[Ham-Mac] Reply from ARRL webmaster

[Chuck Counselman]

>Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:44:08 -0500
>From: "Bloom, Jon, KE3Z" <jbloom@arrl.org>
>To: "Chuck Counselman" <ccc>
>Cc: k1ki@arrl.org, k1twf@arrl.org, n3efn@arrl.org, n3llr@arrl.org,
>         w9gig@arrl.org, k9km@arrl.org, k0qb@arrl.org, n0jph@arrl.org,
>         k5ur@arrl.org, wd4q@arrl.org, wb8bgy@arrl.org, ki4la@arrl.org,
>         n2ff@arrl.org, w2ml@arrl.org, w0ej@arrl.org, k0bj@arrl.org,
>         w6cf@arrl.org, w6rgg@arrl.org, w4pwf@arrl.org, k4nk@arrl.org,
>         w0cp@arrl.org, ws7w@arrl.org, w4rh@arrl.org, w4ru@arrl.org,
>         w6xd@arrl.org, nz6t@arrl.org, n5ok@arrl.org, k5rav@arrl.org,
>         webmaster@arrl.org
>Subject: Re: ARRL web server
>
>Chuck,
>
>We covered this topic pretty thoroughly in our correspondence of 
>last November, I thought.
>
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:33:38 -0500
>"Chuck Counselman" <ccc@space.mit.edu> wrote:
>>  "iCab reports 187 warnings and errors on ARRL's main web page.
>
>Most validators report errors on most Web pages for several reasons, 
>one being that validators tend to look for adherence to a single 
>HTML DTD, but real-world Web pages have a mixture of current DTDs 
>and older ones for browser backward compatibility. You really need 
>to examine the specific errors to see whether they are valid. (And 
>yes, I've done that with other validators' reports on our Web pages.)
>
>>  It also
>>  displays a block of links the height or taller of the window along the
>>  left side before the main ARRL banners.  In other words one needs to
>>  page down once or twice before actually seeing the page intended."
>
>Since I haven't seen it I can't be sure, but it sounds as though 
>iCab's DHTML implementation is wanting. Or some browser setting is 
>mis-set.
>
>>  From the several comments that have been posted on the Ham-Mac list,
>>  it's beginning to seem to me that the problem with ARRL's web pp. has
>>  two parts:
>>
>>  (1) the HTML and Java code (inevitably) have errors; and
>
>There is no Java on the ARRL Web site. There is JavaSCRIPT, but 
>that's an entirely different animal. Also, the problem reports from 
>the mailing list are incorrect. (At least one of them was probably 
>occasioned by using Netscape's "View Page Source" feature to view 
>the source code. NS 4.x doesn't show the original source, it shows 
>the code after it has been partially interpreted by Netscape.)
>
>>  (2) the web pp. are tested with MSIE, which tolerates many such errors,
>>      but not with non-Microsoft browsers and Java engines.
>
>The pages have been tested with a variety of browsers on several 
>platforms, just as I told you in November. Java engines play no part 
>in the issue since no Java is used.
>
>>  Thus, we ARRL members who use non-Microsoft-monopoly software have
>>  trouble.
>
>Not if you (1) use the simple browser-setting workarounds I told you 
>about or, (2) use a non-MS browser that works properly, several of 
>which I mentioned in our previous correspondence -- including the 
>current version of Netscape.
>
>>  As I've been arguing all along, the ARRL web pp. need to be tested with
>>  non-Microsoft-monopoly software.
>
>And they are, as I told you previously. The Microsoft-is-evil debate 
>simply has no relevance to the issue at hand. The only question is 
>whether ARRL should devote an amount of development resources that 
>is unknown but certainly not insignificant to troubleshooting a 
>problem that occurs sporadically to a small number of users who are 
>using an obsolete and bug-filled browser when there are both 
>workarounds and alternatives readily available. My judgement was and 
>is that it's not a good use of our limited resources. That judgement 
>is confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of the few users who 
>have reported the problem have been satisified to use the 
>workarounds or alternatives when told about them.
>
>Finally, this is the only response I'm going to make to messages 
>that are CC'd to the entire Board. That tactic serves no useful 
>purpose. If you want to discuss this further, I'll be happy to do 
>so, and I'm sure Tom Frenaye and Mike Raisbeck will welcome being 
>CC'd. Tom is perfectly capable of sharing with the Board anything 
>that requires their attention.
>
>73, Jon
>--
>Jon Bloom, KE3Z
>jbloom@arrl.org
>Web/Software Development Manager