Re: Whoah Len, hold on there (Re: Kate Pages or...

[chrisw@wwa.com (Chris Williams)]

Len writes:

>As much fun as a flame war can be,
>this one will get out of hand, so,
>I want to clarify my own thoughts here.

   Well, I was going to let this drop, as I am busy doing actual
work (on Gaffaweb), but Len, even after getting the last word seems
unwilling to accept it.

>Vickie writes:

>>You've associated Stev0 and Chris with
>>Gaffaweb (why, I don't know, since you
>>have absolutely no idea who's actually
>>working on it) and made their opinions
>>Gaffaweb's opinions. 

>The association is an error and I have
>apologized for that.  It is doubly egregious 
>because I actually do have a list of 
>who is working on Gaffaweb.  It was posted 
>to me some time back.  I didn't look at it
>as I was writing in the AM after my gig,
>so I screwed up.  My assumption of an 
>association between you and Chris seems 
>a natural one but it has nothing to do 
>with Gaffaweb.  It was just to say that 
>there are alternatives to bashing one 
>of which is to ask for a change in 
>exchange for a link.

   Vickie and I agree on many things, and disagree on others,
but we are *not* the same person. Vickie learned almost everything
she knows about HTML on her own, asking me for additional information
and clarifications.

   Asking for changes in exchange for a link has *never* been considered.
Every Kate page that can be found will be listed. Personally I'm a
bit offended at the suggestion. That would be *completely* contrary
to the spirit of the web.

   Pages that are actually *part* of Gaffaweb, that is in the /gaffa
directory of it's home machine, conform to agreed on standards. This
was all hashed out early on, by a desire among the participants to
make this information available to everyone. I have been urging
everyone to follow standards to assure that the information is
widely available, but my opinion carries no more weight than anyone
elses'.

>>Continue on with your religious web war,
>>but kindly leave Gaffaweb *out of it*.

>Yes, I will, but this war was started 
>with the bashing of Burkhard's page when 
>I seconded the original poster's comment 
>that it was a nice page.  It is.  The same
>occurred when Jon's page was bashed in this
>forum.  I react forcefully against this, and 
>I always will.  It is bullying.

   Face it...you are defending the indefensible. I repeat,
making these pages accessible to all would take a *tiny*
amount of time, and would have great benefits.

   You are pretending that cutting the index information from
one page and pasting it into another is some sort of difficult
task. You know as well as I do that it wouldn't take more than
5 minutes even using ED.

>The rest of this is not a response to Vickie.
>The "you" is plural, not aimed at individuals 
>unless cited.

   I'll take "you", in this case as refering to me, ok?

>Now how would Gaffaweb get the same reaction 
>from me.  I'm not claiming you are doing
>any of this, because, I haven't seen the
>site yet.  This is conjecture:

>1.  Segregation of web pages for utility.
>That's not good netiquette.  All pages were created 
>by their authors for different purposes and 
>with different skills.  You don't know what 
>these are in all cases.  Classify but look 
>at the classification and ask yourself if it 
>is accurate or reflects only some feeling 
>of your self-importance with regards to the 
>subject matter, i.e, Kate Bush and her fans 
>or the future of HTML.

   Stev0 took the time to review every Kate page
he could find. Vickie took this and made it into a 
web page. He has grouped them into "must see" and
"if you have the time" pages. But if you bother to check
Vickie's pages, you'll find that it starts with an uncommented
list of links. Stev0's review pages are below.

   Things exist as they do because various people took
it upon themselves to do those things. No one had
reviewed all the Kate Bush web pages until Stev0, thus
his reviews appear on Vickie's page. Vickie has been 
working on Gaffaweb non-stop for the last three months,
and included Stev0's reviews, because they are a
very good information resource.

   Everything on Gaffaweb exists because someone is actually
doing the work. If I recall, you turned your nose up at
participating quite some time ago, possibly because it wasn't 
going to feature your beloved VRML. 

>Some pages serve multiple purposes.  There 
>are compromises as a result.  I use mine
>to honor Kate and entertain surfers, but 
>also to demonstrate to new authors in the 
>VRML community how to use our tools to achieve 
>certain tasks.  These are also related to 
>other professional work I do for my customers.

   Fine. You page *is* listed. 

>2.  Inclusion in Gaffaweb of a rating system 
>similar to those posted by Steve Berlin.  Stev0
>has his own tastes and he is welcome to them.
>He is also welcome to post them.  I will argue
>with some of them, and agree with others.
>I don't believe our opinions should be reflected in 
>sites dedicated to Kate Bush or the faq, but 
>the authors of those sites must decide that.

   See above. 

