Great christmas! The monster is down to 4%
Roland Mösl
NutScrap 4 usage in the net.
For several hours of the day, a computation of
hourly statistics of TheCounter.com showed
a usage near 2.5%
Look at it!
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
The bug monster has nearly no fans anymore.
No one with his mind straigt does anymore waste time for
work arounds to satisfy the strage bug monster.
--
Roland Mösl
http://pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://BeingFound.com Web Design starts at the search engine
tg
"Roland Mösl" <fou...@pege.org> wrote in message
news:3c2cb4d4$0$34592$5039...@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
> Yes, christmas holidays brought the lowest evers of
> NutScrap 4 usage in the net.
>
> For several hours of the day, a computation of
> hourly statistics of TheCounter.com showed
> a usage near 2.5%
>
> Look at it!
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
>
> The bug monster has nearly no fans anymore.
>
> No one with his mind straigt does anymore waste time for
> work arounds to satisfy the strage bug monster.
well, I've just wasted a week trying to get my pages to work in N4. Christ
what a pain of a browser.
I've now given up, deleted all my 'N4 friendly' pages and put a javascript
into my home page to redirect N4 users to a browser update page.
Jim Hendrickson
"tg" <to...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:a0igad$l2th4$2...@ID-114539.news.dfncis.de...
We just deal Netscape 4 its own CSS file (if you want to call a list of
hacks 'CSS') and tell clients not to expect their site to be pretty in
Netscape 4. Stats on our sites are showing 6% or so using this virusware.
Giuseppe Verde
Please, please, *please* do NOT do this. It shuts out people, even if
your page would render properly for them. Appropriate is saying that
their browser is unsupported, especially if it's just in static HTML.
I've run into enough sites that do this, just to find out that they're
just fine under my browser. Unsupported is much different from
banned, which is what you're (in effect doing) when redirecting
people).
I'd be interested to learn if your page renders properly in Moz/NS6.2.1,
and, if not, if you've validated it and if your web server is working
properly (Moz can be somewhat strict in its MIME types). Also, for
debugging JavaScript, have you used Venkman and the JavaScript Console
and the DOM Inspector?
tg
"Jim Hendrickson" <jim@distant[remove-before-flight]galaxy.com> wrote in
message news:_r6X7.45247$Xb7.3...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
yeah, sounds in line with the 4% reported at
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
it's a shame really. I'd like Netscape to be good, if only to keep Microsoft
in their place.
Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
Burpmaster
>Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
>
That's the impression you get if you try 6.0, then give up on any later
release.
Fabian Guisset
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 19:07:28 +0100, "Roland Mösl" <fou...@pege.org> ,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, christmas holidays brought the lowest evers of
>>NutScrap 4 usage in the net.
>>
>>For several hours of the day, a computation of
>>hourly statistics of TheCounter.com showed
>>a usage near 2.5%
>>
>>Look at it!
>>http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
>>
>>The bug monster has nearly no fans anymore.
>>
>>No one with his mind straigt does anymore waste time for
>>work arounds to satisfy the strage bug monster.
>>
>
> Funny Mösl,
>
> you can open your mouth when you are not asked but you are still not
> capable to reply to:
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:27:33 +0200, "Roland Mösl" <fou...@pege.org> ,
> wrote:
>
>
>>I do not support new features of my pages in N4 since 15 month
>>
>>N4 users are second class users.
>>Who insists to use the bug monster can not expect
>>that I waste my time to find work arounds that he
>>has the same browsing experience like first class users
>>
>
> Mösl Roland,
>
> you keep ranting and raving, but fail to reply to my simple question
> which I am repeating below:
>
> ========================================================
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:11:28 +0200, "Roland Mösl" <fou...@pege.org> ,
> wrote:
>
>>How can somebody use such obsolet anti standard software.
>>
>>Upgrade!
>>
>
>
> Well, Mösl Roland,
>
> tell me which newer browser I can set to accept cookies but replace the
> Cookies.txt file with a read only Cookies.txt folder, so that I actually
> do not get any cookies.
> Arno
> ===============================================
>
> Muss ich das auf deutsch fragen damit Du antwortest?
>
> (Do I have to ask in German for you to reply?)
>
> Arno
>
I don't see the point of this if you can use a much simpler, much
cleaner way: disable all cookies!
Edit > Preferences > Privacy and Security > Cookies > Disable Cookies
You don't get any cookie!
