Conference gyro::internet_toolss

    Last year there was MCS, now there is a Digital Service Devision were
    MCS is part of (as with what was called earlier Netwerk services and
    OMS - don't know how it's today... )
    
    Last year MCS selected the whole MS seat of products as preferable. It
    started to role out PC's in the FEW (Future electronic Workplace)
    project. 
    MCS IS (or whatever information services with the MCS organisation is
    called today) still takes this preference and all tools and reporting
    is based on MS products. In fact when there are two simular products
    the MS are to prefer (standardisation). Most products MCS (only) has
    special agreements with MS about pricing of the products.
    
    In this view it's good to keep in mind that internet pages are based on
    MS IE and not on Netscape.  Reporting and all kind of webinterfaces are
    designed with keep in mind all MCS employees use MS products (those
    products are selected in the FEW platform rollout).
    
    Eric 
    MCS - IS Holland

    I don't care what MCS says, the real world doesn't like MSIE; the
    stats on my web sites (external) show more than 80% of visitors use
    Netscape.
    
    MCS should remember that they are providing a paid-for service, and
    start listening to their customers for once.
    
    Laurie.

    Don't mix up what we do with what we sell and offer to customers.
    Internal automation needs a standardization in order to have cost
    control. If customers like netscape and want to pay that price...
    Internal we have deals with Microsoft to have a beter costcontrol.
    
    eric

re Note 4405.26 by HLFS00::ERIC_S:

        Please note that my objection was not to the use of
        Microsoft's Internet Explorer, but to the use of ActiveX
        controls, which are inherently platform-limited.  I would
        object equally if Netscape plugins were required in order to
        use a particular application.

        Bob

>> The reason that it says that has to do with some sites looking at the
>> browser name to decide how to deal with it.
> 
>        FWIW, my site assumes everyone has TABLE's, unless your browser
>        user-agent is lynx.  I prefer this way than trying to keep
>        up with every browser that supports TABLEs.
> 
	Lynx supports tables.  I don't know about other things like frames
  since I'm no longer keeping track.  I have too many other things to worry
  about.

>        As I mentioned in the HTML notesfile, I really wished that when
>        browser vendors started adding extensions, that they would put
>        some header info in the request to let us servers know what
>        they support (and is enabled for features the user can disable).
> 
	You will start to see some of these things show up as the support of
  HTTP 1.1 gets added.  You already see some of this in MSIE.

>        I do notice some PC browsers send some useful info, like the size
>        of their colormap, and the size of the user area of the browser
>        window.  But for me I'd rather know if the client supports TABLE's,
>        FRAME's, etc.


		Danny

>    In this view it's good to keep in mind that internet pages are based on
>    MS IE and not on Netscape.  Reporting and all kind of webinterfaces are
>    designed with keep in mind all MCS employees use MS products (those
>    products are selected in the FEW platform rollout).

	I assume by that you mean MCS internet pages.  Most pages out there
  are designed around Netscape, not Microsoft even within Digital.

		Danny

    Most of the lynx table support is very primitive.  There is no table
    alignment.  Columns don't line up.
    
    - Vikas

>    Most of the lynx table support is very primitive.  There is no table
>    alignment.  Columns don't line up.
>    
>    - Vikas

	Which version.  I have not built 2.6 so I don't know if everything
  is there now.  I certainly have not been following it.

		Danny

>> Most of the lynx table support is very primitive.  There is no table
>> alignment.  Columns don't line up.
> 	Which version.  I have not built 2.6 so I don't know if everything
>   is there now.  I certainly have not been following it.

	How do I tell which version of lynx I have?  I tried "H" for help
	but the imagine appears to have hardcoded in it to get the help
	page from sdk-whatever.ljo.dec.com, which of course is gone :-(

	The version I have most definitly does not support tables, never
	mind alignment problems.  The date on my image is:

-rwxr-xr-x   1 michaud  users    1108170 Nov 26  1995 /usr/local/bin.alpha/lynx

	Guess I should upgrade :-)

> How do I tell which version of lynx I have?

	dah, I just visited my own site to find out and the answer is:

User-Agent:  Lynx/2.3-FM (May 10, 1995, 12:35)  libwww/2.14

	This version does not appear to support TABLE's.

> User-Agent:  Lynx/2.3-FM (May 10, 1995, 12:35)  libwww/2.14

	2.3-FM is real old.  2.6 is out.  You can always get the information
  from the command line:

lynx -version

	It's also now available (at my suggestion) if you look at the URL
  history buffer.

		Danny

    Is there a version of lynx for any PC platforms?  I know it sounds
    silly, but it would simplify testing.
    

>    Is there a version of lynx for any PC platforms?  I know it sounds
>    silly, but it would simplify testing.

	You mean DOS.  There was, but since Garrett went to Netscape after
  Lou (the original Lynx developer), it hasn't been updated.

		Danny

    Lynx 2.5 and 2.6 both try to do decent job on tables but the columnar
    alignment is lost.  Depending upon the table it might still be
    marginally usefull.
    
    There is DOS Lynx but it needs its own packet drivers and its own
    TCP/IP stack :-(
    
    - Vikas

    
    It has been a long time since a note topic has left me speechless. 
    But this one has.  Think about it.  Explorer is only available on the 
    Windows platform.  Why has the web been successful? Non-OS specific
    context, html protocol.  Do you want to write for the Windows platform 
    only?  If so, write a Windows application.  Do you want your context
    available to Windows users, Digital Unix users, OpenVMS users, Sun
    users, and many others?  Write using the html protocol.  Or plugins,
    Java or something Common...
    
    MCS...  That's funny.  MCS is responsible for porting Netscape to
    Digital's platform.  IE a MCS team is part of Digital's Netscape Porting 
    Engineering.
    
    I guess in closing, my vote, "LET THE USER PICK THE BROWSER!!"
    Web page developers could pick the minimum versions like
    "best viewed with Netscape 3.X or Explorer 3.X, Lynx 2.X"
    
    Powell Hazzard
    
    Digital's Customer Support Center(MCS), My full time East Coast Job
    Digital's Netscape Engineer, My full time West Coast Job.
    Java Engineer, Next full time job, maybe Kansas.
    

re Note 4405.38 by PEACHS::HAZZARD:

>     users, and many others?  Write using the html protocol.  Or plugins,
>     Java or something Common...
  
        Warning -- the availability of plugins can be very
        platform-specific (and browser-specific).

        Bob

> Non-OS specific context, html protocol.....
> Write using the html protocol.

	HTML is not a protocol, it's a [document] mark-up language
	(hence the name "Hyper-Text Markup Language").  HTTP is a
	protocol (hence the name "Hypter-Text Transfer Protocol").

RE: .38

	Not to defend Microsoft, but really, check your facts.
	
	Internet Explorer is available for all the Windows platforms,
	including Windows CE. It's ALSO available for the Mac and
	some Unix platforms. (or will be available soon for Unix)

	Code your HTML to the defacto standards. Netscape 2.0.

	As for the argument about ActiveX, well, it's here so
	deal with it. The Web is not going to stay with straight
	HTML anymore.
	
							mike

re Note 4405.41 by AXEL::FOLEY:

> 	As for the argument about ActiveX, well, it's here so
> 	deal with it. The Web is not going to stay with straight
> 	HTML anymore.
  
        I wonder what you mean by "deal with it".  By "deal with it"
        do you mean "web developers must use it"?  By "deal with it"
        do you mean abandoning the use of workstations, such as
        Digital UNIX and OpenVMS, that do support Netscape browsers
        but probably never will support ActiveX?

        There is another alternative to straight HTML, and that is
        Java applets built with the widely-supported classes. 
        Granted, Microsoft is trying to fragment that option, too,
        but it is a better alternative than going with a route that
        is almost certainly to remain platform-limited.

