Re: Re: software-keyholes Digest, Vol 3, Issue 9

At 06:08 AM 8/12/2003, George Arvell wrote:
>One of the central arguments in the chapter is about control - who gets to 
>control the web page, the author or the viewer?
>
>I think it is a bogus argument.  One, because I don't think it really gets 
>at the heart of the matter and two, because the audience is supposed to be 
>the authors, not the viewers.  If I were an author, and you were making an 
>argument that I should do something because the viewer should really have 
>control, I'd be instantly resistant to your cause.

That's your right, of course, but if somebody told me I was trying to
control something I shouldn't control and they presented a reasonable
argument as to why that is the case, I'd certainly consider the
argument.  What part of my reasoning that users should control the use
of their screen space do you not find convincing?

>I think the argument really should be that well designed software is built 
>to respond to the resources available to it.  And, coincidentally, that 
>argument *is* made in the chapter.  But trying to recast it as a power 
>struggle between user and author distorts the essential issue and alienates 
>the essential audience.

The chapter contains several arguments, only two of which you mention.
There's only one conclusion, but there are several arguments that
support that conclusion.

>If you wish to make a more fine grained argument about the authorial 
>responsibility to develop software that will respond flexibly to user 
>preferences - that browser resources are like any other computational 
>resource - you would be better served by presenting it in a less arbitrarily 
>confrontational way.

What do you find confrontational about the current presentation?  I'm
not trying to be confrontational, I'm trying to be reasoned.

Scott