And there was much rejoicing
-Fabian.
Roland Mösl
news:7mcq2ukfrqe7fmv46...@4ax.com...
> >NutScrap 4 usage in the net.
> >
> >For several hours of the day, a computation of
> >hourly statistics of TheCounter.com showed
> >a usage near 2.5%
> >
> >Look at it!
> >http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
> >
> >The bug monster has nearly no fans anymore.
> >
> >No one with his mind straigt does anymore waste time for
> >work arounds to satisfy the strage bug monster.
>
>
> you can open your mouth when you are not asked but you are still not
> capable to reply to:
> Well, Mösl Roland,
>
> tell me which newer browser I can set to accept cookies but replace the
> Cookies.txt file with a read only Cookies.txt folder, so that I actually
> do not get any cookies.
> Arno
> ===============================================
It's simple, I do not like privacy hysterics.
Roland Mösl
news:3C2CB522...@ksu.edu...
> tg wrote:
>
> > "Roland Mösl" <fou...@pege.org> wrote in message
> > news:3c2cb4d4$0$34592$5039...@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at...
> >>Yes, christmas holidays brought the lowest evers of
> >>NutScrap 4 usage in the net.
> >>For several hours of the day, a computation of
> >>hourly statistics of TheCounter.com showed
> >>a usage near 2.5%
> >>Look at it!
> >>http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
> >>The bug monster has nearly no fans anymore.
> >>No one with his mind straigt does anymore waste time for
> >>work arounds to satisfy the strage bug monster.
> > well, I've just wasted a week trying to get my pages to work in N4.
Christ
> > what a pain of a browser.
> > I've now given up, deleted all my 'N4 friendly' pages and put a
javascript
> > into my home page to redirect N4 users to a browser update page.
>
>
> Please, please, *please* do NOT do this. It shuts out people,
No, it shuts out fanatics who can not confront the truth.
N4 is a bug monster.
Roland Mösl
> yeah, sounds in line with the 4% reported at
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
> it's a shame really. I'd like Netscape to be good, if only to keep
Microsoft
> in their place.
> Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
But Netscape 6 does not hurt.
All what I develop runs nearly without any problems
on Mozilla.
So I would like to see positions exchanged.
Netscape 6.N at 4% and
Netscape 4.N at 0.6%
tg
"Burpmaster" <burpm...@truffula.net> wrote in message
news:3C2D0F8E...@truffula.net...
no, I tried 6.0, then 6.1, and now I'm, on 6.2
tg
> "tg" <to...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
> news:a0j1pu$krcsd$1...@ID-114539.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > yeah, sounds in line with the 4% reported at
> > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
> > it's a shame really. I'd like Netscape to be good, if only to keep
> Microsoft
> > in their place.
> > Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
>
> But Netscape 6 does not hurt.
>
> All what I develop runs nearly without any problems
> on Mozilla.
>
> So I would like to see positions exchanged.
>
> Netscape 6.N at 4% and
> Netscape 4.N at 0.6%
yes I agree with that Roland. My pages run well on N6.1 and 6.2, but badly
on N4 so it's a shame to see N6 hardly being used.
I hope the more of the net poplulation starts using N6 as soon as poss.
tg
thanks for your feedback here Giuseppe.
Firstly, I'm not 'banning' people from my site if they have N4. I just
re-direct them to another intro page where I indicate they must have N5/6 or
higher to see my site properly. I have a lot of javascripts in my pages and
if the viewers browser can't handle them I'm only going to get flames. I
recently wasted a week trying to get my website to run in N4 and eventually
had to give up. It was just problem after problem after problem. IE5/6 and
N6 ran fine but N4 kept locking up. In the light of the fact that N4 is down
to about 5% of internet users I could see no point in wasting further time.
I have to accept most of the blame myself for N4's problems - I'm at
beginner level making web pages. I tried to seek help to debug my pages but
help was very thin when it came to N4.
Yes, my pages run fine in N6.2
I'll check out the javascript debug links you've given here, and thanks
again.
Roland Mösl
I tested Mozilla Milestones up to Mozilla 0.97 now
They show my sites correct.
Small parts to improve, but in general very useable.
Roland Mösl
> Yes, my pages run fine in N6.2
> I'll check out the javascript debug links you've given here, and thanks
> again.
I would suggest to test also with Opera.