        Bob

	The whole point of this discussion is to make sure that you support
  as many people as possible who need to use your application.  Everything
  else is a waste of time.  If you ignore what people are really using today
  your application will be a failure.  The IBG Software Distribution Server
  is a success only because I wrote it to conform to the lowest available
  standards:  HTML 2.0 and HTTP 1.0.  I added a few extras to make it easier
  for people who use browsers that support the Content-Disposition HTTP header,
  but it does not negatively affect people using browsers that don't support
  it.  With over 100,000 downloads from the server, I consider that a success.
  I have toyed with the idea of using tables, but I haven't done it, just because
  of the question of the browsers in use today.

		Danny

The reason that MS Windows is the domonant desktop O/S is that it has been shipped
"free" with every PC for years (please note the popularity of OS/2, a truly
superior product that IBM wouldn't even ship free with IBM PC's...anyway, I 
digress).

Right now, when you buy a new PC with WIN95 preloaded, MSIE is built in to the 
system...I don't believe that Netscape, lynx, etc. are.

Is there a similarity here?

When I examine my server logs, the trend is unmistakable (sp?), there is a one to
one correlation between gains by MSIE and losses by netscape...and all other 
browsers are noise level.

I understand, and fully appreciate the LCD arguments, and they are totally valid
for making documentation available for wide audiences. But the Web is fast 
leaving that space, and is becoming the "architecture" of choice for remote
client server computing.  In that light, the question of which browser to use
has two answers:

If you want to use the "current" most popular browser, use netscape.

If you want to see the dominant browser for future, MSIE is the way to go.

OK folks, let me have it.

8^)

gc

That's dominant

gc

    .44 and others.
    
    Why in the world must there be a "dominant" browser?  It's not like
    a OS where you're sort of locked into one (or two) choices.  Anyone
    with a compiler and a few good ideas can build a better browser.  
    Using the argument that because it's shipped with Win95, it's destined
    to be the industry leader is weak at best.  If that's the case, we'd
    all be using notepad to write our novels and Paint to create our 
    masterpieces.  
    
    IE is fine.  I still use Netscape because it "feels" better to me.  It
    doesn't matter to me what's shipped with my computer since the recycle
    bin deletes IE just as easily as anything else. ;-)  It's been my
    experience in the past that the software that is bundled with my
    computer (up to, and sometimes including, the OS) is better off in the
    trash bin.  If IE, or the-next-great-browser, becomes compelling
    enough, I'll use it.  I'm not wedded to one vendor or one technology
    and I think in the long run, the web won't be either.
    
    Oh and I think people would be much more likely to switch browsers on a
    whim, than they would OS's.  Browsers rarely require you to back up and
    restore, repartition or reformat your drives, etc.  They don't make you
    go on a wild goose chase for appropriate driver software to run with
    your exotic hardware.  (Though chasing plugins can be nearly as bad.
    ;-)  Changing a browser is not nearly as traumatic as changing an OS.
    And as for why most PC's are shipped with Windows as opposed to OS/2 or
    Linux, one must look to MS's questionable business practices for the 
    answer to that question. :-(
    
    Besides, MS already has the lion's share of the smaller computing
    market, must we cede this to them without a fight.  ;-)  
    
    Okay, I'll yield the soapbox now....
    
    #Gary
         

But bundling is the point...

the browser will become more tightly integrated with the desktop O/S and
the server will become more tightly integrated with the server O/S...that is
the nature of things (remember when printer drivers were a big deal?...now
drivers for every printer are bundled)

MSI won't achieve dominance Just because it's free, it is taking over
because it IS just as good as, if not better than anything else, AND it is free
the easiest thing to use.

It takes time to get rid of one browser and reload a new one, just as it takes
time to re-load an O/S...and time is what nobody has.

This topic covers a lot of ground...but you're right GAry, it's a good jumping 
off point.

Gary too.

> The reason that MS Windows is the domonant desktop O/S is that it has been
> shipped "free" with every PC for years ....

	The word you want here is not "free", but "bundled".  You do pay
	for MS Windows, you just don't realize it because of the way it's
	packaged.

> Right now, when you buy a new PC with WIN95 preloaded, MSIE is built in to the
> system...I don't believe that Netscape, lynx, etc. are.

	See the following topic ....

  4306  VAXCPU::michaud       5-DEC-1996     0  Netscape Navigator & FastTrack
						now bundled w/Digital UNIX

    
    This one comes up every time I give the Advanced WWW AD&I course.
    
    If your customer is a Microsoft only shop, and the standard Web
    Browser is IE, then by all means use, and rely on, ActiveX controls.
    
    Otherwise the answer is always the same - use JavaScript,
    or VBScript to perform immediate form field validation (for
    example), use Java Applets and ActiveX controls too, but don't create Web
    pages that *rely* on them.
    
    Now, how about the server side.  How do you answer this one at a
    customer presentation: Is it CGI (including variants, such as
    WinCGI and FastCGI), Server Side Scripting (ASP/Livewire), Web Server APIs
    (ISAPI/NSAPI), or Server-side Java (Netscape, Jeeves, or JigSaw) that
    should be used?  ;-)  Answers *not* expected!
    
    	/Damian
    
    	/Damian

Dontcha just love standards based open computing?

gc

	As I remember it, there are only 3 agreed-upon standards in computing:

  1) Width of mag-tape:
  2) size of punched cards
  3) I've forgotten this one.


	Danny

I thought there were two sizes of cards, 80 col hollerith, and that square
format Itty Bitty Machines came out with in the mid(?) 70's.

gc

    Explorer v3 (final) on the Mac does not do JavaScript, VBscript, Jscript, or
    Intel-flavored ActiveX controls (and I've not seen any non-Intel
    ActiveX binaries). So today it probably would not be wise to depend on 
    Explorer providing much on non-Intel platforms. 
    
       erik

RE: .53

	I have seen one Alpha ActiveX control. The HTML-Help control.
	The CAB file it comes in figures out which platform and
	loads the correct one.

							mike

Bundling is somewhat irrelevant - it's what people perceive that they
should be using that counts.

For some reason, people seem to think they have to send me memos in
Microsoft Word instead of WordMail (bundled with Exchange) or even WritePad
(bundled with Win95).  There is no sense to this - it's just what people
believe they should be using.

If you buy Quicken, you get Netscape.  If you buy the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, you get Netscape, if you walk around the store, you see
Netscape.

Microsoft will make some gains by bundling, but I'm sticking with Netscape
for basic web page design/editing -- at a fraction of the price of
FrontPage.

Beyond Win95 and Office, the assumption of Microsoft's dominance is based
upon myth.


[email protected] wrote in article
<[email protected]_tools>...
> Title: Which Browser should we be using?
> Reply Title: Yes it is a great topic
> 
> But bundling is the point...
> 
> the browser will become more tightly integrated with the desktop O/S and
> the server will become more tightly integrated with the server O/S...that
is
> the nature of things (remember when printer drivers were a big
deal?...now
> drivers for every printer are bundled)
> 
> MSI won't achieve dominance Just because it's free, it is taking over
> because it IS just as good as, if not better than anything else, AND it
is free
> the easiest thing to use.
> 
> It takes time to get rid of one browser and reload a new one, just as it
takes
> time to re-load an O/S...and time is what nobody has.
> 
> This topic covers a lot of ground...but you're right GAry, it's a good
jumping 
> off point.
> 
> Gary too.
> 
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

	WordMail IS Word. Exchange calls Word via OLE and Word starts
	up as your editor inplace in the Exchange Send window.

	The default editor for Exchange just creates RTF.

							mike

There is  no "right" answer to the question of what browser features to use.
I  am an engineer at heart and I want to be able to use my favourite browser
on  my old ULTRIX workstation and have things work.  I also hate pages which
attempt  to  control point size and page layout: I like my small letters and
odd  shaped browser window and I don't want some graphic designer telling me
how to lay out my desktop!

