Subject: The Joys of Bandwagonning (was: Links not underlined?) From: Arjun Ray <aray@nmds.com> Date: 1997/09/12 Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Message-ID: <3418d83e.3546655100@38.8.213.2> Organization: FUDGE Dispersal Systems References: <3414d5ca.5638543@news.wave.co.nz> <34156058.63DA15B6@net-web.com> <3415b311.3340470152@38.8.213.2> <3416DA86.7260164@net-web.com> <3416eb83.3420516783@38.8.213.2> <34170552.ABF8A667@net-web.com> In <34170552.ABF8A667@net-web.com>, "William H. Sansbury" <webdesign@net-web.com> writes: | The point to which you take such extreme offense was extra information, No, it wasn't, and that you haven't understood this probably explains why you think you've been attacked personally. Usenet is ultimately impersonal. For every William Sansbury willing to learn, there are hundreds of others who will *continue* to post bogus information. Stick around in ciwah long enough, and you'll see that the particular bogosities don't matter as much as their unifying theme. [ And that theme is not new. Try the Dejanews Query Filter form at <URL:http://www.dejanews.com/home_sf.shtml>. First, specify only the newsgroup: comp.infosystems.www.providers, which was obsoleted by ciwah in Spring 95. There will be 11905 articles. Then, try the search keyword 'stylesheets': there will be 19 hits. Follow some of the threads and you'll see that "hit a nerve" isn't really the quality of exasperation involved. The phenomenon at issue is memetic. ] | something which I thought would help the person asking the question. Here is the "extra information" that was offered: > These methods are part of the Cascading Style Sheets technology, > currently supported only by IE and Netscape Communicator (NS 4.0). I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to argue that it helps people to be "informed" that these two implementations are the only ones around (and it may help further to have the fact elided that their support is buggy and incomplete.) The persuasive force of the word "only" is what it's all about... For instance, there's the conventional wisdom that the Mosaic spawn are the be-all and end-all of the Web: surely it must be a noble and helpful public service to reinforce the CW? "Look no further, this is it. The latest. The greatest. The you-better-believe-it bestest." Then, there's the hoopla to the effect that stylesheets are "new". It should follow then, should it not, that only the latest versions of [insert CW favorites] could conceivably support stylesheets: How could it possibly be otherwise? The CW darlings are well behind the curve? Unthinkable! No no no. Much better to lend credence to a myth. Then again, there's the sheer romance of the Web and Internet. Hi-tech is "in", and a herd of avant-garde self-consciousnesses needs to be comfortable about stampeding over the bleeding edge. Marketers call this "branding". The general phenomenon consists of certain buzzwords acquiring almost totemic significance: they are to be touchstones of all things "new", "innovative", "good", "advanced", yada yada yada in that gushy vein. It should be natural, logical, and incontrovertible to attribute anything and everything praiseworthy to the totems: and as one "informs" others, so will they in turn "inform" yet others. Invoking totems should be the safest way not only to "belong" but also to invite others to "belong". Facts don't matter; they cause needless "controversy" and "hostility". The point isn't to know, it's to believe. And, of course, to spread the gospel. | And to the extent of ninety-five or more percent of the people who | use the web, my information was correct. Ah, a parting shot! If you're saying that [insert impressive percentage] of the "people who are supposed to matter" are stuck with some version of bloated trailing-edge crippleware, you're probably right. Or, if you're saying that they don't know any better, you're probably right again. But, if you're saying that they would rather not know any better, I'll have to thank you for underscoring my essential point so neatly:-) :ar -- NETSCAPISM /net-'sca-,pi-z*m/ n (1995): habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from the realization that the Internet was built by and for someone else. -- Erik Naggum