[thelist] targeting effectively

[.jeff]

erik,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Erik Mattheis
>
> Later on, you note that it's impossible to make a
> "degrading" version for some things ... that's what I
> was referring to, and I would modify the "impossible"
> to "impossible or not worth the effort or cost". If web
> browsers still didn't support images, the vast majority
> of companies still wouldn't have websites ... yet I
> can't think of a website that offers ASCII art
> renderings of their products for visitors using Lynx.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

they don't need to.  lynx users can select the image and download it to view.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > in cases where it actually costs more to make it
> > degrade, if you explain the ramifications of it not
> > degrading to the client, many (most?) will make it
> > within the budget for it to degrade if the project is
> > important to them.
>
> My experience has been the opposite. A smaller budget
> is more important than reaching that extra 5-10%.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm not saying the budget talks don't start out that way.  but, when presented with information about how the extra 5-10% is going to affect their bottom line, they usually come around.  you see, the client is smart enough to recognize that the hit to get that last 5-10% is a one time thing while the loss of that 5-10% is ongoing for the life of their current site.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i've already got dibs on buying the first round since
> > you've been such a good sport.
>
> An Anchor Steam and shot of Maker's Mark - straight up!
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

noted.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/