Good Sites - who's got some examples?

[Kris]

All I got was "Sorry. In order to view this site, you must enable
JavaScript in your browser".

So you need to stop disabling your browser[/QUOTE]

That is an odd feature, if the developers put it there. Why do you think
it is there?

 

[Zak McGregor]

Zak McGregor wrote:



What do you consider tripe about Whitecrest's statement? It is quite
true, you know.

"Neither was wrong" is tripe. In this case right and wrong is clear as day
and night. Choosing not to believe that is your perogative, but doesn't
make it less a matter of right and wrong.

How do you part the people here into informed and uninformed
participants, and do you consider Whitecrest and uninformed participant?

The uninformed will support the use o Flash _without_ showing the
slightest indication that they understand exactly what it is about Flash
that is bad for the web.

What gives you the idea that in my alleged "little dream world" choices
and decisions have no ramifications or no effect outside of those who
make them? Certainly I never said anything like it.

You agreed with Whitecrest's statement that site owner's choices to not
support people without Flash was a choice and that despite the
consequences thereof, it was neither right nor wrong. If it had no
ramifactions outside of the people taking the decision, I would not have
taken issue with you, but it obviously does. If you believe that forcing
clients to use Flash does not have ramifactions beyond those who decree it
to be that way, then you are definitely in a dream world.

It is patently clear that choosing to exclude people from your web site
due to their ability to display some arbitrary proprietary format (except
in the most carefully-chosen examples) _is_ wrong, no ifs and or buts. Tim
Berners-Lee should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong about the
web, and he stated clearly that it should be client-independent. You
cannot force a client to have Flash installed and still be client
independent. Therefore it is simply _wrong_, and furthermore has
ramifications far beyond those who took the decision to force a
proprietary format on anonymous 3rd parties.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Zak McGregor]

www.cartoon network.com Please duplicate the the games my children can
play there with html. Because if you can't, then I get all the
customers.

What drugs are you on exactly? For your information, those games could be
duplicated in other languages (other than HTML of course - that is
nonsensical since HTML isn't a programming language at all). And your
massive leap from there to "getting all the customers" just isn't worth
responding to.

Obviously not everything that one is able to do in Flash are you able to
do in HTML, and most definitely vice-versa.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Dylan Parry]

Obviously not everything that one is able to do in Flash are you able to
do in HTML, and most definitely vice-versa.

I believe that was his point?

 

[Zak McGregor]

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 17:55:56 +0200, Whitecrest <"Whitecrest"

[snip]

I would be presenting the best way for the client to advertise or sell
their product. By making the site so generic that anyone in the world
can see it can see it, you could loose the effectiveness of the site
with those that would actually purchase your product.

No-one is arguing that the site should be any less crud-ridden than you
would "want" it to be, however the point is that you are giving your
client less than he or she has paid for if you are happy to allow your
client to persue inappropriate content delivery mechanisms.

Sorry, I disagree with you. It is completely opinion.

It isn't. A si pointed out in a previous email, Tim Berners-Lee is
definitely one to decide what is right or wrong when it comes to mattrers
of the web, and he stated that the web must be client-independent. Flash
breaks this by forcing the user to have 3 seperate things:
(1) a plugin for a proprietary format
(2) a mouse
(3) a GUI

So, according to the father of the web, Flash is _wrong_. How much
clearer does it need to be?

Good bye

 

[Zak McGregor]

Turn flash on to see the fluf that 80% or 90% of the rest of the world
see.

I don't do Flash. It isn't a matter of turning it on. Besides, the site
has boatloads of non-advertising material, so even had I seen the crud it
would have made no difference to the gist of my argument.

Here's 2 cent's worth of advice: go and learn the medium you pretend to
know.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Zak McGregor]

Have you written to Subaru to tell them this huge problem they are
facing? I am sure they are worried about how your site effects their
global sales...... (that was sarcasm)

Actually I did. I am sure they don't care, but at least I don't just
complain, I do try and help where I can.

On that note, another 2 cent's worth of advice: learn the medium you
pretend to know.

Good bye.

 

[Zak McGregor]

I believe that was his point?

What was the point of his point? Is he trying to say that more people use
the web to play games than get information? Or that his children's need
to play games trumps other people's needs to get information? I see he
has a point, what he intends doing with it I'm not sure.

Ciao

Zak

 

[Dylan Parry]

What was the point of his point? Is he trying to say that more people
use the web to play games than get information? Or that his children's
need to play games trumps other people's needs to get information? I see
he has a point, what he intends doing with it I'm not sure.