BUT the  web  page  designer  needs  to make tradeoffs.  They need the right
information  to make those tradeoffs but we can't tell them how to weigh the
conflicting goals.

If they  have  *lots*  of  money and they want to capture the whole possible
market with *really* neat pages that people will put value on (the soft porn
industry comes to mind) then they may choose to design the same page several
times:  once  for  old/simple browsers, once for java-enabled browsers, once
for  Active-X  browsers,  etc., etc.  and use every bell and whistle of each
browser to get the maximum perceived value in all cases.

At the  other extreme, if they aren't really designing a web page at all but
rather  using  the  web  as  a  new  way  to write and distribute their own,
internal  client-server  application  they  they  may  choose  Active-X,  VB
scripting  and  VB  Active-X  controls creation edition.  After all, if they
wrote the application the old way they would probably write it in VB so they
have no extra platform limitations.

For things  in  between,  the  tradeoffs  have  to be carefully weighed.  VB
programmers are easy to find in many organisations and PC's are the dominant
browsing  platform in most market segments so in many cases the designer may
choose  to  design  the  page  twice:  once  for  Active-X browsers and once
(without all the fancy features) for everyone else.

On the other hand, for a page which doesn't need anything fancy but which is
a  "utility"  that  many  people  need  (like  the  software download page),
standard HTML is the most appropriate.

We should  NOT  be  telling  our  customers how they can or cannot choose to
build  their applications.  We SHOULD be telling them the information needed
to  make  a  rational  business  decision:  e.g.   availability of different
features  in  their  target client base, impact of design decisions on those
people  who do not use the target browser, impact of design decisions on the
range of connectivity modes (LAN down to 9K6 modem users), etc.

There is  one  very  important conclusion to draw from these notes, however.
In  Digital,  there is *no* corporate mandated browser, even if there was it
would  no  doubt  be different in different geographies (don't just think in
terms of the US!), even if they sorted that out the mandate would be ignored
by  most  of  Engineering  and  parts  of Digital Services! So, for internal
applications  you  have  to  think *very* carefully before using proprietary
features.

Graham

	If I were designing a set of Web applications today, I'd design them
  so that they work for the following browsers:

	1)  Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later,
	2)  Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 and later, and, if possible,
	3)  Lynx 2.6 and later.

  I wouldn't bother with anything else.  I'd also avoid anything that involves
  large downloads (Java and Images come to mind here) and lots of small images.

		Danny

    
    From entries here and various searches around the net it's obvious that
    noone has said you must use browser X.
    
    There are two internal sites that state what browsers to use
    	www-mcs.ogo.dec.com/DSD/recs.htm
    	homepage.das.dec.com/tools.brow.html
    
    Both rather contaditory!
    
    We've decided that the best way forward is to check what browser is 
    being used and to feed the information accordingly, so if the browser
    can support ActiveX it gets a nice GUI otherwise the same information
    but in a non nice format!
    
    Kevin 

    >so if the browser can support ActiveX it gets a nice GUI otherwise the
    >same information but in a non nice format!
    
    non-ActiveX = "non nice"
    
    I'm sure this thinking is exactly what Microsoft is after.
    
    jeb
    

> so if the browser can support ActiveX it gets a nice GUI otherwise the
> same information but in a non nice format!

	What is "nice" and non-"nice" in this case?

	It sounds like a waste of engineering resources, if I read you
	right that this will be an internal only site, to design two
	flavors.  Save the company some money and stick with one flavor
	that works with both.

    
    Why bother with all this HTML stuff at all?
    
    The HTML document should consist of one OBJECT tag.
    
    The browser downloads a single ActiveX control which is a complete
    application.
    
    Indeed, forget about the Web server (apart from serving the one line
    HTML document) - the OLE^H^H^H ActiveX control can directly access a
    database, or talk to a remote application using RPC/DMQ/OBB.
    
    The quick and easy way of getting a WWW interface to an application up
    and running in no time at all.  What's that?  It's not really a WWW
    interface?  But its running inside Internet Explorer, so it must be!
    
    OK, so I'm not serious, but anyone want to take bets on this happening
    somewhere on the WWW soon?
    
    BTW, the same arguments could be used for Java applets, although they
    will work on more than one platform.
    
    	/Damian

>	It sounds like a waste of engineering resources, if I read you
>	right that this will be an internal only site, ....
    
    You're not thinking that would be something new, are you? :-)
    
    I was recently asked by someone to add a Digital logo and make other
    "branding-conformant" changes on a few hundred internal-only pages. It
    was a bit of light relief on an otherwise dull winter day. I didn't
    have Scott Adams' phone number at the time.

    -Tom
    

>    I was recently asked by someone to add a Digital logo and make other
>    "branding-conformant" changes on a few hundred internal-only pages. It
>    was a bit of light relief on an otherwise dull winter day. I didn't
>    have Scott Adams' phone number at the time.

I manage a set of pages that are externally visible and was asked on December
5th to add the 'digital' logo. I finished this December 6th in the
internal staging area -- I still haven't seen this on www.digital.com.

Andy V

I was asked to do this on pages that are only internally accessible.
I ignored it.

>    I was recently asked by someone to add a Digital logo and make other
>    "branding-conformant" changes on a few hundred internal-only pages. It
>    was a bit of light relief on an otherwise dull winter day. I didn't
>    have Scott Adams' phone number at the time.
> 
	I was asked to point to one of these internal "branding-conformant"
  pages and I refused since the pages violated Internet Web Standards.

		Danny

	That's at least 3 of you that were asked.  Who in the world
	is doing the asking?

	Next thing they'll be asking us to do it on our internal-only
	personal Web pages as well :-)

    Most likely the Internet Program Office. Brand identity is a reason to have 
    consistency between the appearance of our web pages and our other 
    identity venues. However if one doesn't believe that maintaining a 
    "Brand" identity matters (both inside and outside the company), 
    then one might not be concerned about web pages building on a consistent 
    identity. It would be interesting to see if some of the current masters of 
    brand identity (Nike, Coke, Marlboro, Intel, Nivea) bother with consistency
    of web page style.
    
       erik 

[Basically Intranet pages linked to the Internal Homepage are to be branded
according the Internet Program Office.]

DIGITAL logo:
http://art.pa.dec.com/info/pics/digital-logo.gif (internal)
http://www.digital.com/info/pics/digital-logo.gif (external) 

Burgundy rules:
http://art.pa.dec.com/info/pics/redbar.gif (internal)
http://www.digital.com/info/pics/redbar.gif (external) 

The complete standards guide is posted at:
http://webir.das.dec.com/cgi-bin/ir-display-object.pl?objectid=CS002U

[The above guide is quite amazing.  I really wanted to send it to 
Scott Adams.]

    Brand identity is a wonderful thing when it's doing what it's
    supposed to be doing - presenting our company in the best possible
    light to our potential customers. In fact, I personally support expanding
    that effort into actually marketing, writing gripping copy for, and
    advertising our products. I expect we'll see a READER'S CHOICE memo
    announcing that any day now.
    
    However, when something else is happening in the _name_ of "brand
    identity", like meddling in things that have nothing whatever to do with
    how we present ourselves to the public, or, as mentioned elsewhere,
    putting form above function in delaying or preventing our communication
    among ourselves or with the public, then it's a topic for Mr. Adams.
    
    -Tom

> [Basically Intranet pages linked to the Internal Homepage are to be branded
> according the Internet Program Office.]

	Right.

>    Most likely the Internet Program Office. Brand identity is a reason to have 
>    consistency between the appearance of our web pages and our other 
>    identity venues. However if one doesn't believe that maintaining a 
>    "Brand" identity matters (both inside and outside the company), 
>    then one might not be concerned about web pages building on a consistent 
>    identity. It would be interesting to see if some of the current masters of 
>    brand identity (Nike, Coke, Marlboro, Intel, Nivea) bother with consistency
>    of web page style.