Opera has with my sites some severe bugs.
Jeremy Goodwin
JJ
Mama Cass wrote:
> Why do you need all that Javascript?
>
> Mama Cass
>
tg
"Mama Cass" <Mama_Cass--@-nosuchaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns91873866...@202.20.93.13...
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard tg say these wise words:
>
> > I have a lot of javascripts in my pages and
> > if the viewers browser can't handle them I'm only going to get flames.
>
1) I use overlib 3.50 a lot - it gives the viewer quicker snippets of
information without them having to load a new page.
2) My pages belong in a frameset and I want to keep them there.
3) The most important thing I want to build into my site is ease of
navigation and javascript helps with that
Jim Hendrickson
>
>
> yeah, sounds in line with the 4% reported at
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
> it's a shame really. I'd like Netscape to be good, if only to keep
Microsoft
> in their place.
> Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
>
Netscape 6 is far easier to develop for. No matter how many "updates" are
made to 4.7x (4.8x, 4.9x) it will still never "work". It was a hack from
the very beginning. Mozilla will be good, and when Netscape releases a
version 6.x based on the 1.0 Mozilla, then maybe it will pick up more users,
but the way it is going now, that is doubtful.
tg
"Mama Cass" <Mama_Cass--@-nosuchaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In alt.netscape.sucks the people heard tg say these wise words:
>
> >> Why do you need all that Javascript?
> >
> > 1) I use overlib 3.50 a lot - it gives the viewer quicker snippets of
> > information without them having to load a new page.
> > 2) My pages belong in a frameset and I want to keep them there.
> > 3) The most important thing I want to build into my site is ease of
> > navigation and javascript helps with that
>
>
> Remember that there are plenty of people who do not visit unfamiliar
> websites with Java or Javascript enabled!
>
> If people cannot navigate around your website WITHOUT Javascript, then
> *you* are unlikely to be getting the most out of your website.
yeah you have a point, but I'm not obsessive about 'every single person with
every different browser configuration' being able to access my site. 90% of
all internet users are currently using IE4/5/6, and I personally don't know
anyone (besides myself) who would know what javascript is, if it's on or
off, or how to switch it off. Therefore the vast majority are surfing with
it defaulted as on whether they realise it or not.
Anyone without javascript will not get into my site and that's the way I
want it, and my site has not been designed for the internet savvy 'my
javascript is switched off ha ha ha' surfers. I'm not going to keep my
website in the stone age just because a tiny minority insist on switching
off their javascript.
Jeremy Goodwin
to learn anything about their system or I.E. zombies. I
seem to find that a majority of the people with whom I
do business use text browsers, or know enough to disable
at least Java Script. The first time I saw an applet of
a beach at sunset, I thought it would wonderful on my
site, then I realized that most of the international
community that pays by the minute for online time, would
not even want coloured background if they were there for
information or to purchase.
I would imagine some spiders having trouble with a site
with no compatibility, would somebody with more
knowledge than me care to comment?
JJ
Mama Cass wrote:
>
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard tg say these wise words:
>
> > Anyone without javascript will not get into my site and that's the way I
> > want it
>
> Hmmm - interesting attitude you have.
>
> Good luck - you'll need it!
>
> Mama Cass
>
> --
> "When dealing with the Religious Right one should remember that 'truth' is
> not a part of the rules of their game."
Jeremy Goodwin
is the same as what will print. I deal a lot with
Central and South America and I had to remove background
colour from my information pages to encourage them to
print what they needed. That combined with a lot of 33k
modems, telephone and net connection charges by the
minute, and poor quality phone lines, means that any
site I put up has to be stripped down.
I know that this is not the correct group, but I would
appreciate your testing my main site for ease of use,
and any suggestions.
Jeremy
<http://cayehardwoods.com>
Mama Cass wrote:
>
> IMHO, a website should be navigable using not only NO Javascript, but also
> with no images being displayed - for precicely the reasons you've
> mentioned. websites are there to communicate information.
>
> Mama Cass
>
> --
> John Nichols: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer
> cell."
Burpmaster
>"tg" <to...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
>news:a0k7cu$l6rfd$3...@ID-114539.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Yes, my pages run fine in N6.2
>>I'll check out the javascript debug links you've given here, and thanks
>>again.
>>
>
>I would suggest to test also with Opera.
>
>Opera has with my sites some severe bugs.
