SchlosStudios wants your comments, especially about design and access speed. However, for a few subjects (identified below) we don't want to hear any comments.

Some of what you feel might be "errors" are intentional. Why?

SchlosStudios began as an art studio with the creation of the "castle project" and soon became one of the first internet cafes in Texas. The site has been on line since 1989, and I have always strongly solicited feedback. As a result, I have accumulated a lot of statistics about what people like, and what they do not like. But I also have strategic/technical priorities about my site. Some of them are primary concerns, above ALL esthetic concerns:

First, it must be FAST. I care very much about how "fat" my pages are, and how long they take to download, open, resize, and load from cache.

Second, it must LOOK the same on ALL these primary browsers: Netscape, MicroSlop Internet Explorer, iCab, AOL, Opera, Lynx, Mosaic, MiniWeb, and WannaBe (with consideration given to all those in descending order*).

Those two priorities are more important to me than ANY other concern. Having unusual attractive art to "hook" and intrigue the viewer is only my 3rd (albeit significant) concern. Even at that, images must have the best resolution/size (speed) balance possible.

Regarding priority 1 and 2, I have discovered that only certain features work on ALL browsers, so I use my own "illegal set" of HTML web-authoring, using a plain, simple, text editor (Mac Tex-Edit, similar to Window's NotePad). This "simple text document design" avoids any "pre-defined preferences" that the primary browsers (Netscape, AOL, and IE) expect to find, so they treat my page as an "alien document", instead of "esthetically butchering it", as both typically do otherwise. I have totally given up on the naive notion that Netscape, Microsoft, and AOL will ever respect the HTML standards they SIGNED and agreed too. They are trying to EXCLUDE each other from "the club" by making documents generated for their browser look better than any other. But the end result, is, there are no standards being honored. Yet I insist on finding a true "universal html" so I must constantly revise my "personal character set" to find "common denominators" that work. I call it "DanaHTML". Yes, I use "illegal characters" (non HTML 4.0), just like all the big browsers do, (except iCab). But I have no choice if I do not want to EXCLUDE over 40% of the planet which refuses to use WinTel/MSIE. That is what you are doing if you write FP or NS web documents! The most absurd web page I can imagine is one that says: "You can only see this page if you speak my language", yet that is what most websites are doing, right now! Excluding (depending on NS/FP choices), between 4 and 6 of every ten potential internet clients! Does that make sense? Of course not. It should all be universal, but until (if ever) it is, I will write my own "universal code". I am "a small fella caught in the middle of three giant e-brats (MSIE, Netscape, and AOL) who are squabbling like children". Until they shake hands, and obey the RULES they signed off on, my pages will continue to use this "bastard HTML". The positive result is, MY pages will show centering, tables, German "umlauts" and French/Spanish characters properly, regardless of which browser you use! That cannot be said for ANY other "HTML editing" process in existence, especially the WYSIWYG "dummy-editors".

The worst HTML pipeline offender is Microsoft Front Page (and now, after the AOL takeover, Netscape is getting just as sloppy). MSFP uses redundant font/center/size references for every sentence, even when no font changes have been assigned from the previous sentence! All HTML standards mandate that unless "/ f o n t " has been written, all styles remain the same until "further notice". Even "Pro" (used facetiously) pages like CNN have thousands of useless " & n b s p ; " sets for "spaces" between words. In text, a space takes up one byte of data space. But in Microsoft Front Page, it takes up 10 bytes. Worse yet, MS adds at least two spaces before AND after each sentence, even before carriage returns/LF, a total of 40 bytes totally wasted per sentence. Just regarding "spaces" In cumulative terms, that is 1000 bytes (one kilobyte) for every 12 sentences, compared to my 12 bytes! In MSFP, a simple quote becomes 24 bytes, a curved apostrophe (’) needs 7 bytes, because MS uses the diagonal characters instead of the vertical ASCII (' and ") which are recognized in HTML, thus require only one byte, each. To clarify, each time you write a "curved apostrophe" with Microsoft/AOL/Netscape, you must actually write it out in code, like this: "& # 8 2 1 7 ; " These absurd excessive protocols, along with redundant font/style sheet instructions, (CSS is ignored by most user configurations) adds up to fat, sloppy documents that are 30 times larger than the enclosed content. Wasteful. Abuses the pipeline. Slows the whole planet down! Consider this: This page totals less than 13k with all its text and HTML background code. I have a sample of a Microsoft page, that contains a simple 186 byte (0.1 kilobyte) paragraph regarding a new MS virus alert. The page requires you to download 86 kilobytes of clutter just to read that 6-sentence paragraph! Over 5 times more file size! Obscene sloppiness, but that has always been the "hallmark" of Microsoft. Even if you don't understand the concept of "wasted pipeline", you can see what I am talking about by downloading this page on a PDA, versus any page from CNN/AOL or Microsoft sites. At 9,600 bps (maximum effective speed of most cellular data connections) my page appears in 5-10 seconds, any of the fore mentioned pages take a matter of minutes. Time is money, more so on the Internet than anywhere else. The real penalty you pay per-second on cumulative data access is thousands of times higher than any interest rate defined as exceeding "criminal usury". If you have a stock on the edge of a sell-margin, you will always lose real money waiting for the late updates you get on line. Commercial sites used to have an incentive to serve you data quickly. Now, they all want to keep you on line as long as possible, referring you back and forth to all their ad sites to collect "referral fees". They get more money for "slowing you down". Start being "Browser-selective", "Site-Selective". Refuse to utilize or visit the worst offenders!