	I agree with this and it IS important to have at least EXTERNAL pages
  be consistent.  However the guidelines largely ignore the way Web pages
  are designed for the Web, including minimizing the bandwidth requirements
  to view a page.  Someone using a 14.4 modem at the end of a phone line is
  not going to want to wait 5 minutes for a page to load unless the results
  of doing that load is well worth while.  That's the reality of BUSINESS
  on the Web, where you are basically hawking your wares on those Web pages.
  Consistency, ease of use and navigation is only as small part of the equation
  in getting people to go to your Web pages.

		Danny

Yeah, I got asked too.  I put up a 20 second hack of the old VMS DCL findloc
and findnode tools, which pretty much changed "search" to "egrep" and put
it up on the web.  2 years later, I got a note saying that I should be 
following Digital standards.  Imagine my surprise.  I just put the AltaVista
blimp at the top of the page in response.

j.

	One wonders when I'll be getting a message telling me that
	my bone scan page ( http://axel.zko.dec.com/~foley/bone-scan.htm )
	doesn't meet corporate guidelines.

	27 pages.. Yikes!

							mike

> Yeah, I got asked too.  I put up a 20 second hack of the old VMS DCL findloc
> and findnode tools, which pretty much changed "search" to "egrep" and put
> it up on the web.  2 years later, I got a note saying that I should be 
> following Digital standards.  Imagine my surprise.  I just put the AltaVista
> blimp at the top of the page in response.
> 
> j.

	Findloc and Findnode that Jeff had implemented are now available at
 URL:

http://ibgzko.zko.dec.com/cgi-bin/Findloc

and

http://ibgzko.zko.dec.com/cgi-bin/Findnode

  Note that the first character is uppercased.

	I'm using the IBG logo that someone in Palo Alto put together.

		Danny

>        One wonders when I'll be getting a message telling me that
>        my bone scan page ( http://axel.zko.dec.com/~foley/bone-scan.htm )
>        doesn't meet corporate guidelines.
> 
>        27 pages.. Yikes!

	Is this an indepth picture of you?  :-)

		Danny

I got this from one of our tech writers.

This little snippet from the SNPC's Software Introduction Guide
(dated 
8/95) seemed relevant to our discussion of trademarking
DSNlink:

"Trademarks cost $50,000 to $110,000 in legal expenses and can
take months to clear in all the necessary countries.  In addition,
a trademark product name needs to be advertised heavily to seat
the name in the minds of your customers.  $5-10m is a reasonable
advertising budget for the first year."

    I want to know whose job it is to surf the intranet all day looking for
    brand volations!
    

    I read a couple books on Branding, & they seem to say that reinforcing the
    Brand is important for the employee audience as well as for customers.
    
    However this isn't my specialty, the Branding organization could
    be explaining the reasoning behind many of these beliefs in more detail.
    
       erik

    re: .72
    
    it's likely that someone saw value in your pages and wants to link to
    you, but since they are following branding standards, they need
    your pages to follow the standard as well.
    
    Mark

        As a thought experiment:  imagine if branding standards had
        been applied to Notes conferences (which are as much
        corporate resources as any web page).

        Bob

RE: .75

	About as deep as it can go.. :)

							mike

    Gee Bob, I thought that Engineers had "branded" notesfiles long ago,
    much as a dog marks his territory.  :-)

>     it's likely that someone saw value in your pages and wants to link to
>     you, but since they are following branding standards, they need
>     your pages to follow the standard as well.

	reminds me of my parents wedding (which I wasn't present for :-).
	In order for the Catholic Church to allow the wedding to be held
	in a Cathlolic Church, my mother had to be "converted" from a
	Protestent to a Catholic.

	Ie. what bull-shit!  Sounds like the web page police are trying
	to justify their jobs!

    "Branding" is an extension of "look and feel" or "style", right?
    
    Check the internal homepage:
    
    	http://art.pa.dec.com/int/homepage.html
    
    Its broken.  Clicking on the navigation bar returns a "Mapping Server
    Error".  And since our "branding" doesn't seem to provide for a simple
    HTML mailto entry at the bottom of the page, there's no clue as to who
    to contact to tell them that the page is broken.
    
    I had hoped that the "TM" at the bottom of the page might have been a
    maintainer, but its just the "trademark".  At least we clearly know who
    owns the broken page!
    
    jeb
    

    That is not the internal homepage, but an area I used long time ago to
    create prototypes for the internal homepage. The actual one is at
    homepage.das.dec.com. I'm going to put a pointer there to clarify this
    now--I'm not sure why my system has got this association.
    
       erik

    I don't know why I do this to myself, but... Since I have spent 
    several months studying branding and identify design:
    
    Branding is the distillation, representation, and reinforcement of what 
    a company stands for. It often includes logos, palettes, and graphic 
    standards for corporate publications but it is equally much the attitude 
    the company and its employees take towards their work, their partners, 
    and their customers. (Remember Saturn "a different kind of car
    company?" That catch phrase worked because they *were* a different
    kind of car company. It was at the heart of what the company stood for
    in how they did their work, how they sold their cars and how they
    treated their customers after the sale.)
    
    To get a company to act as a whole, it is as important that the
    branding (or some aspects of it) are transmitted to the employees as
    to the customers, so they will act on those corporate "beliefs".
    The problem occurs when the branding does is more a desired state
    than a representation of reality and there is no effort to transform
    the company to match the brand. 
    
    There was an effort made (including memos from Bob Palmer, if I 
    remember correctly) to make "Whatever it takes" part of Digital's
    brand. It appears that there is now a recognition that this has
    not caught on within the company itself. The last mention I saw of
    that tagline is a Q & A that states it should be used for "paid 
    media only". Meaning, I assume, say it to customers but don't try 
    to make the company believe it.
    
    Back to the branding guidelines for internal web sites. If the
    guidelines for the visual layout of web pages are truely a
    representation of our culture, then encouraging their adoption would be
    an excellent activity to further the company speaking with a single
    voice.  I'll leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves how the
    branding guidelines do or do not accurately represent Digital's current
    beliefs or if they represent beliefs that should be adopted.
    
    DIGRESSION: Someone mentioned "branding" notes conferences. They were
    branded. I can go to almost every notes conference and the first note
    is a very polite introduction from the moderators explaining what the
    conference is about and how to participate. Frequently, the next few
    notes include a chronological and reverse chronological list of notes
    topics and pointers to releated notes conferences. No, there is no
    common logo. No, there is no standard button bar, but moving through
    Digital's notes conferences is about as close to "consistent" as one
    can get and a *very* clear statement of Digital's past beliefs --
    camaraderie and selfless (if sometimes opinionated) sharing of 
    information.
    
    --Andrew Gent

Re: .86

	I hope you're not designing any Web pages, at least not the
	same way you compose your notes :-)  A hint, WAY too LONG
	and verbose....

re Note 4405.87 by VAXCPU::michaud:

> Re: .86
> 
> 	I hope you're not designing any Web pages, at least not the
> 	same way you compose your notes :-)  A hint, WAY too LONG
> 	and verbose....
  
        You really think that 49 lines is "way too long" for a
        thoughtful, reasoned contribution in a verbal-only discussion
        medium?

        Bob

    Gartner Group's report
    "Browser Standardization: Think Strategically, Act Tactically"
    
    http://weblib.ljo.dec.com/Gartner/INET/00034546.htm
    
    	/Damian

Re. 87, 86

C'mon Jeff, give the guy a break.  That was a very well thought out, rich
description of branding with tangible illustrations.

There are many threads that can be followed up in there, but I think the
most illuminating conclusion was that brand identity was a result of or even
a symptom of corporate culture.

That's a real interesting point.

gc

>    I had hoped that the "TM" at the bottom of the page might have been a
>    maintainer, but its just the "trademark".  At least we clearly know who
>    owns the broken page!