>
Or perhaps your sites have with Opera some severe bugs.
Burpmaster
>After you do that, go to the Microsoft Knowledge base website and tell
>us how you make out!!!
>
I really doubt you're disabling cookies. You're just preventing them
from being saved when you exit the browser. In Mozilla, you can just
check a box to limit cookies to the current session for the same effect.
Fabian Guisset
I don't understand what you mean by "After you do that, go to the MS
Knowledge base website and tell us how you make out!!!".
Does that mean you can't do that in IE? You can in Mozilla/NS6 :-)
Burpmaster: In Mozilla when you use "Disable cookies", cookies aren't
set at all. This even leads to troubles with hotmail and stuff. They're
saved for the session only if you use those awkward P3P cookies
preferences which I know nothing about.
Burpmaster
> I don't understand what you mean by "After you do that, go to the MS
> Knowledge base website and tell us how you make out!!!".
> Does that mean you can't do that in IE? You can in Mozilla/NS6 :-)
> Burpmaster: In Mozilla when you use "Disable cookies", cookies aren't
> set at all. This even leads to troubles with hotmail and stuff.
> They're saved for the session only if you use those awkward P3P
> cookies preferences which I know nothing about.
That's why you don't disable cookies.
You check "Limit maximum lifetime of cookies to:", then choose "current
session".
I have mine set to five days.
tg
"Jeremy Goodwin" <jer...@dcnet2000.com> wrote in message
news:3C2E71F1...@dcnet2000.com...
> I suppose he is just interested in those users too dumb
> to learn anything about their system or I.E. zombies.
you're talking about 99.9% of the earths population now
and yes these are the people I'm targeting.
>I seem to find that a majority of the people with whom I
> do business use text browsers, or know enough to disable
> at least Java Script. The first time I saw an applet of
> a beach at sunset, I thought it would wonderful on my
> site, then I realized that most of the international
> community that pays by the minute for online time, would
> not even want coloured background if they were there for
> information or to purchase.
your attitude is one that people should learn about browsers and code and
the internet in the same way as you have. I wish they would but I guarantee
you they won't. Ever. Thus it is our job as web page makers to fit our pages
to the viewer, not vice versa. If javascript was not wanted, it would never
have been created.
> I would imagine some spiders having trouble with a site
> with no compatibility, would somebody with more
> knowledge than me care to comment?
you're right, I am aware search engines are going to have a difficult time
with my site but I made the decision early on to design my site my own way,
and to hell with the search engines. It's too easy to fall into the trap of
bowing down and grovelling for pity before the search engines. There must be
an alternative. I have little faith in the search engines to be frank and I
intend to use more traditional methods of promotion for my site. Search
engines are important, however they are over-rated in importance.
tg
"Mama Cass" <Mama_Cass--@-nosuchaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard Jeremy Goodwin say these
> wise words:
>
> > I suppose he is just interested in those users too dumb
> > to learn anything about their system or I.E. zombies. I
> > seem to find that a majority of the people with whom I
> > do business use text browsers, or know enough to disable
> > at least Java Script. The first time I saw an applet of
> > a beach at sunset, I thought it would wonderful on my
> > site, then I realized that most of the international
> > community that pays by the minute for online time, would
> > not even want coloured background if they were there for
> > information or to purchase.
>
> with no images being displayed - for precicely the reasons you've
> mentioned. websites are there to communicate information.
I agree with partly with what you say - meaning the communication bit but to
take away images and javascript.... ? Nothing educates more powerfully than
moving pictures with sound, although I know the majority of those on the
internet at the moment do not have the download speed these things need. But
soon they will. No-one I know (besides myself) will read more than two or
three lines of text before they press the back button. People hate lots of
text and they will not read it.
Fabian Guisset
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard tg say these wise words:
>
>
>>If javascript was not wanted, it would never
>>have been created.
>>
>
> Lets see, if cocane was not wanted it would never have been created.
>
> Not a good argument eh?
>
>
> Mama Cass
>
>
This is a good comparison. Cocaine can be useful in some cases, like
JavaScript. Cocaine costs money, so does JavaScript (if you want to hire
a good programmer anyway). Once you start coding with JavaScript you
cannot go back to plain HTML, like cocaine.
There's just a slight difference.
JavaScript never killed anyone.
-Fabian.
Jeremy Goodwin
I think the issue is whether you can navigate a site as
a text page, if it is your desire.
