How many use old browsers (e.g. =< Netscape 4 or IE 6) as their ONLY sour...

Fred Cisin cisin at
Thu Jul 2 21:01:33 CDT 2015

In a message dated 7/2/2015 5:14:33 P.M. MT, billdegnan at writes:
> I have  been using Mosaic on my OpenVMS system, almost unusable, but fun.

In what way is it "unusable"?

> It's more  important in this day and age to keep up with the web publishing
> standards  than maintain backward compatibility.

Is FORM that much more important than CONTENT?
WHY "keep up with the web publishing standards"??!?
What does that mean?
Just because somebody comes up with an even flashier way to have dancing 
kangaroos and yodelling jellyfish present your message doesn't necessarily 
mean that anything previous is "UNACCEPTABLE".
In most cases, maintaining backwards compatability merely means telling 
the "web development" software and/or staff to NOT flip the "exclude 
everything non-current" switch.  'Course most "web development" software
from MICROS~1 prob'ly has default settings of "block access by any versions 
prior to this one".

> Google penalizes sites that are  not mobile friendly in their rankings.

Yes, it surely is far more important that a site be easy to use on a 
telephone than its content!  Format should follow readability guidelines 
for a first grade primer, with preferably no more than 6 lines of text on 
the screen at a time, with no more than 6 words of text per line.  Or, if 
that's too insulting, follow the "Haiku rule of formatting" and don't 
exceed 17 syllables.   (cf, "The Cognitive Style Of PowerPoint : Pitching 
Out Corrupts Within" by Edward R. Tufte)

30+ years ago, there were actually some serious studies analyzing 
correlations in writing styles with number of characters on the screen.
Would Herman Melville have benefitted from the use of a word processor 
with a small screen?

Does it really make sense that non-telephone software be prioritized by 
the ease of use of the website by a telephone?
Certain software thay I've written will not run on a telephone;
why should the websites providing information about it?

I get an amazing amount of spam, even from Network Solutions (remember 
what THEIR role in internet used to be?), about the "necessity" of being 
ranked first.  Much of which is presumably selling stuff to scam the 
Google ranking systems, such as by flooding the site with invisible 
high-value terms.

> If you can't be found, what's  the point?

Is the only possible point to putting a document on the web being to 
attract strangers to a site?  Is it ALL advertising?
Is there "no point" to having a document available on the web for access 
by people who have been notified about its existence in any form other 
than Google search?  Yeah, it is nice if people looking for your content 
can find it more easily, but what's with the over-emphasis on being found 
ahead of anybody else's content?

If somebody is looking for me, or any of my projects, they are easy to 
find.  Should I also rename myself "Aaaaaaa" just so I can be the first 
one in the phonebook?
My websites tend to be "best viewed with Lynx 2.0",
although I often use IE 8.

Grumpy Ol' Fred     		cisin at

More information about the cctech mailing list