	That was one of my other complaints.  You can add a link to the place
  where a trademark is used, you don't put it at the bottom as if it were the
  place to contact the Webmaster.

		Danny

>    Gartner Group's report
>    "Browser Standardization: Think Strategically, Act Tactically"
>    
>    http://weblib.ljo.dec.com/Gartner/INET/00034546.htm

	I read this.  The problem with the report is that I have yet to see any
  applications of Java or ActiveX that I consider useful.  Cute, yes, but
  useful?  So far these technologies are all hype; people haven't started
  to use it in compelling ways.  I expect that to happen soon.  In any case,
  since Java is going to be supported by Microsoft's IE and it's platform
  independent, I'd use it before ActiveX.  Hands up the number of people
  who've seen ActiveX running on Unix or Mac, or (dare we say the V word?)
  VMS?  Not only that there's a porting effort required for ActiveX that
  would not be required for Java.

		Danny

  >since Java is going to be supported by Microsoft's IE and it's platform
  >independent, I'd use it before ActiveX.  Hands up the number of people
    
    Java is currently supported by IE (3.0)
    
    JDK 1.1, soon to be released, contains lots of neat stuff, including
    code signing, which would allow you to grant more power to applets
    created by certain people/organisations.
    
    Of course Microsoft's Authenticode lets you do that now with ActiveX
    controls, although it is an "all or nothing" approach - if you allow
    the activeX control to be downloaded then it can do anything.  At least
    Java has the SecurityManager object, which could be used only grant a
    certain level of access (eg access any host via the net, but no local
    file access).
    
    	/Damian
    

    >I hope you're not designing any Web pages, at least not the same way
    >you compose your notes :-)  A hint, WAY too LONG and verbose....
    
    Glitz and glitter.  All pictures and no content.  We have seen the
    future, and it is very, very frightening.
    
    Forget Ebonics.  How about "Graphonics" - the quick and easy language
    of "point and click".
    
    jeb
    

How about Greasebonics, the language of Click and Clack?

8^)

re .92:
    
    �The problem with the report is that I have yet to see any
    �applications of Java or ActiveX that I consider useful.
    
    I couple of German banks use a Java applet for encryption for their
    Internet banking applications (due to the US export restrictions... as
    you only can use the weak encryption in the browser, they're adding
    their own on top of it).
    

You think Java doesn't need porting. Thre was a recent article (in Byte, I 
think) that said the differences between implementations of different JVMs and 
GUIs was just enough that you had to do testing when moving between platforms, 
just like HTML is different between Navigator and IE.

Standards? Give me more.

PJDM

I have  very,  very  bad  news  for  most  of the contributors to this note.
Whether  we  like  it  or  not  ActiveX  & VBScript are going to be *really*
popular.

I decided  to  build myself a noddy applet (it generates my weekly movements
sheet     from     clicking     a     few    buttons    --    it    is    on
http://zaphod.reo.dec.com:5000/movementstest.html  if anyone wants to try it
out).  As an experiment I decided to use VB Custom Controls Creation Edition
to create an ActiveX control and VBscript create the "application".

The bad news was that it was almost trivial.  It would have been even easier
if I hadn't had to teach myself VB at the same time!

There are  millions of VB programmers out there.  They can all now trivially
put together Web applications.

Of course,  the  serious commercial sites who need to make sure they address
all corners of the potential market will be sensible enough not to fall into
the  trap.   But  the remaining 99.99% of web sites will.  Amongst the dross
will  be one or two really useful or interesting sites: the bad news is that
they will require ActiveX and VBscript.

Start clearing your disk space for MS Internet Explorer now.

Graham

Re.: .98

The man broke the code.

8^)

gc

> I have  very,  very  bad  news  for  most  of the contributors to this note.
> Whether  we  like  it  or  not  ActiveX  & VBScript are going to be *really*
> popular.

	Well consider the following article I just received on the vunerabilities
  of your machine to ActiveX!

		Danny


X-Reply-To: WWW Security List <[email protected]>
X-Info: IBG Mail Server

DMK:  An application of covert channels.  From RISKS Digest Vol 18, Issue 80.


Date: 1 Feb 1997 05:12:02 GMT
From: [email protected] (Debora Weber-Wulff)
Subject: Electronic Funds Transfer without stealing PIN/TAN

The Berlin newspaper "Tagespiegel" reports on 29 Jan 97 about a television
show broadcast the previous evening on which hackers from the Chaos Computer
Club demonstrated how to electronically transfer funds without needing a PIN
(Personal Identification Number) or TAN (Transaction Number).

Apparently it suffices for the victim to visit a site which downloads an
ActiveX application, which automatically starts and checks to see if
Quicken, a popular financial software package that also offers electronic
funds transfer, is on the machine. If so, Quicken is given a transfer order
which is saved by Quicken in its pile of pending transfer orders. The next
time the victim sends off the pending transfer orders to the bank (and
enters in a valid PIN and TAN for that!)  all the orders (= 1 transaction)
are executed -> money is transferred without the victim noticing!

The newspaper quotes various officials at Microsoft et al expressing
disbelief/outrage/"we're working on it". We discussed this briefly in class
looking for a way to avoid the problem. Demanding a TAN for each transfer is
not a solution, for one, the banks only send you 50 at a time, and many
small companies pay their bills in bunches. Having to enter a TAN for each
transaction would be quite time-consuming. Our only solution would be to
forbid browsers from executing any ActiveX component without express
authorization, but that rather circumvents part of what ActiveX is intended
for.

A small consolation: the transfer is trackable, that is, it can be
determined at the bank to which account the money went. Some banks even
include this information on the statement, but who checks every entry on
their statements...

Debora Weber-Wulff, Technische Fachhochschule Berlin, Luxemburger Str. 10, 
13353 Berlin GERMANY [email protected] <http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~weberwu/>

> 	Well consider the following article I just received on the vunerabilities
>   of your machine to ActiveX!

Since when  has  common  sense (like not allowing arbitrary code to download
and  execute  on your machine) had anything to do with most users' behaviour
with their PC?

I never said ActiveX was a good idea, just that it was inevitable!!

Note that the default security settings for IE don't allow Active-X controls
to  just  download  and  run without you saying "OK" -- but you have no idea
that  the  control  really  does  just  contain  the  neat Chess program you
thought,  not  a  trojan  horse  as  well!  But that has been a problem with
shareware for a long time anyway.

Graham

re Note 4405.98 by RDGENG::COBB:

> There are  millions of VB programmers out there.  They can all now trivially
> put together Web applications.
  
        I really don't think that any of us are arguing this point
        with you *except* to challenge whether platform-specific
        applications delivered via the web thus become "Web
        applications".

        It certainly could turn out that almost everything done via
        the Web is platform-specific, as it could turn out that
        almost everything delivered by the Web is at the same level
        of quality as commercial television.

        Just because it could be, does it have to be?  Just because
        it seems highly likely, is it inevitable?  Just because a
        majority does it one way, is wrong for a minority to do it
        differently?  Is there a role for concerned professionals and
        their corporations to encourage a platform-independent future
        for the Web?

        I would certainly agree that if one strong, committed, and
        very active player promotes one vision, and the alternative
        vision is favored by fragmented, contentious, and reactive
        parties, the former is almost certain to win.

        I just can't see making the platform-specific choice as long
        as a platform-independent alternative is available.

        Bob

    
    re: Internal Hacking....
    
    	There may be security questions about browsers and WWW sites,
    but I'm amazed at the amount of internal browsing via Network
    Neighborhood. I've invoked security checks on my NT system and see
    almost daily door knocks from around the planet on my system. A few 
    people, who have not installed/checked security have had problems. 
    Intranet hacking and security is the bigger problem over ACTIVEX
    web-centric issues.
    
