[Leica] Tina's new web page; too much technology

[Jeff Moore <jbm@jbm.org>]

Tina,

Somebody (unattributed) wrote:
> >I've tried twice to get into your new web page, and can't get beyond the 
> >first image.  Don't know what the problem is, other folks don't seem to 
> >have it.

...then at 18 Feb 1999 08:55:20 -0500, Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> wrote:

> Try it again this morning.  I've been working on it all night and I think
> when I'm uploading files to the site maybe you can't access it.  Thanks-

I have a clue.  When I tried to access the site, I had the same problem: I saw 
one image, and no kind of link to get at any other photos.  As a last resort 
before posting a query about the site's current state, and with appropriate 
trepidation, I re-enabled Java in my browser (something one doesn't in general 
want to subject oneself to, given the poor history these Java interpreters 
have with respect to security holes and unreliability).  Sure enough, it seems 
that whoever did Tina's web page with her was so technology-mad that there's 
a Java applet serving a purpose which would be far better served by simple 
HTML hyperlinks: little buttons labelled "Portfolios", "Statement", etcetera 
appeared.  I was able to look at a few (very pleasing) pictures before my 
browser crashed.  I restarted it, and was able to see a few more before it 
failed again, this time locking up.

Granted, I may not have the most reliable implementation of the Java bytecode 
interpreter in the particular version of Netscape I'm using;  but these things
are known to be a continual source of problems, and using Java applets in 
anything but a situation where you specify and test both server and client 
platforms is a known recipe for disaster in that technology's 
not-ready-for-prime-time state.  Please, Tina:  treat your choice of 
web-page technologies like you treat your choice of camera technologies:  
if plain HTML, displayable (if you stick to the older, less-esoteric tags) on 
many browsers going years back in version, and displayable much faster and 
more reliably even by the newest browsers, is the M6; then a heavily 
Javascript-infested page would be like a camera with a motor wind and no 
manual wind or rewind, dead without batteries or in the face of any of a 
number of technical failures;  and a Java-dependant page would be more like 
that camera, further "improved" such that the lens can only be focused with 
an electric motor controlled via a color LCD touchpad.

Hell, while I'm at it:  I held my tongue earlier when you spoke of the 
lengths you had to go to to get that hit-counter in your pages, but...  Hit 
counters are a Bad Thing.  Because they change each time someone accesses the 
page, that kneecaps a web-server's, or any proxy servers',  ability to cache 
and re-serve, lightning fast and with little overhead, a popular page the way 
a static page could be served.  The web-server and network fall to their
knees under the additional load, and the people trying to look at your 
pictures suffer more delays.  And for what, really?  Do people want to see the 
photos, or do they really most want to see how many other people are looking 
at the photos?

The photos are, as always, worth seeing.  It was good to see B&W work without 
that distracting sepia-like coloration one of your other sites had.  I had 
earlier performed the exercise of downloading one of those images and 
stripping that color back out and re-viewing: a definite improvement.

I fired up my browser about four or five times so that I could look at a few 
pictures each time between Java-related crashes with the object of being able 
to respond to your color-vs-B&W question.  Very interesting.  I definitely
developed a few opinions, but I haven't necessarily been able to abstract
rules which explain my particular opinions.  From the Guatemala section:

  Francesca and Sandra Marisela Perez:

      I rather liked this in color.  Partly, I derived some sensual enjoyment
      from the greenish pattern which was the out-of-focus background.  Silly,
      eh?

  Sandra Marisela Perez:

      I'm of two minds on this one, but am mildly in the "color is good" camp 
      because seeing the actual colors woven into her garment brings me closer 
      to the experience of being there with her.

  Reynaldo Ortez:

      I like this in color, but, as with `Francesca and Sandra Marisela Perez' 
      above, more in a sensual way than a documentary way.  I just think the 
      colors in the picture look good together.

  Quiché Shepherd Brothers:

      I fear that one seems almost too... "pretty", I guess, in color.  Reads
      kind of like a postcard, whereupon one is more likely to see the people
      as props in a landscape than as the true subjects of the photo.  I think
      I'd have preferred it in B&W.

  Sareya Perez

      I think I'd have liked this one better in B&W, although I'm at a loss
      to articulate precisely why.
      
  Pasqua Ordoñez:

      I believe I'd prefer this one in B&W, as well.  Perhaps I'm just 
      reacting badly to decades of "Kodak Moments" ads, and wish to knock
      the picture a bit farther out of that stream so it can actually be
      *seen* rather than merely recognized and filed, mostly subconsciously.

...and so on.  Thanks for showing us these pictures, and thanks for supplying 
us with actual examples to be fodder for the eternal B&W vs color thread.

 -Jeff Moore