Re: LYNX-DEV error recovery for form parsing

[Filip M Gieszczykiewicz]

You (David Hardy) wrote:
> > Arguments regarding limited hardware, speed, handicaps, etc. fall of 'deaf
> > ears' so to speak.
> 
> To a degree, Lynx shoots itself in the foot as far as web server usage is
> concerned. Graphical browsers such as NetScape make multiple hits on a web
> server to get the text and the graphics (plus all the other fancy bits added 
> in
> by web page authors who have no notion of the time it takes to download all
> this stuff), whereas Lynx makes far fewer hits, not needing all that fancy
> stuff. This makes some folk *think* that Lynx is used only by a small
> proportion of users.

Greetings. Gawd, I wish EVERYONE used lynx... that way my webadmin
wouldn't be asking for more $$$ when I start getting lots of hits...
BTW, from my calcs, my pages get about 40% non-image-loading surfers.
Don't have access to what would ID them (I get a log analysis via
e-mail) but that's pretty high... of course, we're "text only" to
the max...

Speaking of which, I get e-mail (now and then) that I can improve my
hits by putting *SOME* more graphics (doesn't matter if they're
applicable... as long as it's _more_) because otherwise we'll
be shunned by the new, "sophisticated" surfer with the latest in
hardware and software... really? Then how come my text-only
pages get 150K/month and increase 5K/month? Duh. And that's WITH
new mirrors... I think there's a LOT of BS and misinformation
flying around.

I have about a 65% "positive" response to the:
"Suggestions for Lynx-Friendly Adaptations to HTML Documents"
document I "feedback" to offending sites. Let's not be so bleak,
either.

Take care.
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;