|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 11/25/05 21:33
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Travis Newbury wrote:
> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> said:
>
> > When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house,
> > surely you expect them to comply with the applicable building
> > codes - even those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it
> > be different for building web sites?
>
> Yea, but when I want someone to make me dinner, I want the chef to
> add his own personal touches.
Of course. The architect too, if I've got the dosh to commission it.
> The recipe is only a guide...
Yeah. If the dish comes with a level of food poisoning that has no
harmful effects on "most" of the diners, is that adequate? Surely,
the dish should not only be appetizing, but also conform to applicable
health and hygiene standards?
> Proving analogies are meaningless to prove a point...
To some extent you're right, and a collapsing web site will not itself
prove fatal, in the way that a dangerous house, or infected dinner
could do. But I don't see that *your* particular line of argument had
really discredited the original analogy. Sure, the web site should be
attractive, but that doesn't in itself mean throwing the interworking
specifications out.
Considering now the wide differences even between different versions
of MSIE (thanks partly to the various security rollouts), it's far
from good enough to say "look, the site works with IE, *most* users
are surfing with IE, end of job". Not that I ever would have done,
but *some* designers evidently do take that view.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|