I don't think the Mudcat interface is actually all that different from most other web based forums even though they all use more recent, bespoke software. The most common seems to be phpBB but there are a range of others and nearly all provide virtually the same information as Mudcat on their front page and they are all essentially text based. The difference is, I suspect, that the software makes it much easier to set everything up, whereas when Mudcat was first set up, you had to design it yourself.

While many forums allow you to upload files, not all do. Chip and Fipple, for example don't let you upload files, you have to provide a link. The Noteworthy Composer help forum allows limited upload, but only of fairly small files in a limited range of formats.

Most forums make something called BB Code available which is really just a subset of html with a slightly different syntax and the message box has buttons to enable you to input these with a mouse click rather than having to type them in. The button simply inserts the tag so once you have done it a few times you can see the syntax and input them by hand if you wish. Not really all that different from Mudcat.

One thing most of them do which would be an advantage on Mudcat is they automatically create a hyperlink from a url when you send your message.

I suspect that when people are complaining about the clunkiness of Mudcat it may be in comparison with the social networking sites, though I really don't know as I don't use them. I do use other discussion forums, though and I can't really say that Mudcat compares unfavourably with them and I feel that is a realistic comparison.

I do think that some of the comments and suggestion in relation to youngsters not having the patience to persist with Mudcat smacks of pandering to the kids and I don't think we should be doing that. If they are really interested as opposed to just browsing in passing out of idle curiosity, they will go beyond the interface to see the content and make the effort to find out how to use Mudcat.

How many sites have you come across which are full of fancy graphics, Flash animations etc. etc. but are actually very light on content? A great many commercial sites are like that. Surely what is important is content, ease of use and navigation and accessibility even if you are on dialup and Mudcat scores quite well on that score. I was on dialup when I started on Mudcat and the speed of loading was a real advantage. After all there are a lot of places where broadband is either not available or so poor as it might as well not be.