    							=Paul=

    I thought Java went to great pains to prevent this sort of thing, like
    not permitting an applet to write to the local disk.
    
    ActiveX doesn't have any of these protections?
    
    jeb
    

    Once you accept the ActiveX Authenticode screen, the sky (well your
    system)'s the limit. Someone had setup an ActiveX control on the Web
    to demonstrate some of the problems, which shuts down your system
    (if you are on Wintel). I think the Authenticode people pressured them 
    to remove it.
    
       erik

    
    re.105
    
    I use the 'Exploder' ActiveX control as an example when giving the Adv.
    WWW AD&I course.
    
    If you accept it being downloaded, then it will shut down Windows, and if
    your PC is suitably equipped, it will switch it off for you too.
    
    Microsoft's answer is code signing - An ActiveX control should be
    cryptographically signed, so that you know where it came from.
    
    FWIW, the author of the Exploder ActiveX control went and got his ActiveX
    control cryptographically signed ... so now you know for sure who it is
    that caused your PC to switch itself off.
    
    I think that code signing has some merits.  You can tell Internet
    Explorer to install ACtiveX controls without asking you, full stop. 
    This is not good.  However you can also tell it to download and
    install ActiveX controls that come from a certain source (for example
    Digital's Engineering department) without asking you.  This is good.
    
    Note that I'm talking about code signing here - not the merits of
    ActiveX Controls over Java Applets.  The same kind of technology will
    be deployed by Netscape wrt Java Applets, I'm sure.
    
    The risk is that someone who doesn't really know what they are doing
    will enable the option that allow all ActiveX controls to be downloaded
    and installed, with no warnings.
    
    An aside.  How long will it be before all new employees are given,
    along with their badge (or indeed inside their 'badge'), their very own
    Certificate (their public key + info about them, cryptographically signed
    by Digital's security department's very own Certificate Authority?
    My guess is five years, max.
    
    	/Damian

>    An aside.  How long will it be before all new employees are given,
>    along with their badge (or indeed inside their 'badge'), their very own
>    Certificate (their public key + info about them, cryptographically signed
>    by Digital's security department's very own Certificate Authority?
>    My guess is five years, max.

	I think you're being generous.  It's likely to be 10 years at the
  glacial pace that the Digital bureaucracy works.  Our asset manager last
  week called the help desk to ask for a fixed IP address for one of our
  printers.  They had no idea what he was talking about.  Well, they did know
  what a printer was.

		Danny

	A printer? Isn't that the thing I saw on TV mowing a lawn?

								mike

    welcome to MRO, Danny.

    Well!
    
    The GSO people for whom I work have decided that *all* web systems
    under their control should be 'optimized for use with MSIE 3.0'
    
    This has been handed down from Corporate level!
    
    Kevin

  re .110
    
>    The GSO people for whom I work have decided that *all* web systems
>    under their control should be 'optimized for use with MSIE 3.0'

  You have to give those MS marketing people credit for shifting the
  jargon so much that this sentence appears to make sense.  The spirit
  of a "web system" is that everyone has roughly the same access/experience
  in looking at a data source, no matter what the browser, no matter what
  the OS, and no matter what the hardware.  Whatever those GSO corporate
  folks think they are getting, if it is "optimized for use with MSIE 3.0",
  then it is not really a "web system", just another Microsoft-centric
  system that pretends to be a web.

  If it excludes people on other browsers, other OS, other HW, what's the
  point in building a system on top of HTTP?  The more effective use of
  corporate $ would be to whip up a pure Visual Basic implementation and
  be done with it.

  Paul

>    The GSO people for whom I work have decided that *all* web systems
>    under their control should be 'optimized for use with MSIE 3.0'
>    
>    This has been handed down from Corporate level!

	These statements have no real meaning.  If I decide to use straight
  HTTP 1.0 and HTML 2.0 then these Web pages could be considered to be 'optimized'
  for use with MSIE 3.0'.  They would also be optimized for use with Netscape
  Navigator 3.0, Mosaic, Lynx and a few other browsers too.  Either you are
  developing Web pages, or you are developing a proprietary client-server
  system.

	Who are GSO and how did they come to their inane decision?

		Danny

Really?  Inane?  There might be a reason behind it...



Continental Airlines Selects Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 for Corporate
Intranet -- Evaluates Netscape But Chooses Microsoft Internet Explorer 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 
Source: PR Newswire 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REDMOND, Wash., Feb. 5 /PRNewswire/ via Individual Inc. -- Continental
Airlines Inc. (NYSE: CAI.A) today became the latest corporation to choose
Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer 3.0, currently the fastest-growing browser
among Web users, as the standard bro 

Continental selected Microsoft Internet Explorer for three key reasons: 

* Microsoft Internet Explorer offered integration with its existing systems
and applications, including the Windows NT(R) Server network operating
system, Microsoft Internet Information Server and the Microsoft
BackOffice(TM) family. 

* The native support of Microsoft Internet Explorer for ActiveX(TM)
technologies provided the compatibility and ease of intranet development
the company needs by integrating Microsoft Internet Explorer with its
current in-house development. 

* The Microsoft Internet Explorer Administration Kit technologies helped
make possible cost-effective installation and management. 

"After evaluating other options, we decided that Microsoft Internet
Explorer was the direction to go," said Michael Natale, senior manager of
advanced technology at Continental Airlines. "With the seamless integration
with Windows NT, ActiveX and the Micr 

Ease of Integration 

Continental is also moving its network infrastructure from Novell NetWare
to Windows NT Server, Microsoft Internet Information Server and Microsoft
BackOffice and is deploying Windows NT Workstation on 5,000 of its U.S.
desktops. In pilot testing, Contine 

Compatibility With ActiveX 

The support of Microsoft Internet Explorer for ActiveX technologies is a
major advantage to Continental, which is basing its intranet development on
ActiveX technology. The company has already developed an ActiveX control
for on-time performance levels th 

Microsoft Internet Explorer is also a perfect fit with the tools
Continental has chosen for its intranet development. The company is moving
its current Visual Basic(R) programming system-based custom applications to
its intranet, and Microsoft Internet Ex 

In addition to supporting online business solutions, Microsoft Internet
Explorer will be the interface for new data analysis applications and is
expected to broaden overall employee use. For example, Continental is
developing a corporate data warehouse ap 

Microsoft Internet Explorer Administration Kit Provides Seamless Deployment

To deploy the browser quickly and cost-effectively, Continental is
utilizing the Microsoft Internet Explorer Administration Kit. With the
central distribution and management features found in this Microsoft
Internet Explorer tool, IS will be able to creat 

Continental Airlines joins the growing number of leading companies that
have selected Microsoft Internet Explorer as their corporate standard,
including Arthur Andersen, Compaq Computer Corp., Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.,
FINA Oil and Chemical Co., Intergrap 

Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) is the worldwide leader in
software for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of
products and services for business and personal use, each designed with the
mission of making it easier and more enjoy 

NOTE: Microsoft, Windows NT, BackOffice, ActiveX, Outlook, FrontPage,
NetMeeting and Visual Basic are either registered trademarks or trademarks
of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. Other
product and company names herein may be 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re .114
    
    You may find it easier to read this glowing recommendation of Internet
    Explorer on the WWW - exactly the same text is at:
    	http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1997/Feb97/continpr.htm
    I'd expect no less from a Microsoft Press release.
    
    I'd be inclined to take a look at
    	http://www.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease331.html
    You will find out there a slightly different perspective.
    
    Use what is best for a *specific customer situation*.  There is no "one
    true best solution"
    
    	/Damian
    

    Browsers shouldn't be religious experiences.  Go ahead.  Design for
    IE 3.  Design for Netscape Navigator 3..  Who cares.  Unless you use
    something specific to particular browsers (like ActiveX in IE or some
    JavaScript 1.1 functions in Navigator), odds are the pages will look
    and work just fine with the "competition".  Microsoft and Netscape are
    still playing HTTP/HTML feature and interpretation tag.

