Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting Oleg Goldshmidt, from the post of Wed, 12 Mar: > > > > 1. Should be cheaper to develop and maintain. > > > > > > Sadly, I think we have reached the conclusion it's not exactly correct > > > anymore. > > > > Why not? > > because the vast majority of web developpers are too used to ASP, dev > studio, frontpage, wizards and wysiwyg and other ra'ot kholot, tfu tfu > tfu. They are the cheap workforce. they may know how to read HTML but > they feel lost in it, and they would never dive into it. > > the ones who DO dive in there are too expensive to justify the budget I > guess.
Same argument over and over again. The above is only true if you do not put a price tag on the implications. As I mentioned in one of the previous postings, taking that into account correctly *may* still leave the argument valid, but I suspect that practically no one does any calculations of this kind before making ther IE-only-is-cheaper claim. No do they ask themselves whether they are rich enough to afford "the cheap workforce." Ultimately, the people needed to be convinced are decision-makers, not techies. Decision-makers can only be convinced by money arguments. If you decide that it is cheaper for Bank Leumi to offer an IE5.5SP1889-whatever-specific web site, *taking all the relevant factors into account*, then you'd better not even raise the issue at all with Bank Leumi. Coming back to Shachar's original request for ammunition, please give him economic arguments in favor of standard compliance. No other arguments are relevant in the context, IMHO. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
