DMcCunney wrote:I think you need to go back ad re-read what they are doing.
They are not discriminating against people who do not have broadband. They are discriminating against older browsers that do not support current web standards. And their drop of support is for Google Docs and Google Sites, not GMail (which was the initial complaint you made in a different thread.) They not that long ago re-architected their code so IE 6 would be fully supported by GMail. (I don't envy them that effort. IE 6 is the least standards compliant browser in popular use, and web devs tear their hair trying to get stuff to work in IE 6 that works in everything else.)
Before you start complaining about my reading comprehension read everything I said. I made it clear I do not know if this will affect gmail and that I have become dependent on Google Docs, I even asked for a suggestion on an inexpensive alternative.
And yes it does discriminate against those without broadband, you can't access these new features with basic html and I can't use their standard view, it times out on dialup. If they remove the basic html option in Gmail, which I think likely to occur, I will have to get a new email service as well. Try dialing in to Gmail on dialup and see what happens
. It is not that hard to offer an alternative view that would work even with a text only browser, That would be much faster on dialup than even basic.
A lot of what Google is trying to do in Docs and Sites requires support for current standards in HTML CSS, and JavaScript to work at all. The browsers on their drop list lack the required support. (And note that v3 of their own Chrome browser is among the affected.)
I realize that you can't offer all the bells and whistles on a simple page but the ability to store documents online is the main concern I have and even plain Gmail lets you open any document in html, if that is the limit of what they can do without the new system so be it. It works now so you can't tell me they can't still do it. Lots of sites use to offer a text only option . I can always download the file and open it with Textmaker 2010 or online with one of the online office suites.
I use GMail as my primary email, and make use of both Google Docs and Google Sites. I don't have a problem with their policies. For instance, I've never considered email secure, from any provider, so I don't generally say things in email I'd be unhappy about having made public. Sure, Google can theoretically read my mail. Let them. I don't care. (If it's that private, that's what GPG is for.) The stuff in Google Docs and Sites is there specifically to permit others to access it as well as me.
I don't think you read two words I wrote. I have stated that anyone who thinks email is secure is dead wrong but we are talking about Google Docs on the security issue. What if Carbonite said they can do as they please with your backups, including publishing them for their own gain .
With the way it is written, according to an attorney who specializes in contracts ,they could sell your company secrets or your personal files and you let them do it.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you can choose to make files publib or not in Google Docs but not choose to ban Google from reading them, publishing them, or giving them away? I don't think you have really thought this out, maybe you don't have any private documents but some of us do, I certainly would never put them on Gmail now.
I will give you an example, I use to keep my customer records on Google Docs so I would always have access to them as well as proprietary software from several companies I represent.
There is nothing I do I am ashamed of online but you are suggesting in a not so vague way that I do and that I am so clueless about reality I think email is secure.
I normally access GMail from Windows on my desktop. On Puppy, I often use Basic HTML view, because the old, slow box I run Puppy on has problems with the AJAX stuff used in GMail, and I see "A script on this page is running slowly or has stopped responding. Do you want to terminate the script?" messages. The machine just can't process it fast enough. Basic HTML doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the AJAX version, but works fine for reading/replying to mail.
Why should I bother responding? I can't make the argument any better than that. Allowing basic html is supporting older browsers.
Folks still on dial up are at a disadvantage, because an increasing amount of stuff on line assumes you have broadband and the bandwidth to properly view things like streaming video, but this is hardly Google's fault. The days are long gone when web devs had to assume their users were at the other end of a 14,4KB modem, and had to code for small pages with a minimum downloaded to be able to view the page. The majority of the market has broadband these days, and development is aimed at that majority.
Lets be honest, they don't assume everyone has BB, they just don't care. The assumption may be that people on dialup have no money to spend, that millions still use it is a well known fact. That they have no money is a stupid assumption.
The minority is very significant. Compared to the percentage that use Linux vs Windows it is huge. Please never complain about a company dismissing Linux users, that would make you a hypocrite.
For your information the latest statistics I could find on the number of people who have access to broadband in the US, which includes those who log in at the library , school , etc. is 70%. Even if this figure is not grossly inflated by the nonsense of including libraries and schools in the estimate it leaves way over 80 MILLION people on dialup.
Hell of a minority in my book. I would like to have a dime from each one.
______
Dennis[/quote]