JJ
Jeremy Goodwin
website cannot be both commercial and international, you
believe you have no need of clients that do not fit your
profile, you have an unrealistic assessment of the
abilities of business users and their choices.
Over 50% of internet users have access to 33K modems or
slower. A majority of NAs prefer to disable java script,
except on a special case basis. Search engines provide
over 75% of my business. Nobody has ever called me to
complain about the lack of Java on any of my websites. I
have spent years listening to the needs of internet
clients, that was my job as it relates to websites, now
I pay someone else to do it my way.
I wish you luck and I hope that the USA is ready for
your views and please do not try and market your ability
elsewhere.
JJ
tg
>
> JavaScript never killed anyone.
I sometimes felt it was killing me!
tg
> I think you need to work on your statistics, your
> website cannot be both commercial and international, you
> believe you have no need of clients that do not fit your
> profile, you have an unrealistic assessment of the
> abilities of business users and their choices.
my site is not designed for business users and I anticipate no benefit from
considering them.
> Over 50% of internet users have access to 33K modems or
> slower. A majority of NAs prefer to disable java script,
> except on a special case basis.
my site is not designed for NA's or those on such systems.
> Search engines provide
> over 75% of my business. Nobody has ever called me to
> complain about the lack of Java on any of my websites. I
> have spent years listening to the needs of internet
> clients, that was my job as it relates to websites, now
> I pay someone else to do it my way.
I do not seek internet clients, this seems to be the difference between you
and me. You move in a different circle and I get the impression your income
completely depends on that circle, thus your thoughts are carved in this
way.
> I wish you luck and I hope that the USA is ready for
> your views and please do not try and market your ability
> elsewhere.
> JJ
a comment like this is unwelcome. I'll market my abilites anywhere I want.
You do not own, rule or monopolise any Internet province so to hell with
your stuck in the mud philosophy.
Tom Gilder
> yeah you have a point, but I'm not obsessive about 'every single person
with
> every different browser configuration' being able to access my site. 90%
of
> all internet users are currently using IE4/5/6, and I personally don't
know
> anyone (besides myself) who would know what javascript is, if it's on or
> off, or how to switch it off. Therefore the vast majority are surfing
with
> it defaulted as on whether they realise it or not.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/javas.php
12% is a lot of web users to lose.
I selectively disable and enable scripting for sites using IE security
zones myself.
Jeremy Goodwin
claim 99.5% of users can use your system, this is not
true. You claim that the only people that matter are
those that can access your site. I was suggesting you
not to try and market your skills outside the USA to
prevent you from experiencing disappointment at the
level of derision you will encounter.
I travel all over the world and find that people with
your design philosophy inhibit the accessibility of the
net, by making systems requirements unwieldy, expensive
in download time, and therefore restrict the usefulness
of the internet. I do not think you know as much as you
would like to think you know, about people that use the
net, but if you are marketing to AOL customers and the
like, remember that AOL has a significant presence in
countries where the limiting factors will apply.
I agree about the "stuck in the mud" comment, as I first
used AARPnet in the mid 70s, although I do now prefer
top-posting :-)
JJ
Roland Mösl
I develop for standard complaiant browsers.
MSIE 6 and Mozilla 0.97 show my sites well
Roland Mösl
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard tg say these wise words:
>
> > Anyone without javascript will not get into my site and that's the way I
>
> Hmmm - interesting attitude you have.
>
> Good luck - you'll need it!
When somebody is hysteric enough to disable Javascript,
it's complete shure, that he will not sent his credit card number
for an online purchase
So Your critic is stupid
Roland Mösl
news:3C2F2422...@softhome.net...
> JavaScript never killed anyone.
That's not true
The JavaScript bugs of N4 killed me nearly last year in August
Tom Gilder
> When somebody is hysteric enough to disable Javascript,
> it's complete shure, that he will not sent his credit card number
> for an online purchase
Crap.
Lots of people (me included), selectively disable scripting for sites to
remove annoying scripting-powered adverts (popups, etc) - is that me being
hysterical? I also do not currently feel IE is that secure, I know of
several major holes in IE that are not patched and could be exploited
through scripting.
However I have the utmost confidence in SSL, and sending personal details
over the web.
Jeremy Goodwin
first name I would guess Deustchelander.