This also brings up another comment I get: "Why don't you use different fonts"? Why? Because THAT is your job! That is determined by YOUR browser! Open your preferences, and choose Arial, Courier, Helvetica, whatever turns you on! I am NOT about to waste 3 megabytes on my site by specifying fonts at the beginning of every sentence, when it will just be ignored by most browsers. People usually configure their browser to their own preferences, and user preferences vary. For example, most older people (from the "typewriter" generation) prefer "courier" because it is what they are comfortable and most familiar with reading that font. Anal retentives prefer Arial, because it has no "frills" or "serifs". This is a user choice. There is no "right" or "wrong" font, except to be so arrogant as to mandate people accept YOUR preferences. Unlike CNN, my pages will allow you to use ANY font you choose... but you must CHOOSE one, besides the default. Also, if I "specify fonts", I will lose the special language character definitions (for German, Spanish, etc.) as I explained, two paragraphs above!

Next, Java. Sun invented an incredible tool with Java, but (BUT) it is totally incompatible with the Internet. Even the simplest script has to be loaded FIRST before any images or text appear (this is the reason for the blank pages at CNN). That phenomenon alone represents 90% of all "false crashes" on IBM-PC clones. Users are so convinced the computer froze, they restart. But it is the browser trying to "figure out" what the sloppy Java code wants. Until it is understood, nothing happens, and that appears to be a "freeze" or "crash". I used Java on my site for a few years, and also at my most recent client page (Magniet). But I have removed my Java, and strongly recommended all my clients remove theirs too. Not just because it is dog-slow on a modem connection, and is totally dangerous from a security concerns (it is illegal to even LOAD Java on a computer in a Nuclear Facility), but because there is a swarm of multi-billion dollar lawsuits coming to claim the assets of ALL sites that are using database, sales and referral Java Scripts that are now considered proprietary property of the "creators" according to the patent office. Every on-line sales script is owned, and everyone whom is using them will be hit with a bill eventually, for thousands of dollars per year of use (See the news link about that below).

I have also discovered, by timing loads on ALL browsers, that "justify left" (the default) takes longer to load in most browsers than a paragraph that is "centered". This is because the browser must make an extra calculation for every line in the text, to "layout" the characters. It then recalculates AGAIN if you resize the window, or try to print it. So I tend to use "centered" paragraphs if the text paragraph is smaller. I only use "left" on larger text bodies. This policy increases my page "load and reload from cache" speed by over 800%, so I am not about to consider any (mistakenly) contrary notions about that "structural decision". Time how long your page takes to load, then time mine. Under no circumstances (if they are both already in cache) will your page load faster than mine on a "foreign browser" (one that you did not use as an editor). Just simply impossible. Don't even try to tell me differently, I have complete data tables on this fact, for every browser that exists (or has ever existed).

The other thing I do not care to hear about is your "prejudices". I despise prejudice. Prejudice is the embryo of all hate and genocide. I like ALL colors, and have no preference for any in particular (except in what I wear). I chose black as the background for the new pages (except Spanish) because I prefer the way it presents the ultimate contrast for photographs. I do not "fear black, fear the dark, nor dwell on a morbid fear of death". If you have that prejudice (or emotional impairment, as the case may be) I cannot be concerned with that, nor does it have any relevance to my statistics since it is not a "cultural" reality (as it is with Hispanics). As I said on the Spanish page, I recognize that preference against black is not deviant, it is cultural. It has existed for centuries. So I deviated from my "personal preference" in deference and respect. But I will not do it for an emotionally disturbed Anglo.

So the point is, I am not at all interested in your opinion about my "HTML errors", because they are the reason my page loads faster, and with better uniformity, across the "diverse browser parade" than yours does. I do not care about your color preferences, because the colors chosen on my pages are the colors of the "SchlosStudios" logos, and color choice for an artist is very personal, anyway.

But, excluding those guidelines, if you have any positive criticism, ideas or suggestions, I would VERY much appreciate your comments. If they are outside of HTML, paragraph justification, or color, I will weigh them very carefully!

Mail me your ideas/comments, thanks!

*Regarding "fat" and the new "lean" browsers: I can make a CNN page that LOOKS exactly like CNN, on ALL browsers, with less than 10kb. But the average CNN page is 80kb of Java ad referrals and illegal cookie trickery BEFORE any images are loaded! (just the instruction set takes up that much bandwidth). If you want to see SPEED, you must see how incredibly fast iCab can download CNN, if you select (in built-in preferences) "skip doubleclick.net, atwola.com (AOL's doubleclick server) and all the useless Java". Here are my benchmark statistics using the same computer CPU speed (dual boot-dual motherboard/OS) and the same dial-up v.90 modem, with a 3 minute interval between DNS requests, from Romania:

MsIE 5.0 Browser: 2.73 minutes

iCab 2.7 Browser: 07.3 seconds!

When I want news, I use iCab. When I want to be amused, I still use iCab. In my opinion, as someone who works EVERY day with ALL existing browsers, iCab is THE best. PERIOD. Get it here! If it will not run on your cheap PC box, get Opera (2nd best choice) here!. But whatever, get off of Microsoft, AOL, and Netscape's browser tit. They are serving up rotten milk, consuming all your time with intentional delays, intentionally writing "back doors" in their software to allow them to collect your private data, selling it to mailing lists who deluge you with rude offensive pornographic junk mail, and passing you back and forth between all their affiliate ad sites like a cheap whore. Corporate users should be doubly-concerned, because they are also violating your security by sending phony image cookies out to the public, which have all your user data. Refuse. Being browser-selective is the best defense and cure for all these problems.

Read the "Bad News about Java", that every corporate web site should know, here!