell products should be very low tech.

>>> just keep away from
>>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
>>>
>> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
>
> where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
>
Nowhere fortunately. I believe Danish banks still use it.

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@enterprise.net

Hi. A common theme among folks not in the business of business is a concern with the loss of a small percentage of sales. The reality is a bit different.

For example, if catering to a niche market increases sales by $10,000 a year but increases costs by $30,000 it makes no sense to do.

Another example is when you trade. Perhaps a marketing methodology brings in $100,000 in sales a year but loses $10,000 sales a year because it annoys some users (goes against their belief structure sufficiently to cause the indicated reduction). Guess what, the users who represent the $10,000 loss are ignored in favor of the $100,000 gain.

Another case that is perhaps closer to the matter at hand has to do with staffing and maintenance. Say it costs $50,000 per year to contract out the website, but you only generate $5,000 in sales each year from it. Does it really make sense to pay he maintenance fee?

The numbers are all made up and they might not represent direct costs. For example, instead I contract cost it might be in "HR" costs -- the opportunity cost of an employee doing one job instead of another. But when you pin it down to dollars and cents it amounts to the same thing.

So while it is a shame the site is broken to the extent that it is this is also nothing new and it would appear that the cost analysis has not shown a clear advantage to fixing it. Bringing it up is great and all, but there is no benefit in arguing over the matter.

And if your browser doesn't support semi modern JavaScript and CSS -- only the most minute niche dedicated to those who refuse to use more recent standards capable browsers is going to care.

And increasingly that even includes IE6, thank heaven...

Tim Doty

On Aug 20, 2012, at 16:50, Don Cox <doncox@enterprise.net> wrote:

> On 19/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>
> > Don Cox wrote on 19.08.2012 about <[PageStreamSupport] Re:
> > www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?> the following:
> >
> >> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
> >>>> low
> >>>> tech as possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
> >>>
> >>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css
> >>> and javascript almost everything is possible.
> >>
> >> Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
> >> their browsers.
> >
> > why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
> > again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do with
> > the technique used imho.
> >
> Yes, but if a simpler technique was used there would be less chance of
> bugs.
>
> And why do you want to turn away customers who do not have a
> "half-modern" browser? Even if this is only one per cent of potential
> customers, you are knocking 1% off your sales.
>
> There are sites which are entirely suitable for advanced web techniques,
> but a site whose purpose is to sell products should be very low tech.
>
> >>> just keep away from
> >>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
> >>>
> >> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
> >
> > where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
> >
> Nowhere fortunately. I believe Danish banks still use it.
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> doncox@enterprise.net
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi. A common theme among folks not in the business of business is a
concern with the loss of a small percentage of sales. The reality is a
bit different.

For example, if catering to a niche market increases sales by $10,000 a
year but increases costs by $30,000 it makes no sense to do.

Another example is when you trade. Perhaps a marketing methodology
brings in $100,000 in sales a year but loses $10,000 sales a year
because it annoys some users (goes against their belief structure
sufficiently to cause the indicated reduction). Guess what, the users
who represent the $10,000 loss are ignored in favor of the $100,000 gain.

Another case that is perhaps closer to the matter at hand has to do with
staffing and maintenance. Say it costs $50,000 per year to contract out
the website, but you only generate $5,000 in sales each year from it.
Does it really make sense to pay he maintenance fee?

The numbers are all made up and they might not represent direct costs.
For example, instead I contract cost it might be in "HR" costs -- the
opportunity cost of an employee doing one job instead of another. But
when you pin it down to dollars and cents it amounts to the same thing.

So while it is a shame the site is broken to the extent that it is this
is also nothing new and it would appear that the cost analysis has not
shown a clear advantage to fixing it. Bringing it up is great and all,
but there is no benefit in arguing over the matter.

And if your browser doesn't support semi modern JavaScript and CSS --
only the most minute niche dedicated to those who refuse to use more
recent standards capable browsers is going to care.

And increasingly that even includes IE6, thank heaven...

Tim Doty

On Aug 20, 2012, at 16:50, Don Cox <doncox@enterprise.net
<mailto:doncox@enterprise.net>> wrote:

> On 19/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>
> > Don Cox wrote on 19.08.2012 about <[PageStreamSupport] Re:
> > www.pagestream.org <http://www.pagestream.org> -> looking not so
> good?> the following:
> >
> >> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
> >>>> low
> >>>> tech as possible.
> >>>>
> >>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
> >>>
> >>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5, css
> >>> and javascript almost everything is possible.
> >>
> >> Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
> >> their browsers.
> >
> > why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
> > again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do with
> > the technique used imho.
> >
> Yes, but if a simpler technique was used there would be less chance of
> bugs.
>
> And why do you want to turn away customers who do not have a
> "half-modern" browser? Even if this is only one per cent of potential
> customers, you are knocking 1% off your sales.
>
> There are sites which are entirely suitable for advanced web techniques,
> but a site whose purpose is to sell products should be very low tech.
>
> >>> just keep away from
> >>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
> >>>
> >> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
> >
> > where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
> >
> Nowhere fortunately. I believe Danish banks still use it.
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> doncox@enterprise.net <mailto:doncox%40enterprise.net>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 20-08-2012 23:50, Don Cox wrote:
>>>> just keep away from
>>>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
>>>>
>>> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
>> where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
>>
> Nowhere fortunately. I believe Danish banks still use it.
>
> Regards
*Completely off-topic, I know.*

But you are right. Danish banks use it and soon every official and
semi-official site (as well as many pirvate sites) in Denmark will use
it due to a mandatory national log-in system, which is based on java.