   I agree with Stev0 sometimes, disagree others. He chose
to do this, Vickie chose to include it (which she did *long*
before her page was included) and it serves as a very useful
guide to the pages.

   Be honest. Do you think anyone not using a Reality Engine
equipped SGI via a T-1 is going to use a VRML guide to Kate
as their primary resource?

>3.  Actively working to stop the development 
>of the Internet tools and content without adequate 
>background in these issues.  This is an area where 
>some of you are not qualified to judge, and in fact,
>are doing harm to your own cause.  

   Gosh, what a breeze from those creditials! 

   I guess I'll have to keep repeating this until you understand
it.

   *NO ONE*, especially ME is doing ANYTHING to "stop the
development" of anything. Again, there is *nothing* about
making a page HTML compliant and Lynx-friendly that detracts
from also "pushing the envelope".

   The envelope, BTW, is not VRML or Frames. It is StyleSheets, 
a wonderful example of how to push the design and usability of
the web forward with complete backwards compatibility. 

>An example, Chris says he is working for open information 
>and he cites conformance to HTML and states that
>VRML is a solution looking for a problem:

   After seeing how poorly VRML performed on the SGI Indy's
at Siggraph, and how poorly it performs on the Intergraph
I use every day, I came to that conclusion.

   If it's any help, I feel exactly the same way about
stereoscopic (3D) visions systems.

>b.  VRML was created in part to provide an intuitive 
>navigation interface and to enable synthesis of 
>complex information into a digestible visualization.
>Those of us who are working very hard to openly 
>demonstrate it and teach it believe it to be 
>a powerful mode for this.  IOW, it is designed 
>to enhance access to information.  That I use it 
>for Kate Bush visualization reflects only my 
>own tastes, volitions and skills.

   VRML was invented because of graphics cards with
high speed 3D polygon rendering. The rationalization
for it was invented afterwards to justify budgets. 

  Perhaps at this year's Siggraph I'll finally see a 
VRML interface that will impress me.

>Chris's positions place him squarely against those
>who are trying to achieve what he states is his
>goal. 

   As far as I can tell, my goals and the W3C's goals
are in perfect harmony. I want to ensure that all information
is available. 

   To paraphrase: "Information wants to be freely available".

> Furthermore, all information is not open,
>never has been and will never be.  Access to information 
>is not guaranteed and it is preposterous to 
>think it will be.  It can be made more widely 
>available and that is a worthy goal.  But 
>information is a commodity and those who wish to 
>have it will pay a price.  DARPA paid for Mosaic 
>and the Internet.

   This is ridiculous. Not once, in all this verbige
have you even attempted to show how "my goals" restrain
the development of the web. Not once.

   How does urging people to add *useful* text to the
<NOFRAMES> section of their web page detract from the
development of the web?

   How does adding ALT= attributes to the <IMG> element
detract from the development of the web?

   How does using nested tables to assure graceful degradation
on non-table browsers detract from the development of the web?

   *Nothing* I have urged is *anything* other than "good HTML".

   You, on the other hand find yourself in the position of defending
*bad* HTML, and poor interface design. My goal harms no one, and
attempts to ensure that the web is available for everyone.

   Am I to assume that "paying the price" for the imformation
means buying eyes for the blind? Because that's the way I read
what you said. 

   FACT: There are no frames-capable speaking browsers for use
by the blind.

   FACT: There are no frames-capable Lynx-style browsers.

   "Pay the price"?!? What a contemptible snob you are. 

   I must repeat: Nothing I urge detracts from the design of the
page ONE IOTA. If you continue to ignore that fact, I must assume
that your understanding of HTML is, in spite of all your claims,
very weak.

>4.  Bashing a newbie for honest effort because
>your own tastes or resources aren't satisfied.

   It was bad HTML. It was not visible on many browers. If
I were to assign a rating systems to page design, no "Frames
Only" page could possible score higher than a 50 out of 100.
Why? Simply because, even by the most generous estimates, 
not more than 50% of the viewers could even *read* the pages.

>Yes, we are subject to relentless criticism for
>this.  It is ignored not as an act 
>of snobbery, but to continue to develop our crafts 
>which cannot be anchored to the wishes of the 
>minority of WWW users just as Kate does not
>anchor her music to the majority of the tastes 
>of the listening public, or even her fans.

   Kate has never released any music that cannot be heard
by everyone with hearing, or a video that cannot be seen
by everyone with sight. If she had released "The Line, The
Cross and The Curve" in 3D only, you might have some small
justification for your obsessive attempts to drag her into your
diminshingly rational arguments.

-- 
Chris Williams of
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
chrisw@miso.wwa.com (his)
vickie@miso.wwa.com (hers)