I believe his point is that HTML alone has its place, and Flash has its
uses too. He was trying to say that you can't make a site with interactive
games without using some proprietary technology, as HTML is not a
programming language and has no interactive capabilities; this is where
things like Flash, Java etc are useful.

Put another way, you wouldn't use Flash to present pure information, but
you wouldn't use HTML to make games.

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

"Neither was wrong" is tripe.

No, it's not. It's quite true.

In this case right and wrong is clear as day
and night.

This is obviously not so, as there is disagreement about it.

Choosing not to believe that is your perogative, but doesn't
make it less a matter of right and wrong.

Ah, yes, Mr. Taliban, that's the fundamentalist zealot speaking,
completely engrossed in his own ideology, which is the one true way of
the righteous, unable to see beyond the brim of your doctrines, which
are divine laws, whereas those who disagree with the one and only truth
-- which happens to always coincide with your very own point of view --
waving the bible of your religion (e.g. the w3.org specifications), and
casting out the demons from hell which are only out there to destroy the
world, er, web, or at least the way you in your mighty lofty and
undiluted mind have decided the web should be. No, thanks, go this way
alone, buddy. Fundamentalism of all kind is highly suspect to me.

The uninformed will support the use o Flash _without_ showing the
slightest indication that they understand exactly what it is about Flash
that is bad for the web.

Yet what you fail to show the slightest indication of, Zak, is that you
posses the ability to understand that there are some people who _do_
understand why _you_ think that Flash is bad for the web, but who simply
disagree with you.

You agreed with Whitecrest's statement that site owner's choices to not
support people without Flash was a choice and that despite the
consequences thereof, it was neither right nor wrong.

Yes, and I still do. So far, you have yet to put forth some arguments
that would make me reconsider this.

If it had no
ramifactions outside of the people taking the decision, I would not have
taken issue with you, but it obviously does.

Could be, could be. A butterfly in China... well, you know.

If you believe that forcing
clients to use Flash

The keyword here is "if", Zak, because I neither believe forcing anybody
to use Flash, nor have I ever posted anything that could be interpreted
that way. It is you who seems to want to force others not to use Flash.
Who is the one who wants to force people?

does not have ramifactions beyond those who decree it
to be that way, then you are definitely in a dream world.

Every choice made by everybody has ramifications. So? And you think that
justifies forcing everybody else to make only "choices" that you
yourself would personally approve of? Who made you the ruler of the
world, er, web?

It is patently clear that choosing to exclude people from your web site
due to their ability to display some arbitrary proprietary format (except
in the most carefully-chosen examples) _is_ wrong, no ifs and or buts.

That is crap. It is patently clear that I can chose to exclude or
include people from my very own website in whatever way I see fit, no
ifs or buts, and certainly not rights or wrongs. If I want to program a
site that only works in Opera 6.0 with Flash installed and that leaves
everybody else locked out, I may be eccentric, but it's my and nobody
else's business, and it's my damn right to do so. Whether it would be
prudent to do such a thing is another story, but it's certainly not a
"right" or "wrong" question. I don't know about you, but I'm not living
under a dictatorship.

Tim
Berners-Lee should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong about the
web,

Nobody should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong about the
web, but I guess telling that to a fundamentalist is like asking the
head of El-Qaida if we can't just "all get along".

and he stated clearly that it should be client-independent.

If he wants client-independent websites he should program client
independent websites.

You
cannot force a client to have Flash installed

I cannot and I don't want to. I don't want to force anybody to install
anything, in case you haven't noticed.

and still be client
independent.

You can program a site that's perfectly usable without Flash, yet give
the site some extra audio-visual information using Flash.

Therefore it is simply _wrong_,

It's not wrong at all. It's not a moral choice, which is something you
should really grasp. It's an ideological fallacy to expect that every
webpage in the world must be fully and in all aspects accessible and
readable for everybody and with every browser ever made. There is
nothing at all wrong about catering to special interests or limit your
audience.

and furthermore has
ramifications far beyond those who took the decision to force a
proprietary format on anonymous 3rd parties.

Look who's talking. You are the one who wants to force your ideology on
others, you are the one who makes statements such as "Tim Berners-Lee
should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong". Who is forcing
anything onto you? I sure don't. In fact, I don't give a rats ass
whether you have Flash installed or not or whether you ever visit a page
I have programmed that uses Flash or not. That's your choice. I make mine.