It really makes you wonder.
*
And then on-topic again (sort'o):*

Is there anything in the works for PageStream? Bugfixes (we could use a
few of those)? Minor updates? Anything?
It has been awfully quiet (at least if you are just skimming the mailing
lists).
How is Deron?

Greetings,

P. Marquard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 20/08/2012, Tim Doty wrote:

> Hi. A common theme among folks not in the business of business is a
> concern with the loss of a small percentage of sales. The reality is a
> bit different.
>
> For example, if catering to a niche market increases sales by $10,000
> a year but increases costs by $30,000 it makes no sense to do.
>
Using lower tech on the web site would decrease costs, not increase
them. All that Javascript coding and debugging takes time, and usually
has to be contracted out.

> Another example is when you trade. Perhaps a marketing methodology
> brings in $100,000 in sales a year but loses $10,000 sales a year
> because it annoys some users (goes against their belief structure
> sufficiently to cause the indicated reduction). Guess what, the users
> who represent the $10,000 loss are ignored in favor of the $100,000
> gain.
>
> Another case that is perhaps closer to the matter at hand has to do
> with staffing and maintenance. Say it costs $50,000 per year to
> contract out the website, but you only generate $5,000 in sales each
> year from it. Does it really make sense to pay he maintenance fee?
>
No it doesn't. A site that costs as much as $50,000 is vastly
over-elaborate.

> The numbers are all made up and they might not represent direct costs.
> For example, instead I contract cost it might be in "HR" costs -- the
> opportunity cost of an employee doing one job instead of another. But
> when you pin it down to dollars and cents it amounts to the same
> thing.
>
> So while it is a shame the site is broken to the extent that it is
> this is also nothing new and it would appear that the cost analysis
> has not shown a clear advantage to fixing it. Bringing it up is great
> and all, but there is no benefit in arguing over the matter.
>
> And if your browser doesn't support semi modern JavaScript and CSS --
> only the most minute niche dedicated to those who refuse to use more
> recent standards capable browsers is going to care.
>
> And increasingly that even includes IE6, thank heaven...
>
> Tim Doty
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 16:50, Don Cox <doncox@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
>> On 19/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>>
>>> Don Cox wrote on 19.08.2012 about <[PageStreamSupport] Re:
>>> www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?> the following:
>>>
>>>> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
>>>>> low
>>>>> tech as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
>>>>
>>>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5,
>>>> css and javascript almost everything is possible.
>>>
>>> Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
>>> their browsers.
>>
>> why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
>> again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do
>> with the technique used imho.
>>
>> Yes, but if a simpler technique was used there would be less chance
>> of bugs.
>>
>> And why do you want to turn away customers who do not have a
>> "half-modern" browser? Even if this is only one per cent of potential
>> customers, you are knocking 1% off your sales.
>>
>> There are sites which are entirely suitable for advanced web
>> techniques, but a site whose purpose is to sell products should be
>> very low tech.
>>
>>>>> just keep away from
>>>>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
>>>>>
>>>> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
>>>
>>> where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
>>>
>> Nowhere fortunately. I believe Danish banks still use it.
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Don Cox
>> doncox@enterprise.net
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@enterprise.net

On 08/21/2012 05:10 AM, Don Cox wrote:
> On 20/08/2012, Tim Doty wrote:
>
> > Hi. A common theme among folks not in the business of business is a
> > concern with the loss of a small percentage of sales. The reality is a
> > bit different.
> >
> > For example, if catering to a niche market increases sales by $10,000
> > a year but increases costs by $30,000 it makes no sense to do.
> >
> Using lower tech on the web site would decrease costs, not increase
> them. All that Javascript coding and debugging takes time, and usually
> has to be contracted out.

No offense, but spoken by someone who is not around web development or
commercial site production. You think "just html" is lower tech and less
debugging -- but javacript can be used to reduce problems on a "just
html" site due to browser differences.

And you are completely ignoring the points. If spending $500 to have
one-time static site done by a hobbyist loses you $100,000 in sales each
year (to competitors that have updated, dynamic sites) -- is that really
a smart move vs spending $5,000 per year?