JJ
"
Mama Cass wrote:
>
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard Roland Mösl say these wise
> words:
>
> > When somebody is hysteric
>
> Um, "hysteric" is an adjective - not an adverb. Kindly learn the
> difference!
>
> How old are you?
>
> Mama Cass
>
> --
> The above reply is in response to a person who can be only described as a
> knuckle-dragger.
Burpmaster
>I develop for standard complaiant browsers.
>
>MSIE 6 and Mozilla 0.97 show my sites well
>
There are a lot of errors on your site that standard compliant browsers
aren't required to handle.
Also, which version of which standard are you following?
Fabian Guisset
> In alt.netscape.buggy-products the people heard Fabian Guisset say these
> wise words:
>
>
>>Once you start coding with JavaScript you
>>cannot go back to plain HTML,
>>
>
> Rubbish!
>
>
> Mama Cass
>
>
Er. I guess it's pretty subjective, but I have a hard time doing simple
html things when I can do some fun js stuff instead :-)
Gollum
> 3) The most important thing I want to build into my site is ease of
> navigation and javascript helps with that
My experience as a surfer is the opposite. I'm not a web
developer, but I use the WWW a lot, especially for product
searches and looking up product data.
With traditional hyperlinks, I can choose if I like to open the
link in the same window or a new one. I very often open links
in new windows, keeping e.g. the main page or "products" page of
a corporate website as the "base" page.
Now it seems that more and more websites use javascript links
that leaves me no choice: Either it forces a new window, or
it will only open in the same window.
Sometimes, when I have opened a link (to another page on the
same site) in a new window, and then clicks another link on the
new page (without opening another new window), the new window
remains unchanged and the page is opened in the previous window.
I really hate this!
(I'm not sure if this is related to javascript or maybe frames,
but anyway it's a problem with modern web design.)
One might say that these problems are due to bugs in the browsers,
but then these "bugs" are common for most (all?) common browsers.
And what imbecile or sadist got the idea of incorporating pop-ups
on exit into javascript? I sometimes encounter endless (circular)
popup chains that are almost impossible to close if the internet
connection is fast enough. And sometimes there are "pop-up hells"
that may make the browser crash if I can't close the windows
fast enough. With Opera (and to some extent Mozilla) pop-ups can
be disabled, but at work we use IE, and I have to live with it.
And now some sponsored sites only works with pop-ups enabled,
opening an ad in the directly linked window and the actual
content in a pop-up window.
I suppose one advantage of javascript is that it lets us fill
in forms online. (Or can this be done only with HTML?)
In other respects, the increased use of javascript has made
navigating the web more cumbersome.
I might be overlooking some aspects of javascript that aren't
so visible to the user, but that doesn't change the impession
I have of the average website being less user-friendly now than
e.g. three years ago.
Death to javascript!
Tom Gilder
news:MPG.169a9376c...@news.world-online.no...
> Now it seems that more and more websites use javascript links
> that leaves me no choice: Either it forces a new window, or
> it will only open in the same window.
Very common thing that idiot web developers do - links are for linking to
other pages, not for triggering scripts.
Easy to fix however - instead of doing <a href="#" onclick="open(...)"> or
<a href="javascript:openWindow()">, you just do <a href="blah.html"
onclick="return!open(this.href, 'myWin', 'whatever=true')">
> Death to javascript!
No, death to javascript that isn't well used.
Burpmaster
>I don't think so.
>It will not work in NS 6.x, that's why I still use NS 4.7 .
>That version can set to "accept cookies" but not actually receive any by
>replacing the Cookies.txt file with a read only Cookies.txt folder.
>If they would only be deleted while exiting the browser, one should be
>able to find them in a session of visiting 20+ URL's, particularly when
>MS is included.
>
How are you checking for cookies?
I believe the only way a website can tell if cookies are enabled is to
actually set a cookie, and see if it gets sent back. If sites that
require cookies are letting you in, your browser must be sending
cookies, but just not keeping them after restarting the browser. The
setting in Mozilla will do the same thing.
Jeremy Goodwin
the FDR flag on the start page.
I happen to like both countries, and even Liechenstein,
although it is a toss up betwwen Wien and Munchen for
which has the prettiest girls.
JJ
Arno Martens wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:40:52 -0600, Jeremy Goodwin
> <jer...@dcnet2000.com> , wrote:
>
> >I think that English is not his first language, from the
> >first name I would guess Deustchelander.
