OT: web design

Thu Feb 16 05:50:18 PST 2006

Try using Mozilla Firefox.  Tabbed browsing is addictive and solves a
lot of these concerns.  (Hint: to go backwards rightclick on the back
button to go back 2 pages (one before the redirecting one) and open the
new one in a new tab.)

Boaz

>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:39:26 -0500
>From: "Brian K. White" <brian at aljex.com>
>Subject: OT: web design
>To: <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Message-ID: <032801c632aa$a5b8ab10$6c00000a at venti>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>	reply-type=original
>
>Another reason why it's sensible to avoid putting uncessary junk in your web 
>pages.
>
>I have a perfectly up to date machine. Completely best-case scenario, most 
>common case scenario.
>Windows XP home, 3.2ghz p4 with HT, a gig of pc3200 ram, 800fsb, all the 
>latest versions of all the common plugins (flash, acrobat, java, quicktime, 
>etc...)
>Everything works fine, no viruses, no broken plugins etc... so even the 
>worst examples of careless inefficient web pages work fine for me at least 
>on this machine.
>
>So I'm doing some research / shopping, and I'm reading an article that I 
>arrived at indirectly by at least a couple links.
>The article has my attention and I want to read it. If I were to move off of 
>the page I'm viewing I know I may not be able to find my way back.
>
>There is a row of advertizements along the page. They are all topical and 
>all of interest to me also.
>
>Dumb thing #1 that people do who disregard common sense of simplicity in web 
>design:
>When you follow a link, something about the new page makes the back button 
>unuseable. You just keep getting the new page over and over again due to 
>some kind of immediate redirect or something.
>It doesn't matter that you have no difficulty displaying the new page. The 
>unecessary gizmo on it is still a problem when you can't get back to, say, 
>the google search results you came from.
>
>The answer there is, once you have been burned by this once, you start being 
>paranoid and every time you want to follow a link but value the current page 
>enough to worry about losing it, you right-click on the link and choose open 
>in new window or in new tab (for those browsers that have tabs).
>
>This brings us to Dumb thing #2:
>Use of flash.
>Remember, I have flash. It works fine. I don't even mind using it. I love 
>those little (usually funny) movies people make. It's like a new art form 
>and I think it's great because some people are really clever and creative 
>with it.
>So this article I was talking about above has this stack of ads I am 
>interested in.
>3/4 of the ads are flash animations, and the content could have been 
>animated gif and look the same.
>
>The flash ads can not be right-clicked on in order to open in new window.
>When you right-click on them, you only get a menu from the flash player with 
>a few options and help/about for the flash pugin instead of the right-click 
>menu from the browser.
>This means you have no way to safely open the link in a new window. All you 
>can do is follow the link normally, and hope it's not one of those sites 
>that traps you.
>Great. Guess which sites I never went to?
>
>Sure, I can get there without losing my current page through even more 
>inconvenience than doing the right-click, which is already a step backwards 
>from the bad old days when all you hed to do was click on things with one 
>immediate step. I could cut & copy my current url, open a new browser, paste 
>the url, then go back to the other window and click on the flash ad and have 
>it all be a waste of time because only occasional pages actually "trap" you 
>from going back.
>
>Every "new" thing must have many such indirect problems. I certainly 
>couldn't think of them all ahead of time, and clearly many web designers 
>haven't either.
>That's why it's better to default to not using them instead of defaulting to 
>using them.
>
>The point is just think simple in general as a philosophy and apply it 
>without requiring proof before hand why you shouldn't use gizmofeature3000 
>now with giga-smell.
>Require instead proof that it causes no direct or indirect hassles anywhere.
>It's pretty hard to prove a negative like that, so generally, you will not 
>be using any such new things if you followed that way.
>This is exactly as it should be!
>
>Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
>+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
>filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!
>
> 
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:01:39 -0700
>From: "Cole, Ken (ABRC)" <Ken.Cole at smiths-aerospace.com>
>Subject: RE: web design
>To: "Brian K. White" <brian at aljex.com>,
>	<filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
>Message-ID:
>	<E22325555C3F154880AB613BF5A9796601AD0293 at COSSMGMBX04.EMAIL.CORP.TLD>
>Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>Brian,
>
>  
>
>>The flash ads can not be right-clicked on in order to open in
>>new window.
>>    
>>
>
>Try Ctrl-N if you use IE.  It opens the current page in a "N"ew window
>leaving the original for you in case the link one is a "bad" site.
>
>Ken
>
>******************************************
>The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.
>******************************************
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Filepro-list mailing list
>Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
>
>End of Filepro-list Digest, Vol 25, Issue 63
>********************************************
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20060216/8b8dda86/attachment.html