Re: software-keyholes Digest, Vol 3, Issue 15

>>ii) A viewer has and should have control over the resources released to 
>>the
>>web page (although in practice, this control is operating system and 
>>browser
>>limited).
>
>This sounds rather similar to my argument that viewers should control "the
>details of the viewing experience."  Which leads me to wonder what it is
>that I'm arguing that you don't agree with.

Here are examples what I find objectionable in your argument:

--------------------------------------------------
The second cause of irritation is more fundamental, and the issue it raises 
cuts to the core of the relationship between the people who create web pages 
(page authors) and those who visit them (page visitors). The issue is 
control.
....
Fixed-Width Web Page Keyholes are both more serious and more irritating, 
because they represent an incursion by authors into the viewer’s domain.
....
“I want to seize control of the details of how you are allowed to view this 
page."
--------------------------------------------------

Looking at the logic of the argument - I am just not convinced that control 
is the fundamental issue.  I think responding gracefully to different 
environments is the fundamental issue.  It is a great stretch to argue that 
a better interface is an argument about control rather than convenience.  
Fundamentally, the web page display is a user interface, and when people 
make arguments about user interfaces in other domains, it is rarely made in 
the form of a power struggle; it is generally made in the form of Ease of 
Use and User Convenience.

Looking at the rhetoric of the argument - I don't think this is about 
"incursions" into sacred territory, or "seizing control" away from the 
viewer.  I think this is about HTML programmers who, perhaps, haven't 
thought that long or hard about what they are doing, or are looking for 
"shortcuts," and so err in their attempts to make their web page as friendly 
as possible.  Using the overheated rhetoric of a battle for the motherland 
is poor strategy - overheated rhetoric will get you cheers from the already 
converted, but a bunker mentality from those not yet.  And the point of your 
book (I hope!) is not to preach, but to teach.

(And really, the FWWPK is not "more serious" because of the incursion into 
the viewer's domain - after all, viewers can expand non-web software 
windows, too - but you don't argue that the fixed-width list-box is an 
attempted coup-d'etat by programmers because the viewer can't expand the 
width of the list window.  In fact, the FWWPK is probably much less serious 
than other keyhole problems.  So you waste 100 horizontal pixels or change 
your browser width.  That's so serious?)

It doesn't matter how many of the arguments you use are good ones - it only 
matters how many are bad, if what you are concerned about is the effect on 
the reader.

I read an interesting interview with a famous physicist that touched briefly 
on an encounter between Feynman and (I believe) Bohr.  [I've got it stashed 
away on a CD-R somewhere, and will try to recover it exactly, if you are 
interested.]  Feynman had some breakthrough and delivered it in a paper, and 
Bohr didn't get it, and Feynman walked away frustrated.  The interviewee 
explained that Feynman liked to couch his arguments in the most 
controversial and in-your-face way, being, at the time, a young pup.  
Feynman was right, and Bohr acknowledged it later, but both of them were 
made unhappy by the initial encounter because Feynman was trying to be 
provocative not convincing.




I've got a second issue about the structure of the whole.  You conclude and 
summarize it twice.  You might see if you can eliminate some of that 
redundancy - a good way would be to reverse the second summary (which 
follows the solution section but is not bulleted) - that is, instead of 
summarizing the problems again, summarize the good effects to be had by 
avoiding the problems.
For example, in the first summary, you note:

-------------------------
Offer a suboptimal viewing experience for page visitors whose configuration
differs from the one targeted by the page author.
-------------------------

In the second summary you repeat:

-------------------------
a less satisfying viewing experience for users whose browser windows
are not of the expected width;
-------------------------

The second version is already improved by the absence of "suboptimal," but 
since you have discussed solutions by this point, consider changing to 
something like:

"Web content that is not restricted by fixed width keyholes offers a more 
satisfying viewing experience for users who have set their browser windows 
to unexpected widths."

Besides not sounding like you are repeating yourself, your summary will 
include (at least implicitly) the second part of your chapter, reinforcing 
the value of the solutions you offer and providing positive feedback for 
doing things correctly.  The last of these makes authors think "Hmmm, I 
should try to do that" instead of "Mind your own business - I've got 
perfectly good reasons for making it a 320 pixel fixed width display!"

(Incidentally, the battle of wills shows up in the first summary, but not in 
the second, final summary, so perhaps you can live without that 
mis-characterization of the problem after all.)

            -Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige 
using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar