At 07:14 AM 2/2/99 -0800, Stephen C. Nill, J.D. wrote:
We reach charities of all sizes,
>shapes and budgets.  Yet, we've taken an exactly opposite approach to HTML,
>as I've said.

Hmmmm....makes me wonder about what charities they are, and whether they're
ones I want to donate to.  Yes, I'm serious.

>        I'm going to really alarm some of you with this:  Not only do we
>permit if
>not encourage HTML, but my organization regularly sends out web pages by
>using the Netscape send feature.  It allows us to provide the vast majority
>of subscribers -- who have free Netscape or Internet Explorer browsers --
>to receive surveys, job announcements, articles, and so on exactly as they
>were created for the web site.  We also send a text version at the same
>time, so the small minority of folks who can't see HTML will have a text
>version.

That is all well and good.  The first rule of marketing is to know your
customer, and if you know yours, fine.  But yours isn't the same as that of
a techie list where half the people are reading on a text based mailreader
on a u**x or l***x box of some sort.  Those people don't WANT to see html.
They want to see clean, minimalist code instead of fancy junk.  These are
the people who CHOOSE to edit in vi.  o-)

>        Not only that, but I also send out compressed video files with
>self-executing applications, so that folks with Win95/98/NT can click and
>play messages -- usually kept under one minute and 500kb in size.  I'm also
>getting ready to create a "radio" feature where we send self-executing
>sound files to the audience.

Well, again, if that is what your customers want, fine.  I know that I
don't want sound files popping up willy nilly in MY office.  It could be
very interesting if those things popped up during a meeting with a
customer, employee, etc.  Besides, I don't want my own tunes interrupted
the rest of the time.  o-)

>        I realize that by staying even with the technology curve, we will
leave
>some behind; but not most.  If those left behind want to catch up, they can
>go to Earthlink or (gasp) AOL and plunk down 20 bucks a month -- even an
>old Windows 286 running Win3.1 can handle this stuff.

Again, you're forgetting (which may be fine for your audience) those who
choose text based systems.  I may be able to receive fat files of video on
that 286 with 16 color monitor, but I seriously doubt I'd want to watch it
on it.

 The trends in connectivity and hardware -- even hand-me-downs --
>are toward ever increasing power and bandwidth.  If we keep dumbing down
>things, don't we take away the incentive for folks to upgrade?

Again, as I'm sure you know, the trend towards increasing power and
bandwidth has its detractors.  I'm not one of them, but they're legion.
And, fancy-ass email messages is NOT what would convince anyone to upgrade.
 What would?  Almost anything else you can think of you can do on a
computer....

cheers

dan, who will not rise to the bait again


--
Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, ID 83716-7115 USA 208-383-0165
[log in to unmask]   http://www.84.com/  http://www.idaholibraries.org/
http://library.boisestate.edu/   http://cyclops.boisestate.edu/
http://www.lili.org/  http://www.postcard.org/ Sent me a postcard of a
library yet?