It seems many of us remember computers with vacuum tubes. (This is an observation, and DEFINITELY not a slam.)
For me, being aware of the issue, and designing accordingly, is about as far as I can go. Do I care if I'm compatible or not. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Lately, for me, my largest compatibility question is Google. If the search engines can find my pages, and index them the way I'd like them indexed, I'm golden. If not, I've lost a major resource. You see, one of my major purposes is finding people who can help ME. If someone's searching for my pa, and they find me in their search, we have a connection I couldn't have made myself. So... my choices are governed by what I know of the search engines. What can *I* do so that others can easily find ME. Generally speaking, that means compatibility rather than features. Another thing I've considered, is multiple *presentations* of my data. I have one database; it's in Legacy on my (other) desktop pc. But I have many options for how I present the data for the world to see - and hopefully to find me. I can export the file (after removing the living), put it up on the server several times. Once for phpgedview, which is somewhat interactive; I can also build static pages with Legacy. Different presentations get indexed differently by the search engines; who knows which one will bring in the right long-lost relative? Philosophically, separate the database, from the presentation. From one database I can produce a fancy website for my close relatives; and I can produce a highly-compatible search-engine friendly website for the lost wishing to be found. Does that sound like extra work and hassle? It depends on what your objectives are. My current purpose is in trying to help others find ME. By the by, it does seem a large proportion of us are over-40. Thus we have a vast body of lifetime experience between us, though not necessarily with genealogy. In just the past week, it does seem like we've solved a number of questions simply by applying common sense. I should think that common sense (and common courtesy, which is also in abundant supply) is the best tool we have! Okay, so some of us are 29 and holding. But the principle still applies :) Ed On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 10:10, Gordon Small wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Sorry to disagree with you but I have a different perspective. I have been > in the computer business for over thirty years and while I agree it would be > nice to have everything generic, compatible, and usable by anything that > wants to plug in to it, access it, or otherwise use it, the reality is that > some functionality is usually lost. I for one want that extra functionality > when it comes to my web pages. I like dynamic web pages, clickable maps and > FrontPage extensions, etc. In fact I did my first clickable image map as a > result of this thread. If I was a business and trying to attract users to my > site then It would certainly make sense to make it generic so all browsers > displayed it the same way. > > M$oft IE is still the browser of choice. I don't know their market share but > most people I know use it. I have tried using Mozilla and Netscape and > found it frustrating that they don't work with some sites. I know that the > reason is that those sites are not written in a "generic" way but using IE I > haven't had a problem viewing any sites. I guess my opinion would be for the > other browsers to be more compatible. I haven't tried Firefox yet. Yeah, I > know, standards, standards, standards but the standards issue isn't getting > any easier to resolve. > > I have a brother that has been an Apple computer user since they came out > and he has been fighting the compatibility issue for, well forever, since > the PC came out. He does have a Microsoft Windows emulator for his Apple > though it doesn't really make it totally compatible either. He just last > year relented and bought a laptop PC. > > When I started loading web pages and letting the family know about them, I > did mention that if they were using a browser other than IE that the pages > may not display properly. > > Also, I am not an expert on HTML and trying to keep my pages compatible with > all browsers just seemed like it was going to take more time trouble than I > wanted to invest. > > Just my thoughts. > > Gordon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J & K Sindberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] imagemap html scripting error > > > LUGers, > > I am not an expect in HTML, but used to write COBAL, Fortran, > etc. years ago. Question: Have you validated your > code at http://validator.w3.org/ ? > Also is your code generic and usable by all web browsers? > With the big push to get out of Bill Gates' pockets, > other web browsers have gained popularity. But the > browser wars still persist. So please make your > code as generic as possible. Some of these automated > code witting programs (Frontpage, Dreamweaver,...) > add a lot of trash to their code which puts additional > burden on servers. > > Jim, Legacy user since 1998 > "Nearly 32 men out of 100,000 will die of prostate > cancer; 27 women out of 100,000 die of breast cancer." > MARILYNN MARCHIONE Associated Press 2005 > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