    Unless the total death of HTML as we know it happens, we should be fine.
    A few more months?  :-)

    --Ron

    GSO means "Global Supply Operation".  It is the new name for the old 
    Logistics organization with some elements of Purchasing rolled in.  GSO
    spends a significant part of their effort negotiating with suppliers
    and probably have a business approach that considers everything to be 
    negotiable - even choice of standards.  
    
    Being offended that an organization would "do a deal" with a major
    supplier is naivety.  This sort of thing goes on all the time. 
    Microsoft are experts at this and tend to get what they want - I just
    hope that we got our fair share on the "GSO deal" this time.
    
    I trust that the folks like Kevin et al will interpret the edict with
    common sense and not develop systems that are exclusive of non-MS
    platforms.
    
    /Chris/

	The problem with .114 (Continental Airlines) and .115 (Northern Trust)
  is that they are about browsers and not about standards.  What you need to
  develop are pages, software, etc. that use various standards: HTTP 1.0,
  HTML 3.2, Java 1.1, JavaScript, VBScript, ActiveX, etc.  You need to pick the
  standards and not the browsers.  They are, after all, different things.  You
  can then find out what standard each browswer supports.

		Danny

     re. 118
    
    I wasn't trying to say that Netscape was better than Microsoft, just
    that they can both write good press releases.
    
    Unfortunately one persons "Standard" whether it be OLE/COM/ActiveX or
    IIOP/CORBA is another persons proprietary technology.
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment though.  The most important
    point being to make an informed choice, being fully aware of the
    advantages/disadvantages (why do I sound like a politician?).
    
    In any case, it is on the server side that the real battle is taking
    place (IMHO).
    
    	/Damian

    I submit, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that the GSO corp. people will
    consider their pages to be compliant if ie_animated.gif is displayed.
    
    Mark

    I guess whats hard for me to internalize is the concept of working for
    a company that, for whatever reason, thrusts certain software on me at
    the expense of other equivalent software.
    
    I picture myself walking into my cube at Continental, pulling up
    Netscape, and having the web police swarm in on me and cart me away.
    
    Or probably more to the point, creating a web page with a java applet,
    and being fired for not conforming to the corporate standard.
    
    Organizations like GSO (which I admittedly know nothing about) profit
    from some sort of order and consistency.  However, in the programming
    and engineering worlds, anarchy is common, if not essential to the
    creative development process.
    
    On the other hand, I can see that if you wanted to put a mechanism in
    place in a company that provides services or equivalent services like
    email, VTX, FTP, DFS, Notes, etc., etc., then it makes sense to limit
    the options.  Face it, the options at digital have been limited, at
    least in the greater sense, to VAX mail, Notes and VTX for years. 
    
    We're going through a paradigm shift to things like Exchange mail and
    HTTP, but it hasn't been smooth.  And I'm sure organizations like GSO
    will continually strive to limit options more and more.
    
    jeb
    
    

    I think GSO are trying to make a balance between using the features
    offered by a true Internet Client and the need to have a GUI similar to
    a custom installed client but without the hassle of developing such a
    client.
    
    We've decided to check and see if the browser is ActiveX enabled, if so
    then the users sees a nice 'Windows 95' type GUI with menu bars,
    buttons etc etc.
    
    Otherwise they get straight http 2.0 code with pictures instead of push
    buttons and Select->Submit boxes rather than Ikonic controls.
    
    Fortunatly with our data being based on extracts from a datastore via
    Active Server Pages this is very easy to do.
    Other differences are things like graphs, MSIE people get a graph,
    everyone else get a CSV file sent to Excel...
    
    Hopefully this will keep both camps happy.
    
    Whatever the solution it has to be better than the overnight generation
    of thousands of static pages on a Alpha/VMS system running Purveyor,
    which is what we're using at present.
    
    It will be interesting to look at the usage stats in a year once both
    Netscape and MSIE 4.0 are released!
    
    Kevin
    
    PS. Hi Chris, long time no see

	I offer the following mail message from the WWW-Security mailing list
  concerning the use of ActiveX.  Lockheed Martin has decided not to use ActiveX
  because of their security concerns about it.

		Danny

================================================================================
> On Feb 6, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > ActiveX capability is far too
> > useful to be ignored by anyone seriously attempting to challenge MS in the
> > business marketplace. 
> 
> ActiveX is far too dangerous for anyone in the business marketplace to use 
> except in an all MS intranet. And then... they'll have created an island. Can 
> you say SNA?

The Feb. 3 '97 edition of Network World has a front-page article called
"ActiveX Marks New Virus Spot."  (www.nwfusion.com to see the article
in its entirety).  The first couple of paragraphs read:

Like many companies, Lockheed Martin Corp. has come to rely on Microsoft
Corp. technology.  But when it comes to Lockheed's intranet, one thing
the company will not abide is ActiveX, a cornerstone of Microsoft's Web
efforts.

The reason? ActiveX can offer virus writers and hackers a perfect network
entree. "You can download an ActiveX applet that is a virus, which could
do major damage," explains Bill Andiario, technical lead for Web
initiatives at Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems, the company's
information systems arm.  "Or it could grab your proprietary information
and pass it back to a competitor, or worse yet, another country."

The ActiveX problem is simple.  The technology is based on OLE, which allows
one application to launch another.  By definition, then, ActiveX has the
potential to access a user's hard drive, and control applications and files.
Java applets, in general, are currently not allowed to access a hard drive
or files, or open up new net connections.

Lockheed will wait for Microsoft to resolve these issues before endorsing
ActiveX.

(end of quotation... the article goes much farther).

Enjoy,

-pg

--

Peter Gregory  [NICname PG11]  [email protected]
IT Manager, AT&T Wireless Services, Strategic Technologies Group

    re: .122
    
    Are you going to build and provide Intel binary, Alpha binary, UNIX
    binary, and Mac binary flavors of ActiveX? If not, do you 
    need to check for what the processor type is before feeding someone an
    Intel binary ActiveX control? I'm just curious what level of effort is
    required to provide a robust ActiveX environment. 
    
       erik

>    Are you going to build and provide Intel binary, Alpha binary, UNIX
>    binary, and Mac binary flavors of ActiveX? If not, do you 
>    need to check for what the processor type is before feeding someone an
>    Intel binary ActiveX control? I'm just curious what level of effort is
>    required to provide a robust ActiveX environment. 

	Actually, it's worse than that.  IE on Alpha does not support more than
  one or two ActiveX controls.  How are you going to decide which will work?

		Danny

> "After evaluating other options, we decided that Microsoft Internet
> Explorer was the direction to go," said Michael Natale, senior manager of
> advanced technology at Continental Airlines. "With the seamless
integration
> with Windows NT, ActiveX and the Micr 

Oh dear, wait 'til he realizes that "seamless integration" is the current
vernacular for "proprietary" and finds he's boxed his company in just as
extranets start to explode!

There may be a million reasons for choosing IE over NN, but choosing it
because it is proprietary (or seamlessly integrated with the operating
system) is a tad myopic.

I always liked the way that TeamLinks was seamlessly integrated with
All-In-1, VMS and VAXen.
;-)


[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 4405.122 by JGODCL::BOWEN:

>     Fortunatly with our data being based on extracts from a datastore via
>     Active Server Pages this is very easy to do.
  
        Microsoft's approach of providing (perceived?) superior
        development environments is very market savvy -- even if you
        recognize that the output of such a process is
        platform-restricted, if it saves you enough in development
        time, effort, and money, you may see that as a reasonable
        trade-off.

        Bob

RE: .122

    We've decided to check and see if the browser is ActiveX enabled, if so
    then the users sees a nice 'Windows 95' type GUI with menu bars,
    buttons etc etc.
    
