The challenge for software designers is to offer flexible interfaces that can be configured to meet the needs of a full range of users. These include not only the stereotypical gui user, relatively unfamiliar with the operating system and application software, but also, to mention several other scenarios, the expert, or the user of a handheld device with a low-resolution screen and/or audio interface, or users with disabilities who may find it difficult, or impossible to operate a conventional keyboard or pointing device, etc. The solution to the problem is not to build a profile of, and design for, the so-called "average" user, but rather to consider the diversity of interface options that may be needed by potential users and to develop systems which enable an appropriate interface to be chosen according to individual requirements, with reasonable defaults that will satisfy the majority, but without thereby limiting the options available to the individual. This implies more than merely enabling different fonts and colour schemes to be selected, though such functionality is undoubtedly essential. Rather, what is needed is a separation of application logic from the user interface, such that a multiplicity of different interfaces can easily be provided--and this is where the notion of a "skin", contrary to the author's contention, becomes an advantage rather than a drawback.
XML is essentially a simplified version of SGML. One of the simplifications is that every element which is not empty must have an explicit end tag. In SGML one could use the - and o notation to indicate whether the start and end tags, respectively, are required or optional. Thus, for example: is the SGML definition of the paragraph element in HTML 4.0, with the O specifying that the end tag is optional. I don't think the move to XHTML 1.0 will have any significant effect on existing browsers, as it is entirely backward compatible with HTML 4.0.
Slashdot Mirror
The challenge for software designers is to offer flexible interfaces that can be configured to meet the needs of a full range of users. These include not only the stereotypical gui user, relatively unfamiliar with the operating system and application software, but also, to mention several other scenarios, the expert, or the user of a handheld device with a low-resolution screen and/or audio interface, or users with disabilities who may find it difficult, or impossible to operate a conventional keyboard or pointing device, etc. The solution to the problem is not to build a profile of, and design for, the so-called "average" user, but rather to consider the diversity of interface options that may be needed by potential users and to develop systems which enable an appropriate interface to be chosen according to individual requirements, with reasonable defaults that will satisfy the majority, but without thereby limiting the options available to the individual. This implies more than merely enabling different fonts and colour schemes to be selected, though such functionality is undoubtedly essential. Rather, what is needed is a separation of application logic from the user interface, such that a multiplicity of different interfaces can easily be provided--and this is where the notion of a "skin", contrary to the author's contention, becomes an advantage rather than a drawback.
XML is essentially a simplified version of SGML. One of the simplifications is that every element which is not empty must have an explicit end tag. In SGML one could use the - and o notation to indicate whether the start and end tags, respectively, are required or optional. Thus, for example: is the SGML definition of the paragraph element in HTML 4.0, with the O specifying that the end tag is optional. I don't think the move to XHTML 1.0 will have any significant effect on existing browsers, as it is entirely backward compatible with HTML 4.0.