> >JJ
> >
> That's not nice, Jeremy; and that after I just paid you a compliment for
> you web site speed.
>
> Why does the world always blame we Krauts for the bad stuff that comes
> from Austria.
> Arno
Jeremy Goodwin
days.
JJ
Mama Cass wrote:
>
> In alt.netscape.sucks the people heard Jeremy Goodwin say these wise
> words:
>
> > I know that this is not the correct group, but I would
> > appreciate your testing my main site for ease of use,
> > and any suggestions.
> > Jeremy
> > <http://cayehardwoods.com>
>
> Firstly, about the graphics on your front page:
>
> 1/
>
> The logo at the top of the page - it looks like the image is using too few
> shades of grey (actually, having had a look at it, the GIF is using no
> greys at all) and this explains why the text is looking the way it is.
>
> and
>
> 2/
>
> The main graphic looks horrid being squashed up like it is. You should
> display it in its correct aspect ratio - the same one as the actual JPG
> image. And it looks like someone's gone and reduced the contrast or turned
> up the brightness - most un-natural-looking for a photo taken on a bright
> sunshiny day.
>
> But of course you wouldn't want to go overboard with extreme contrasts. :o)
>
> Secondly,
>
> Why the long-winded title on the first page? It doesn't fit
> across the top of a 600+800 screen!
>
> Thirdly,
>
> There seems to be a problem in this piece of code:
>
> <tr>
> <td align="left" valign="top" height="16" width="752" style="margin-top: -6px"><p
> style="margin-left: 12px; margin-top: -1px; margin-bottom: -2px"><font
> face="Century Gothic" size="3"><strong><span style="margin-bottom: auto"> <a
> href="Machiche.htm" style="color: rgb(0,0,0)">Machiche/Mayan Walnut </span></strong></font>
> <font face="Century Gothic" size="3"><em>(</a><i>Lonchocarpus
> <br>
> castilloi</i><a href="Machiche.htm" style="color: rgb(0,0,0)">)</a></em></font></td>
> </tr>
>
> Why all those &NBSPs? It's forcing the end of the line to be wrapped
> around to the next line - not good.
>
> And finally,
>
> Why use those spaces between cells of tables? Netscape shows those as the
> same colour as the background of the page - not the background of the
> cell. If you're wanting to make some space between the text in the various
> cells best to use. On your pages, IMHO, you'd be best to use for tables a
> border of 0 and cell spacing of 0, but a cell padding of, say, perhaps 3,
> or maybe 2.
>
> Now, having said all that, I think that overall, the page looks very nice
> - and it does load very fast!
>
> I hope that this critique helps. :o)
>
> Mama Cass
>
> --
> "When dealing with the Religious Right one should remember that 'truth' is
> not a part of the rules of their game."
Phil.Roberts
words:
> "Burpmaster" <burpm...@truffula.net> wrote in message
> news:3C2E837E...@truffula.net...
>> Roland Mösl wrote:
>>
>> >"tg" <to...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
>> >news:a0k7cu$l6rfd$3...@ID-114539.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> >>Yes, my pages run fine in N6.2
>> >>I'll check out the javascript debug links you've given here, and
>> >>thanks again.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I would suggest to test also with Opera.
>> >
>> >Opera has with my sites some severe bugs.
>> >
>> Or perhaps your sites have with Opera some severe bugs.
>
> I develop for standard complaiant browsers.
>
Since when was "Capable Of Displaying A Mösl Authored Site" an www
standard? Your pages have some of the most ugly, non-compliant code Ive
seen outside of pages made in Frontpage98
Maybe you should correct your own shortcomings before embarking on these
crusades for which you are not qualified to give an accurate opinion.
--
NormanM
wrote:
>tg wrote:
>
>>Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
>>
>That's the impression you get if you try 6.0, then give up on any later
>release.
>
I've just finished banging my head against the wall over Netscape
6.2.1 this weekend. I ditched it. I might try 6.3, or I might not.
4.79 seems to work where I need it, and Opera 6 is pretty sharp, too.
Norman M.
>>>Clear-cut the Blue Forest to reply by email.<<<
NormanM
>
>"Roland Mösl" <fou...@pege.org> wrote in message
>news:3c2d97e1$0$22708$6e36...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
>> "tg" <to...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
>> news:a0j1pu$krcsd$1...@ID-114539.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> > yeah, sounds in line with the 4% reported at
>> > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/December/browser.php
>> > it's a shame really. I'd like Netscape to be good, if only to keep
>> Microsoft
>> > in their place.