 

[Whitecrest]

That is an odd feature, if the developers put it there. Why do you think
it is there?

To let you decide if you want to see that content or not. you have to
make a decision. You choose not to see it, so you may be loosing out on
some great stuff. The companies choose to use it so they have to deal
with the fact that they may loose our sale. It is a two way street.

 

[Dylan Parry]

You can't be serious! 201 Created is far superior! ;-)

I tend to think that 402 is the best[1], especially if it works in my
favour )

[1] I'm aware that this response code is as yet unimplemented.

 

[Michael Weber]

[Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:09:01 +0200/Kris]

So you need to stop disabling your browser

That is an odd feature, if the developers put it there. Why do you think
it is there?[/QUOTE]

To turn it on if needed. If you don't, it is your choice. Quite
easy to understand, you know...


regs
michael

 

[Whitecrest]

"Neither was wrong" is tripe. In this case right and wrong is clear as day
and night. Choosing not to believe that is your perogative, but doesn't
make it less a matter of right and wrong.

Please explain how using design to entice people to buy or use your site
is a bad idea? Because you may loose someone? You can gain much more
than you loose depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

The uninformed will support the use o Flash _without_ showing the
slightest indication that they understand exactly what it is about Flash
that is bad for the web.

And please tell me why Flash is such a bad thing? I personally think it
is a great thing, and so do millions of others.

You agreed with Whitecrest's statement that site owner's choices to not
support people without Flash was a choice and that despite the
consequences thereof, it was neither right nor wrong. If it had no
ramifactions outside of the people taking the decision, I would not have
taken issue with you, but it obviously does. If you believe that forcing
clients to use Flash does not have ramifactions beyond those who decree it
to be that way, then you are definitely in a dream world.

Telling people they have to use flash to use a site is perfectly correct
in some cases. If a company feels that they will receive more sales if
they present their product using flash, then they have a right to do it.

And in many cases, if you DON'T use Flash, you will loose sales (please
visit virtually any site catering to the 15 and under audience) The web
is being used for more than information. It is being used for
entertainment. Text is not entertaining to everyone you know.

It is patently clear that choosing to exclude people from your web site
due to their ability to display some arbitrary proprietary format (except
in the most carefully-chosen examples) _is_ wrong, no ifs and or buts...

Why? If you think it is wrong, then don't come to my site. Oh no, I
lost your sale...

Tim Berners-Lee should be the one to dictate what is right or wrong about the
web, and he stated clearly that it should be client-independent...

So what. I disagree with him, as do millions and millions of others.

 

[Whitecrest]

What drugs are you on exactly? For your information, those games could be
duplicated in other languages (other than HTML of course - that is
nonsensical since HTML isn't a programming language at all). And your
massive leap from there to "getting all the customers" just isn't worth
responding to.

Ok, so duplicate them in other languages, then you have made another
choice. It is all about choices you know.

Obviously not everything that one is able to do in Flash are you able to
do in HTML, and most definitely vice-versa.

What can I not do in Flash that I can do in HTML?

 

[Whitecrest]

What was the point of his point? Is he trying to say that more people use
the web to play games than get information? Or that his children's need
to play games trumps other people's needs to get information? I see he
has a point, what he intends doing with it I'm not sure.

Zac, my point is that the web is a big place. Some people like the
interactive part of the web. Why is it wrong for these people to have a
place on the web just because you personally don like the technology
they use to display their content?

It is NOT wrong! It is up to the company to decide how they will best
be represented by their web page. Not all web pages need the fluff.
But some do.

Why is it so hard for you to see that?

 

[Whitecrest]

It isn't. A si pointed out in a previous email, Tim Berners-Lee is
definitely one to decide what is right or wrong when it comes to mattrers
of the web, and he stated that the web must be client-independent.....
...So, according to the father of the web, Flash is _wrong_. How much
clearer does it need to be?

The Web grew up. You still want it the way it was.

 

[Whitecrest]

Here's 2 cent's worth of advice: go and learn the medium you pretend to
know.

Zak, have you now lowered yourself to name calling?

 

[Whitecrest]

Actually I did. I am sure they don't care, but at least I don't just
complain, I do try and help where I can.
On that note, another 2 cent's worth of advice: learn the medium you
pretend to know.

Why do you have to make something personal after you loose the argument?
Does it make you feel any better?

 

[Isofarro]

Why, 200, of course! ;-)

You can't be serious! 201 Created is far superior! ;-)