> > Another example is when you trade. Perhaps a marketing methodology
> > brings in $100,000 in sales a year but loses $10,000 sales a year
> > because it annoys some users (goes against their belief structure
> > sufficiently to cause the indicated reduction). Guess what, the users
> > who represent the $10,000 loss are ignored in favor of the $100,000
> > gain.
> >
> > Another case that is perhaps closer to the matter at hand has to do
> > with staffing and maintenance. Say it costs $50,000 per year to
> > contract out the website, but you only generate $5,000 in sales each
> > year from it. Does it really make sense to pay he maintenance fee?
> >
> No it doesn't. A site that costs as much as $50,000 is vastly
> over-elaborate.

What part of the "numbers all made up" did you miss? But major sites
will cost more than that, actually. Or did you think web developers time
was free? I can't speak to elsewhere, but we pay our developers and are
notorious for paying under market. Depending on the position, but
$50,000 is probably about two entry level here. And, in the group where
I work, we don't do the main web site. I don't know the work division
for those that do, but they have multiple employees.

Again, no offense, but you have a rather hobbyist view of web
development and commercial sites. Which is fine, just don't go thinking
the rules for a hobbyist apply to web developer.

Even though you aren't going to know how much site development or
maintenance cost just look at non-hobby sites and see how much
javascript (and even css) they have. Especially the javascript.
Especially the elaborate javascript. The obfuscated, hard to debug
javascript. The embedded in the site in multiple layers javascript.

If you browse with FireFox and NoScript so that you can see the first
layer of domains being asked to supply javascript, then enable *one*
reload, and see how many more are added (often at least one) you start
to get an idea of how embedded complicated and interwoven javascript is.
And not just on "fancy" specialty sites, but common and general use sites.

It almost sounds like you know this, dislike it, and wish for a return
to the "simpler" days when javascript wasn't prevalent. Of course, back
then commercial sites had a graphics art design (or designers) do the
site, slice the graphic up and there'd be precious little text on the
page, just lots of pieces with some of them being links to different
pages. When you move older than that, yes, you can find lots of "just
html" sites -- but then you are also going to have a precious hard time
finding *commercial* sites.

Like it or not, javascript heavy and graphics heavy are hallmarks of
commercial sites. Many also rely extensive flash, even to the point
where the entire *site* is done in flash. This is the world of
commercial web design. The pagestream site just has a little bit of
gussying up so that it doesn't look so 90's (which, however you may
feel, is a negative marketing that would give the message that
PageStream was for 15-20 year old computers and operating systems, not
for anything current) -- but it doesn't have an excessive amount of it
AFAICT.

And, I repeat, if your browser doesn't support semi modern JavaScript
and CSS -- only the most minute niche dedicated to those who refuse to
use more recent standards capable browsers is going to care.

>
> > The numbers are all made up and they might not represent direct costs.
> > For example, instead I contract cost it might be in "HR" costs -- the
> > opportunity cost of an employee doing one job instead of another. But
> > when you pin it down to dollars and cents it amounts to the same
> > thing.
> >
> > So while it is a shame the site is broken to the extent that it is
> > this is also nothing new and it would appear that the cost analysis
> > has not shown a clear advantage to fixing it. Bringing it up is great
> > and all, but there is no benefit in arguing over the matter.
> >
> > And if your browser doesn't support semi modern JavaScript and CSS --
> > only the most minute niche dedicated to those who refuse to use more
> > recent standards capable browsers is going to care.
> >
> > And increasingly that even includes IE6, thank heaven...
> >
> > Tim Doty
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2012, at 16:50, Don Cox <doncox@enterprise.net
> <mailto:doncox%40enterprise.net>> wrote:
> >
> >> On 19/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don Cox wrote on 19.08.2012 about <[PageStreamSupport] Re:
> >>> www.pagestream.org -> looking not so good?> the following:
> >>>
> >>>> On 18/08/2012, Michael Merkel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> If you want to sell a product, it is best to keep the web page as
> >>>>> low
> >>>>> tech as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every clever web trick you add loses customers.
> >>>>
> >>>> no need to add "tricks". with the current standards like html5,
> >>>> css and javascript almost everything is possible.
> >>>
> >>> Especially turning away customers because the buttons don't work in
> >>> their browsers.
> >>
> >> why? *every* half-modern browser should support css and javascript.
> >> again: the pagestream site is just buggy. this has nothing to do
> >> with the technique used imho.
> >>
> >> Yes, but if a simpler technique was used there would be less chance
> >> of bugs.
> >>
> >> And why do you want to turn away customers who do not have a
> >> "half-modern" browser? Even if this is only one per cent of potential
> >> customers, you are knocking 1% off your sales.
> >>
> >> There are sites which are entirely suitable for advanced web
> >> techniques, but a site whose purpose is to sell products should be
> >> very low tech.
> >>
> >>>>> just keep away from
> >>>>> flash of other stuff that needs (proprietary) plugins.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Obviously Flash and Java are unsuitable for a commercial site.
> >>>
> >>> where have you seen java on webpages lately?!
> >>>
> >> Nowhere fortunately. I believe Danish banks still use it.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> --
> >> Don Cox
> >> doncox@enterprise.net <mailto:doncox%40enterprise.net>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> doncox@enterprise.net <mailto:doncox%40enterprise.net>
>
>