>> > Even the Netscape 6 series is buggy.
>>
>> But Netscape 6 does not hurt.
>>
>> All what I develop runs nearly without any problems
>> on Mozilla.
>>
>> So I would like to see positions exchanged.
>>
>> Netscape 6.N at 4% and
>> Netscape 4.N at 0.6%
>
>yes I agree with that Roland. My pages run well on N6.1 and 6.2, but badly
>on N4 so it's a shame to see N6 hardly being used.
>I hope the more of the net poplulation starts using N6 as soon as poss.
>
>
I have tried, and tried, and tried. I dumped it. Well, admittedly it
is the mail client that was causing my headache. But without the
desire to access a certain webmail account, and with the soon to be
implemented decision to jump ship on McAfee, I have no incentive left
to run another AOL botch. I switch to Opera, thank you.
NormanM
>
>"Mama Cass" <Mama_Cass--@-nosuchaddress.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns918785A71...@202.20.93.13...
>> In alt.netscape.sucks the people heard tg say these wise words:
>>
>> >> Why do you need all that Javascript?
>> >
>> > 1) I use overlib 3.50 a lot - it gives the viewer quicker snippets of
>> > information without them having to load a new page.
>> > 2) My pages belong in a frameset and I want to keep them there.
>> > 3) The most important thing I want to build into my site is ease of
>> > navigation and javascript helps with that
>>
>> UNLESS people are using browsers that do not interpret Javascript!
>>
>> Remember that there are plenty of people who do not visit unfamiliar
>> websites with Java or Javascript enabled!
>>
>> If people cannot navigate around your website WITHOUT Javascript, then
>> *you* are unlikely to be getting the most out of your website.
>
>yeah you have a point, but I'm not obsessive about 'every single person with
>every different browser configuration' being able to access my site. 90% of
>all internet users are currently using IE4/5/6, and I personally don't know
>anyone (besides myself) who would know what javascript is, if it's on or
>off, or how to switch it off. Therefore the vast majority are surfing with
>it defaulted as on whether they realise it or not.
>Anyone without javascript will not get into my site and that's the way I
>want it, and my site has not been designed for the internet savvy 'my
>javascript is switched off ha ha ha' surfers. I'm not going to keep my
>website in the stone age just because a tiny minority insist on switching
>off their javascript.
Have you ever been "mousetrapped"? I keep my Javascript off to avoid
such troubles. I also do not like surfing onto a page, only to have
the back button not get me back to where I got to.
Javascript means you run code of your choice on my computer. No way,
Jose; not, at least, until I get to know your site. If you need JS,
you probably don't have any information I can't fine elsewhere anyway.
It isn't about "elite", it's about who controls *my* computer; you, or
me.
NormanM
<jer...@dcnet2000.com> wrote:
>I found that a lot of people believe that what they see
>is the same as what will print. I deal a lot with
>Central and South America and I had to remove background
>colour from my information pages to encourage them to
>print what they needed. That combined with a lot of 33k
>modems, telephone and net connection charges by the
>minute, and poor quality phone lines, means that any
>site I put up has to be stripped down.
>I know that this is not the correct group, but I would
>appreciate your testing my main site for ease of use,
>and any suggestions.
>Jeremy
><http://cayehardwoods.com>
Quick, elegant, and I went there in Opera 6.
Cody Lobreau
"NormanM" <norman...@11BlauWaldmail.com> wrote in message news:3c42091f...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
Giuseppe Verde
> is the mail client that was causing my headache. But without the
> desire to access a certain webmail account, and with the soon to be
> implemented decision to jump ship on McAfee, I have no incentive left
> to run another AOL botch. I switch to Opera, thank you.
You might get help if you said what your problem is instead of just that
you gave up on it.
Roland Mösl
news:Xns9196E451F...@202.20.93.13...
> > The JavaScript bugs of N4 killed me nearly last year in August
>
I survived and I striked back against the monster.
I joined the http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade
campaign and I know that my redirect to the upgrade
influenced several companies and universities to change
to a standard compliant browser.
Matthew McClellan
-Matt
Burpmaster
> Thanks for the link Roland.........great site.
Except that it lists IE6 before Netscape 6.2.