    Otherwise they get straight http 2.0 code with pictures instead of push
    buttons and Select->Submit boxes rather than Ikonic controls.

If the straight HTTP 2.0 code will do the job, why waste time constructing 
an ActiveX version?  It's more work, doesn't buy you anything, and in fact 
has the potential of shutting out part of your audience from the 
application.

--PSW

    I think people are missing the point.
    
    Our users want the features available from a typical Windows GUI 
    application but without the trouble of having to run client
    applications at the same time other users who are non-Microsoft based
    also need access to the information.  By using ActiveX controls we
    can satisfy the first and with a very simple code check we can cater
    for the latter.
    
    As for being stuck within one environment, having to use an Alphaserver
    2100 running NT does somewhat limit our options...
    
    Perhaps people should stop degrading one tool against another and
    instead look at ways of using the best of each.
    
    Kevin

    
    re: Microsoft
    
    	From a "Total Cost of Operation" view, the Microsoft Web Server was 
    the clear winner for me. I've tried the Netscape, Openmarket, NCSA
    route with ODBC connections to an Access Database. I'm not a software
    person, so I don't have time to write Perl scripts or decipher sloppy
    documentation to make a simple database connection. The active server
    pages are straight forward and actually worked for me within hours
    versus days.

From a practical point of view, netscape and internet explorer inhibit
efficient user interfaces.

For those who are really used to DECnotes, and especially those who remember
when it and Knotes were being refined, then you have some sense for issue.

Personally, my right wrist aches a lot of the time and my right index finger
is constantly numb.  Why?  Because its required to use a mouse for so much.
I do all the things that are recommended, like moving around, because I'm
working in lots of different work "stations" during the day, the problem is
that they are "click and run" and involved VMS, unix, Windows, and Xterms,
and VT3xx for good measure.  I have used DECwindows and Windows enough to
know a lot of keyboard short cuts, but as I use browsers more and more,
that's not an option.

Back to DECnotes.

Years ago, we had a community discussion around optimizing the keyboard
accelerators for all the common tasks done while quickly browsing notes
files.

Now try to go thru a notes file using a web browser.

In thinking about the problem, it occurred to me that the solution was
a DECnotes plugin or ActiveX or perhaps Java application that truely
delivered what DECnotes does.  Including the personal notebooks, seen
maps, and most important, the quick navigation thru a notes conference
without using a mouse.  There would be lots of benefits to having
notes be integrated with a web browser, in particular, the hyperlinks
provide the feature most desired by heavy duty noters.

    gee, should you sue the pointer-device maker or the application
    programmer?  :-)
    
    Mark

    re:           <<< Note 4405.131 by STEVMS::PETTENGILL "mulp" >>>
    
    Absolutely right.  Microsoft, at least initially, made a reasonable
    attempt to insure that the Windows GUI was fully keyboard navigable. 
    
    Many application developers since then, and of course now Microsoft as
    well, have failed to continue that tradition.  
    
    I can understand why.  Everyone is terrified of imposing any order
    beyond the accepted norm on what is intended as a generic information
    delivery system.  Forms are the very least common denominator, because
    anything more refined and detailed might crimp the style of the content
    provider.
    
    Still, its a shame, and we all pay for it with our wrists.  With any
    luck, as .131 suggests, new internet applications will use the tools
    available to break "new" ground in the area of ergonomics.
    
    jeb
    

    re: .131. & .133
    
>>    Still, its a shame, and we all pay for it with our wrists.  With any
>>    luck, as .131 suggests, new internet applications will use the tools
>>    available to break "new" ground in the area of ergonomics.
    
    Wouldn't it be better and more generally applicable to urge the browser
    developers (through the W3 consortium?) to add support for definable
    key actions? The <META> tag seems a natural vehicle for this:
    
    <META HTTPD-EQUIV="KEYDEF" CONTENT="KEY=KP1;URL=/cgi-bin/foo?prevreply">
    <META HTTPD-EQUIV="KEYDEF" CONTENT="KEY=KP3;URL=/cgi-bin/foo?nextreply">
    <META HTTPD-EQUIV="KEYDEF" CONTENT="KEY=KP5;URL=/cgi-bin/foo?prevnote">
    <META HTTPD-EQUIV="KEYDEF" CONTENT="KEY=KP2;URL=/cgi-bin/foo?nextnote">
    <META HTTPD-EQUIV="KEYDEF" CONTENT="KEY=KPPLUS;URL=/cgi-bin/foo?nextunseen">
    
    In combination with javscript, this would be an extremely powerful 
    extension to existing HTML-based user interfaces.
    
    --Andrew

    RE: .134
    
    I like it!
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

>     Wouldn't it be better and more generally applicable to urge the browser
>     developers (through the W3 consortium?) to add support for definable
>     key actions? The <META> tag seems a natural vehicle for this:

	Paul Beck beat you to this suggestion/idea by a couple weeks :-)

Notefile: [email protected]
Note: 5113.38
Author: smurf.zk3.dec.com::PBECK "Paul Beck"
Topic: What to do about NOTES?  A sample from the SBU
Title: When HTML & browsers support metakeys, it can be competitive
Date:  4-FEB-1997 23:43

    It's an ideal thin client app if you've got low expectations about
    the client capabilities. Until a browser comes along that enables
    you to associate different page functions with different keys (so
    you don't have to muscle a pointer around the page zeroing in on
    different buttons or links), it'll be a substantially inferior UI to
    what's there now. Remember that the first word of least common
    denominator is "least".
    
    It may be that the extension that's needed is to HTML. Come up with
    an extension to HTML that defines meta-keys, and they provide your
    browser with a way to map these meta-keys to specific keys on your
    input device.

>> I hope you're not designing any Web pages, at least not the
>> same way you compose your notes :-)  A hint, WAY too LONG and verbose....
.88> You really think that 49 lines is "way too long" for a
.88> thoughtful, reasoned contribution in a verbal-only discussion medium?
.90> C'mon Jeff, give the guy a break.  That was a very well thought out, rich
.90> description of branding with tangible illustrations.

	First notice the :-) in my original reply.  Second, while I
	was partly joking, I was also being partly serious.

	Yes, the authors note was informative.  My issue wasn't with what
	the note wanted to conveyed, but how it was conveyed.  They don't
	call it "surfing the web" for nothing, we don't have the time to
	stop and read that much verbiage.  This is the day and age of
	sound and video bites.  If you can convey your message in a more
	consise manner, you'll have more people reading it, than only
	reading the first several lines before they say NEXT!

>>>  Paul Beck beat you to this suggestion/idea by a couple weeks :-)
    
    
    Well, at least I'm in good company... Thanks for the pointer.
    
    --Andrew

re Note 4405.137 by VAXCPU::michaud:

> 	First notice the :-) in my original reply.  Second, while I
> 	was partly joking, I was also being partly serious.
> 
> 	Yes, the authors note was informative.  My issue wasn't with what
> 	the note wanted to conveyed, but how it was conveyed.  They don't
> 	call it "surfing the web" for nothing, we don't have the time to
> 	stop and read that much verbiage.  This is the day and age of
> 	sound and video bites.  

        While I have no doubt that some things on the web, perhaps
        the majority, will be more like MTV and TV advertisements, I
        certainly hope there will still be both writers and readers
        for "that much verbiage" (and much more, besides).

        The best and most memorable items I've seen on the web were a
        full length Atlantic monthly article and an extended-length
        Washington Post article.  These were both on the order of 20
        printed pages long (while I read them online, I printed them
        out for others in my family to read).  Unlike most other
        pages they had real value.

        I may be a dinosaur, but I hope that people who like to read
        never become extinct.

        (Besides, the note you questioned had perhaps 50-60 lines of
        text!)

        Bob

RE: .131

	Matt Thomas has alluded to wanting to write a Java app that
	allows one to Note from a browser. I don't know if that would
	include the key mapping. One would hope so.

								mike