I've made numerous changes to C&F's graphics. I use FireFox to browse websites. From Firefox, this blog looks pretty sharp. It's not perfect, but it looks good.
After someone reported problems with the site's look, I viewed it with his eyes, that is, through Internet Explorer. Through those eyes, the site looks terrible. That got me thinking about lawyers and juries.
When lawyers lose a trial, they assume that the jury just didn't get it. The jury was stupid. The jury didn't care. The jury didn't understand. From the lawyer's browser, his or her arguments were brilliant, or at least, winning. But what if the jury is viewing the world through Internet Explorer?
Granted, I think Internet Explorer is an inferior product, and I can't understand why anyone would use it. But that shouldn't matter. What does matter is that 70% of you folks use it. If I want you to read our blog, then I have to make sure the blog looks good to you. If a lawyer wants to win a jury or bench argument, it shouldn't matter how the argument looks to him or her. It doesn't matter, since the lawyer is but a servant to the judge or jury, just as a writer is, ultimately, a servant to his readers.
This metaphor would apply to any legal argument. A lawyer, looking at his brief, might see brilliance. And other lawyers viewing the brief through Firefox might agree. But what if the judge is using Internet Explorer? To the judge, the argument looks terrible.
The lawyer can either complain to his colleagues how stupid the judge or jury is for not using Firefox, or he can learn to see his arguments through Internet Explorer. The good lawyers learn to see things through Internet Explorers. The bad lawyers blame judges and juries.