[CLUE-Tech] Re: Browser Protest Day

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 10:03:09 -0600
Mike Benavides <tipsrules99 at attbi.com> wrote:

> Keith Hellman wrote:
> 
> >http://cartalk.cars.com/DopeSlap/
> >>
> >>startup_page.html is a nice viewable page. It tells you you can't do
> >>anything without flash.
> >>
> >>So, I headed over to cartalk.cars.com, to see if they still have the
> >>virtual dope-slap, cuz I figured this web author really needs on. But
> >>alas, it appears to be gone.

> Gentleman:

Where? ;-)

> All the rants and the flames in the world will not change the fact that 
> to move users over they need a web experience that is predictable and 
> easy to use.

Predictable? I don't see how an ever increasing array of bells and
whistles make the web experience _more_ predictable. Yes, there is an
increase in the likelihood that some particular thingy will function in
your browser - from the standpoint of higher levels of conformance and
standardization of the DOM, CSS, etc., or if you install the latest
version of the Shockwave/Flash player, then yes, you get a higher degree
of certainty that those will run properly. That doesn't necessarily
translate into a better web experience. I suppose that depends upon what
you define as "better". And, it depends even more upon how
considerate/intelligent the web authors are.

But to make a website 100% non-functional without flash or javascript?
That's like building a car that won't start unless the radio is turned on
and playing a particular genre of music.

If I were to install a flash plugin, I know that I would be seeing more
animated advertising. I don't consider that to be better. A few years
back, I ran across a lot of pages where the author thought that either a
"welcoming" audio clip, or background music, was an enhancement to their
page.

I just recently visited www.techiegold.com. I have set up a "job hunting"
user on my box, and I run Netscape 4 from that username. The preferences
for that user have cookies/javascript enabled, and don't use my junkbuster
proxy. I had to do this because too many of the job sites don't function
well without cookies, and couple rely on javascript (don't recall which
ones). But I found this easier to do than to keep toggling various
preferences on/off from my "main" username (where I run Galeon). Anyway, I
was finished looking around, and exited from Netscape. When I did this, 2
popup windows were created. So, my point is, how is it predictable for the
user when exiting the application doesn't actually exit the application?
How is it easier to use when I have to close two additional windows that I
didn't ask for?

I understand your point that part of the issue with getting people away
from M$ does involve providing similar levels of function, etc. That is
only tangental to this issue, however.

The problems I rant about with the web aren't the technology itself, but
the way those technologies are abused. These abuses are actually more
prevalant in the windows world, because the various plugins, etc. are more
likely to be available in an M$/IE environment, and more of those users
are likely to be unaware of how to tailor their browser to enable/disable
various things. And, I guess part of the same issue is the "consumer vs.
customer"  mentality that Zonker was talking about earlier. People just
accept intrusive content when it comes down the pipe. I suppose a fair
amount even think some of it is "kewl". I'm sure some of it is. It's just
that the wheat/chaff ratio is awfully high.

Because of the level of control that JavaScript has over the DOM, it's
actually less predictable than plain HTML, or even HTML/CSS. Think about
one small effect of CSS. You can now explicitly set the text decoration
for a link to "none". Combine that with the <underline> tag. You can now
write web pages where it's completely impossible to see where links are on
the page with running your mouse cursor all over the place - and yes, I've
visited sites where that is exactly the case.

> I burned Mandrake's 8.2 off my Red Hat 7.2 box  distro to 
> test the end user experience.  This disto is easy is load and has all 
> the toys like multimedia.....newer kernel etc..  The Mozilla has all the
> plugins to work all the MS$ sites as far as I have tested it last night.
>  It also has Konqueror for the KDE crowd and Galeon browsers.  It is  
> Linux for newbies.... and more...

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that Linux distros (and Free
software) are making these strides. That's not the same thing at all as my
turning off javascript because I've gotten just plain tired of having to
undo/turnoff all the crap that I've seen come across as "enhanced
usability".

There was an article in today's Post/News about how difficult various
gadgetry is becoming for many people, particularly with the high degree of
"feature stuffing". It seems to me that the www is going in the same
direction. And yes, there are cases where these things are good. But not
in a basic, user/customer contact and information page. In the case I've
just ranted about, the company is a large hosting provider, and I was
hoping to find their TOS/AUP before sending them a spam complaint - and in
fact, also discover if they have a published abuse address (not everyone
has abuse at domain.tld). Is flash necessary for the presentation of that
information? I don't think so.

Well, I've been up on my soapbox for long enough, I think.

Later,
jed
-- 
Fight the CBDTPA: http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine