FOX.com Apologizes to Linux Users 171
OnlyNou writes "found this story at Linux Today." Apparently Fox did not intentionally exclude Linux users - along with users of all operating systems other than Mac and Windows - from fox.com, and is rectifying the error. Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com. (Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time.*grin*)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
This can't really be called incompetence, as anyone capable of the lengths necessary to do this probably is capable of pretty much anything web-related. This here was a case of bad web design philosophy. The people who do this are highly-educated, technically-skilled, not-incompetent, fucking idiots.
Of course, web designers have PHB's, too, especially since half the time they are still under the marketroids. Imagine trying to explain to a marketroid that flash is overrated or that a shift of one element by a few pixels across platforms is not fatal. Uugh. I know people who've had to work in situations like this, and it's not pretty.
In short, I reserve judgement on the designer's competence until Rob gets the actual designer, instead of a talking head, to make a statement... or maybe an interview?
Re:Why continue bashing them ? (Score:1)
Re:I'd like to know ... (Score:2)
In every group there are always those bashers that are ready to send hate mail to anyone who isn't "for" their cause. *Those* e-mails probably didn't do a lot of good at Fox. However, it sounded like a lot of people took the time to write quality level-headed e-mails to the right people. And for that I have a big thank-you to everyone.
-BrentRe:Hopefully... (Score:2)
I don't know, why don't you download [macromedia.com] it, follow the installation instructions, and try again.
As for RealAudio they say that we should have a working G2 version by the end of the millenium or early next millenium.I've been using the G2 player for months. Sure, they call it "alpha", but it is better then the Windows port, almost. Download [real.com] and install.
-BrentFlash intro... (Score:1)
OT thock.com (Score:1)
Suggestions for a new colour scheme are welcomed. I'll also be tweaking the "new" layout to incorporate everyone's suggestions.
---
who cares ? (Score:1)
if they are cared in the first place they would make it for everybody.
Not just Linux (Score:1)
Stop your bitching and look at the big picture.
Power of slashdot (Score:1)
It's quite impressive, that a major corporation has changed it's website to more linux friendly and even apologized linux users.
I like it this way!
Hmmm... (Score:1)
...Brains: You can't live with them, you can't... ummm... er...
Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Score:1)
NEWS: Murdoch: Linux Is Best OS Ever (Score:4)
"Fuck M$", Says High-Powered Executive
Note: This article subsumes a previous article [slashdot.org] posted by the United Press International.
NEW YORK, NY (UPI) - Businessman Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the immense and powerful News Corporation, sang the praises of the popular Linux operating system today at Fox News Headquarters in New York. In addition, Murdoch also announced the cancellation of a previously-planned program entitled "World's Least-Supported Operating Systems." The program was part of Fox's new fall line-up.
"What a jag-off I've been," admitted Murdoch.
"We all do things in life that we're ashamed of," explained Murdoch. "For my part, I allowed myself to be swept up by a large, domineering corporation. I allowed myself to be manipulated. I allowed the rascals in Redmond to brainwash me." Murdoch's voice cracked dramatically at several points in his speech.
"But we're past all of that now," continued Murdoch. "And I'm a better man because of it. That's why I say 'to hell with M$!' We will forge on! We will make history! The Fox network considers Linux to be the best operating system ever invented!" Murdoch spent the next several minutes explaining to reporters that the 'S' in "MS" was to be replaced with a dollar sign.
"It's important," explained Murdoch.
Candace Gorman, a public relations spokeswoman for the Fox network, made a few brief statements after Murdoch's comments. "I would like to make clear that Mr. Murdoch's statements and position reversal have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of Red Hat stock, and they certainly are unrelated to the record-setting IPO of VA Linux. Mr. Murdoch's stock portfolio is his own goddamn business."
Ms. Gorman continued. "Additionally, I must also add that Mr. Murdoch's comments are unrelated to the successful IPO of Andover.Net. It is common knowledge that supporters of Andover.Net are a bunch of complete and total assholes. [slashdot.org]"
Nick Petreley contributed to this story.
Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Off-topic) (Score:1)
-Davidu
No Linux support was unintentional? (Score:3)
And after all this commotion, Slashdot has a right to complain that it isn't worth visiting anyway? WTF?
Slashdot effect. (Score:1)
I found a penny on the ground today. Therefore, this is my $0.03 worth. I didn't need it anyway.
Re:I HATE FLASH INTRO SCREENS (Score:5)
Yeah, get rid of the Flash intro screens. And while you're at it, get rid of those annoying animated buttons. And those blasted popup windows. And color too, because it's just a strain on my eyes. Actually, just get rid of all the images anyway; text is the way to go. Aw, fuck the text, let's just have a big array of lights on my desktop that I can use to view the contents of my CPU registers. Nah, forget that, that's a waste of lightbulbs... I'll just guess what's in the registers, because -- seriously -- it's more fun that way.
Oh wait... I guess I don't agree with you.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Long Download Time? (Score:4)
"Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time."
Sorry Rob, I've got to disagree with you on this. I'm sure the /. crowd is no fan of Flash, and there can be a multitude of reasons for it (in all honesty, there's a lot of "If it looks nice it must suck" in this community. Not everybody, but many).
Anyway, amid all the reasons, download time shouldn't be it. Sure you *could* make a Flash movie that requires the browser to download all day before it starts, but most Flash downloads very quickly. And if it's big, there's a small initial download followed by streaming.
That has been true from the earliest days of the technology, when it was called FutureSplash (before Macromedia bought it).
Many of us geeks enjoy the whole multimedia experience, even in a web browser under the right circumstances, as long as it's done right and isn't forced upon us when we don't want it. Kind of like porn, now that I think about it :)
RP
Re:I'd like to know ... (Score:2)
No, they most likely went to the "Recycle Bin." :)
Field Report: FoxNews.com (Score:2)
Can you guys check it, I cannot from my present location [intuit.com].
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Re:Why continue bashing them ? (Score:1)
Then those people should go watch tele-vision.
I defy any assertion that jiggly-fied web pages get more traffic than content-at-all-costs ones do. I believe the numbers speak in favor of those who provide services or information, not eye-candy.
Qualifier: I don't have a tv, and I spent about three hours tonight reading www.webelements.com. That's right, it's the periodic table. Some neat stuff in there. No flash.
I can't see the fox site at all. There are no links. Pretty cool. Sorta artsy, all black and imposing.. Hmmm.. maybe it's a metaphor for some new dirge-comedy they have brewing. Damn, those kids are smart.
--
blue
I'd like to know ... (Score:1)
--
"Some people say that I proved if you get a C average, you can end up being successful in life."
Re:good move (Score:1)
Hell maybe it was even a product of the evil empire. I bet that there was a special team form Microsoft that came down there and said "Dont allow linux users to view your site or.. or.. or.. we will do bad things to you!".
My god grow up.
Re:I'd like to know ... (Score:2)
What is puzzling and strange is that it took someone from LinuxToday to escalate the issue at Fox. Does that mean that all the messages we may have sent them went to
Anyway, its good to know they will comply, but they could speed it up quickly than saying it will be done by 12/17 -- it's not that difficult modification. I guess theyre probably trying to track down who actually runs the website.
Re:good move (Score:2)
For instance, the opening splash screen REQUIRES javascript to click-through
I sent them two notices about three weeks apart about why I couldn't see their page and how to fix it properly. It seems that enough of us were nice this time (as opposed to the slashdot effect on the GIF patents).
:-)
Yeah but... (Score:1)
Cheesy web cartoons too! (Score:1)
It needs some work anyhow... (Score:2)
All I wanted to do was view the source of the page, but this Shockwave stuff loads automatically and I can't stop it with the "Stop" button. Frickin' plug-ins.
"hard-hitting"... "always on"... "FOX.com"... "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."
Oops. Maybe basic HTML *would* be a better idea.
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
good move (Score:2)
Just imagine Joe Schome TV watcher... "wow, they made their page compatable with linux? they bent to the linux users demands? there might be something in this linux thing i havnt seen. maybe i'll try it"
then he spends a week whining, crying, and complaining about how it doesnt like him, but still... one less windows user
Still get Refused ;( (Score:1)
Re:The Net's S-N ratio is dropping (Score:2)
Re:This event was no doubt brought to you by: (Score:1)
(sigh)
Re:Intro Screens are useless (Score:2)
"Why do we have to have another page to get where we want to go?" They said.
I pulled the splash page the next day.
Stupid color choice (Score:1)
Look at the stock quotes on top, they are black foreground against a dark blue background !!! HELLO ???
Then the links on the right are blue against another blue background
I'm about to send a screen shot to the interface hall of shame website.
Re:It needs some work anyhow... (Score:1)
Jus my $.02
--Jon
Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (Score:2)
well, shucks (Score:3)
ObKarmaWhore: Roblimo is a lewser and doesnt know jack shit about journalism! He must be roasted over the pit for all eternity!
blah. Get over it people. Slashdot is *not* journalism, and the folks that run slashdot know it. They just point us to things they think geeks might be interested in knowing about. And that's why slashdot is such a great site.
You can bitch about the article contents, but please dont bitch that this isn't journalism because by definition it is not
When I've perfected my whiny-slashdot-filter program, I'll be sure to let you all know. Maybe even that guy that puts grits down his pants will use it.
Re:Multimedia is so fun! (Score:1)
The first time I visited the Vigilance game site [vigilance.com], I found the introduction informative, interesting and even a little fun.
Considering Fox [fox.com] is a television network and aims for visual pleasure of its viewers in general, I don't see why they wouldn't use lots of eye candy on their website.
I have a problem, as I reported to them twice by E-mail, with their limiting of the possibility of even viewing their site without certain technologies / platforms. I do not have a problem with the use of Flash animations [shockrave.com] or any other kind of eye-catching material. The web is not, as some may try to purport, all about "information". Yes, its a great information source, but its also about entertainment.
I enjoy being entertained, and some days, I even enjoy being advertised to
Have a nice day all
Re:OT thock.com (Score:1)
A general rule of thumb is that all dimensions should either be set in pixels or left to flow by points. Never mix the two.
At 640 your central column bleeds into the slashdot green nav column, at 1600 it's vice versa. The new version is made even worse by the fixed width frameset; "Destinations", "thock.com", and "Adventures" all spilled out of the frame's width and require scrolling to read. I won't even go into the blue on slashdot green issue since that's already been brought up....
As long as people forget (or don't know) that HTML is a markup language, not a page definition language, we will continue to see some of the hideous travesties of design that are the mark of today's "Web Designers". (I'm not talking about thock.com here, the internal @Home web pages are far more like what I'm talking about... too bad NT's screen capture facility doesn't work under SMP with my video card drivers; I'd post some screen shots to show what I mean.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
Quite well said, I must say. In my experience, these people are quite intelligent, as you mention, and are completely clueless w.r.t. why people wouldn't "just use the latest and greatest?"
I have a cable modem -- I don't design my website arounda cable modem. I've tried to make my page browser-friendly with a mix of javascript and <noscript> tags.
I went to a site that had used an animated GIF for an intro screen (ACC Telecommunications [acctel.net] - no longer there) that was over 80k and I optimised it down to 22k (same quality) with Gifsicle [lcdf.org]. I E-mailed it to them and they actually used it.
Fox, on the other hand, doesn't even seem to notice its E-mail (as the reporter mentions re: their phone calls to the technical people in the article). Not paying attention to customers is going to kill any company, on any front.
Technical (in)competance aside, I think we (the community) should be trying to get the attention of the major web design firms and authors (websites re: design, like Webmonkey [webmonkey.com]) to realise the truths of webdesign that we've mentioned.
I've got a couple comments on my new web design page [linuxsupportline.com], but nothing sophisticated enough. Yet.
Lets win this by making awareness
Re:The Net's S-N ratio is dropping (Score:1)
I was referring to websites in general, not just Fox.
Re: Intro Screens are NOT ALWAYS useless (Score:1)
Re:Not just Linux (Score:1)
--
However this really has nothing to do with Linux, or even [alt*] OSes, but browers, and complete lack of support between them.
Mlk
* I hate the word Alt, as Be is my primary OS. Each time its used you seem to be putting yourself below windows. Well in my opionon anyway.
Re:what about the visually impaired? (Score:1)
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Score:2)
Maybe there should be a preference to disable the staff's two cents. My only request is that they think about what they write first. They need to realize that Slashdot is a powerful medium, and many posters post without reading the article first. The summary is all they have.
Talking about how they don't like Fox's web site is one thing, but saying that a preliminary copyright ruling could, "destroy the web and all" is not responsible journalism. Obviously, CmdrTaco didn't read or think about the story before making the comment. How many people were at the water cooler today complaining that the web's days are numbered?
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
Dana
GET A NEW BROWSER (Score:1)
The crime that is commercial web design. (Score:4)
There is no excuse why this should be. Give me my content, give it to me nicely, and, damnit, let me view it in my browser window at proper scaling. There was an artcle on some site about Slashdot long ago. I had to use Opera to magnify the page view 300% for it to show the "content" at a decent size in my 1024x768 desktop. When I started using Linux exclusively (with Windows as a glorfied Nintendo), the problem was exacerbated by the simple fact that the pages designed to look great at 640x480 also assumed a bunch of fonts (which I did later setup, thanks to the ttf font server in the Slackware contrib dir).
Why bother to take the time, spend lots of your company moola, only to come up with a hard-coded, useless, junky site?
Flash? Great -- what's the point? Slow downloads suck, and I'm on a cable modem! The only site I've seen to use Flash in a compelling way (in terms of "mainstream" sites), is After Y2K [geekculture.com]. With Cascading Style Sheets, it is trivial to implement really nice looking sites that scale well. Netscape, Opera, and (gahck) IE support CSS very well, as does Mozilla. With Lynx, it's a non-issue
If anyone doesn't understand what I mean, go look at my webserver (Thock.com [thock.com]) for an example of how I write my HTML (which is all hand written, and generally tested well). I'll also welcome any comments anyone has on my HTML, I am writing an HTML primer, and related, documents for the webserver.
---
Fox.com web developer (Score:1)
Re:This event was no doubt brought to you by: (Score:1)
I've posted several things on this topic.
-Chris
Oh like Slashdot is any better (Score:1)
flash source code (Score:1)
I respect macromedia a lot more than I did before I read that, since they obviously have people who can think checking on what they are saying on their web site.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re:I'd like to know ... (Score:1)
:)
Re:We just need smarter browsers! (Score:1)
Later...
Re:Plus Ça Change... (Score:1)
For example, with my own personal web site, I made great efforts to retain compatibility with the majority of browsers/platforms out there.
(After all, why work long and hard to build a site that a good part of your audience can't view properly afterwards?)
Unfortunately, I reached a point where I wanted to do more than just text, static images, and some tables. I decided against the proprietary plug-ins, and went with Java. After all, Java was made to be cross-platform compatible. Well, guess what? Now I have more complaints than ever from people who can't view my site because my menus are in Java and they don't have Java support working on their browser!
I think at some point, you have to make the decision to upgrade technology at the expense of those who refuse to keep up. Otherwise, there can be no progress. This is as true for web site design as it is for PC hardware. "Sorry pal, we just don't offer this program on 5.25" floppy disks anymore...."
This isn't necessarily a "war on people's minds" or an example of "Brave New World" mentality. This is just people trying to make use of the new tools that are provided for them.
Re:The crime that is commercial web design. (Score:1)
basically the reason that pages are scrunched to somewhat narrow widths is due to text readability. if you stretch out text too far it becomes hard to read. usability test show that your eyes have a hard time keeeping track what line they are on when the page is really wide.
personally I like 'stretchy' sites as opposed to fixed width and I just narrow the window when I have a-lot of text(and usually bump up the font size)
Re:This event was no doubt brought to you by: (Score:1)
I kinda agree. I expected it to stay around 2, but my god it went straight to 5 and then back to 4! Not that I ever want my posts moderated down, but man, that was extreme!
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
Thock.com (OT) (Score:1)
Re:well, shucks (Score:1)
Re:Fox.com web developer (Score:1)
I'm not saying that you shouldn't throw in advanced features for users that can take advantage of it. I'm simply saying that they should not call the web site "finished" until everybody, even those with mosaic, 640x480 on a B&W monitor can have a good experience on it. I'm not saying "lowest common denominator", I'm saying "include everybody" and make it as nice as you can considering the limitations of the browser.
Re:I have an exception to that rule... (Score:3)
If I wanted to be force fed flashy graphics, I'd watch TV.
Won the battle, WAY far from winning the war. (Score:2)
Key issues to do this is separating presentation from content (thanks to the use of style sheets), providing alternate content when appropriate (using ALT tags as well as the much-welcomed OBJECT tag), and in general, making sure to validate the HTML code you write (just as you would use "use Strict" in perl, or compile your programs for errors in C or other languages).
Unfortunately, I'd estimate 90% of commercial websites (and a larger percentage of personal pages) do not follow the above. The crap of HTML tag soup that FrontPage and other HTML authoring software puts out is poor quality, and while it's ok to set up the basic HTML, most good authors know they have to clean up the tag soup before putting it out. Even then, too many people try to force HTML into acting like a desktop publishing language.
What will help is the blind accessibly lawsuit against AOL. Before that was announced, I know I heard rumblings of a major suit of this nature by sight-impared people because they could not use a service provided by the gov't. Sure, it's still a long way before Joe Q's "WAY PAST K00L HOMEPAGE" is going to need to be site-impared accessible, but there's plenty of reason to make more commercial sites more accessible.
The best way for everyone on the Linux side to help is that the next time a site like Fox.com comes up where Linux users are shunned, email said site maintainers and point out it's not just Linux that is shunned, but anyone not using a "status quo" box. Sure, that might only be 5% of the potental viewing audience, but that's also 5% of potental customers. Point them to sites like www.websitesthatsuck.com [websitesthatsuck.com] which run down the bad tricks that should be avoided, and to www.w3c.org [w3c.org] which have validators and other helpful information for writing clean HTML. And the key thing to remember is that it takes more work to make a web site less accessible than it does to make them fully accessible.
What a selfish bunch we are (Score:1)
People are all up in arms because "Linux is excluded." Big deal. Imagine for a moment that you are blind. (If your imagination isn't that good try the following command:
$lynx http://fox.com
Try to get some usable content from the resulting screen.
THAT is the real tragedy here.
It's late (early?), I'll shut up and go to bed now.
Re:Intro Screens are useless (Score:2)
Watch TV for a while. The TV format has 30-second intros (basically). It seems to work pretty well, considering the number of people that continue to watch TV.
Now when you get done watching your couple hours of television, notice at the end of some show a reference to a web address: www.fox.com [fox.com]. Hmm, why not? Go over to your computer, fire up www.fox.com, watch another 30-second intro just like you've been watching for the past few hours on the television, and lapse back into advertisement land and learn all about Ally McBeal on your new favourite website.
Or something like that.
Generally speaking, all of this requires that you _not_ be the average slashdot reader, but I think you can see what I'm talking about anyway.
if you didn't like the site why did you complain (Score:1)
Re:Why continue bashing them ? (Score:1)
If Roblimo, instead of saying:
"Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com."
had instead said:
"Thanks for all the great work Fox, we appreciate your effort."
then you'd all be happy?
You're saying it's ok to post positive, feel-good commentary but negative commentary makes the Linux community look bad? Or as Amit said, the commentary has to be as "impartial as possible" ??
Give me a break. Just because Slashdot has gotten big doesn't mean it has to get impersonal. If Roblimo, CmdrTaco, or Hemos wants to post a comment in a news item then more power to them. If I don't like their comment, I'll take them to task in a comment of my own. But I won't start complaining that I don't like their comments so they shouldn't make them or be allowed to post them on the front page.
Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (Score:1)
MSIE4/Windows
MSIE5/Windows
Netscape 4.7/Windows
Opera/Windows
Netscape 4.7/MAC
MSIE 4.5/MAC
Netscape/Linux
eventually Lynx/Windows
Argh. Thats why my desk is cluttered with keyboards.
Appologise without correcting... (Score:1)
Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (Score:2)
I think that the the script you are discussing is not the same as the problem with the Fox page. I experience a lot of pages that pop up telling me I need to get the flash plugin when I do have it installed and working (even Macromedia's own pages do this), but most of the time you can at least cancel and see any non-flash content.
How the fox.com script worked was discussed before, and it was just pitiful (if ! win || mac && ! netscape || ie then throw out)..
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Would you prefer it the other way? (Score:1)
Don't consider yourself being invaded, consider it a very fair exchange: A couple of seconds' worth of your attention in exchange for a service. You may find it sad, but if it weren't for advertising, the amount of good information available on the web absolutely free would be miniscule compared to what it is. And that would be truly sad, because the Internet wouldn't have seen the phenomenal acceptance and growth it's been through in the last decade. (I won't even go into the huge positive economic impact.)
This happened with the print media centuries ago, radio 80 years ago and television 50 years ago. There are bills to be paid for providing content at a bargain price (sometimes free) to a large audience, and your choices are to charge for it, take on advertisers or go bankrupt and close your doors. Radio and TV stations have the same monthly operating expenses whether they've got ten thousand or ten million people tuned in at a given instant. More listeners/viewers means higher ad rates and therefore revenue at very little (if any) extra expense. Once you pass the break-even point, every additional person means a profit, and that's why you're in business to begin with.
Print media and web sites are a different story because they have increased costs to bear as more prople use them. Magazines have to print and deliver more copies; web sites have to add bandwidth and server capacity. Call a national ISP sometime and ask them what a full T3 costs. Multiply that figure by 4 or 5 and you've got what a Yahoo! or MapQuest is paying for Internet access alone. Then add the cost of racks of servers and the facilities and staff to run them and provide the content. It adds up very quickly.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if an oft-used site like MapQuest [mapquest.com] dropped their advertising started charging for their services, there'd be something about it here on Slashdot and 500 replies about how terrible it is. (And it would be pretty terrible. I remember the bad old days of the mid 1980s when you had to pay an online service a pretty hefty fee to look at airline schedules.)
In terms of the Fox site, it's not about providing information, it's about getting more viewers for their shows. You visit Fox.com, see a banner for their new show When Slashdotters Attack, decide it's worth watching and plop down on the sofa to watch it. That's one more set of eyeballs seeing the national ads, and a few cents more Fox can charge their advertisers for 30 seconds of air time. The advertisers get the exposure they want, and in exchange you get 22 minutes of entertainment absolutely free.
If it were just about providing information, Fox would have a single, static home page listing their programs and what they're about. Web sites are like electronic brochures, and you can bet that the boring ones get passed over. Fox is a TV network, and the TV business lives on glitz. They want to be able to give visitors to their web site the same glitzy experience they'd get if parked in front of the tube watching channel 5. Their web designers chose a good vehicle for it that unfortunately excluded Unix users. But they've promised to rectify the problem, and that's a step in the right direction.
Re:You can view it, but why? (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
I think this is a terrible attitute to take, and most definitely doesn't deserve a +1 moderated score. Reform takes time, and they gave a target date that is within reason. If they had said something like 'Wait till 2011' then ya, an attitude like that is well deserved, but they said things would be good to go within a week, which is not too bad since they are not in the business of providing web content. We can expect 1 day turnaround from companies like Netscape, Yahoo, AOL, etc... who claim to be portal, web-content based companies, but from a company who used the web as a way to transfer info, I think a week is okay.
Anyway, I'm hammered (way too many rye/cokes at the company Xmas party), and really have no time for people with:
a) no patience (expocting an instant fix to as problem)
b) an attitude that does nothing but make Linux users look like a bunch of whiners.
They are addressing the problem, which is far more than any Microsoft employee, deptarment, group, etc... has ever done.
-dr
Re:Hopefully... (Score:1)
If you read their "apology", it is more or less the same thing that any half-smart person would write while trying to save his/her ass in a situation like this.
I haven't had a lot of sleep lately, so my thought2text script isn't working very well. Someone help me out here... link to the comment about the Corel story or something.
--
Maximum Compatibility of Utmost Importance (Score:1)
1. For the Coleco Adam users (there were 29,629 visitors to "Coleco Adam's House" - http://www.flash.net/~coleco/main.htm - so they do exist), Opera Software needs to port a version of their browser, and ensure that it is available on 256K digital datapack tapes. I doubt that there are modems available for the Adam, but, hey, it the equal opportunity that counts, isn't it?
2. There are still CP/M users who might want to fire up MEX and peruse Fox's content, so I think that Fox, and Wired, and
3. Gopher is a protocol now seldom used, and that is inexcusable. Do Disney or Microsoft or Amazon ever consider the Gopher user when they design their sites? No! I think we should all write letters of protest about this omission. Why, neglecting Gopher users is the same as putting signs up saying 'No Blacks Allowed" or "Homosexuals Not Welcome Here " or anything else that excludes or denies!
This is just the start of the revolution. I have a Vic-20 and a TI-99/4A that glare balefully at me whenever I connect to the net (okay, maybe there is slight anthromorphism here), and I think that
Let us all unite in this important struggle! Linux today, the HP-67 tomorrow!
slashdot and journalism don't mix (Score:1)
But Slashdot isn't either of these. Sure,
Yeah, the comment system, blah blah blah, Slashdot community, blah blah blah. Slashdot is links, that's what it's good for. If want something more, by all means, start a site with some journalistic undertones.
Re:a fix is better than an apology (Score:2)
Maybe it's not their setup, but their procedures that are bizarre (or, in business terms, "normal").
You know:
- appoint project manager
- Draft work effort document
- Have budget approved
- Plan changes
- Draft functional and technical specs
- Have specs approved
- Form project team
- have team delete check for browser
- Do code reviews
- System and acceptance tests
- Roll out changes
On a more serious (and scarier) note: I just noticed that when I access any page on our company intranet with Netscape, I automagically get redirected to a page "http://blablabla.bla.bla/noie.html". No IE?!? All our pages are created with MS Frontpage, and it seems this "feature" is part of Frontpage or Microsofts web server. Grrrrr.
Intention isn't relevant (Score:2)
\/This
\/soon to be replaced by real humour\/
This event was no doubt brought to you by: (Score:4)
a fix is better than an apology (Score:2)
Multimedia is so fun! (Score:2)
Hopefully... (Score:2)
And why would you want incompetent people to design your site?
Intro Screens are useless (Score:5)
Now, the first thing I do when I see a Flash Intro is look for the "skip intro" button, or hit the back button as fast as possible.
Flash can be a very usefull tool when used properly, and a time soaking intro is not a proper use. Sites start to loose eyeballs if everything isn't loaded in 5 seconds, so what on earth makes anyone thing that a 30 second intro is going to do any good.
- daniel
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
Bad Flash Diagnostics (Score:5)
I just want to comment for the umpteenth time in the umpteenth place: web designers should not be using the canned Javascript code that is supposed to diagnose whether a user has Flash/Shockwave installed. It comes with the entire range of Macromedia Flash/Shockwave products and is available in various places around the web
That diagnostic code is faulty. It does not work properly. It misdiagnoses. It's wrong. It comes up with bogus download-the-plugin messages and/or shuts out zillions of users (like me) who actually have the plugin. It makes you look like a chump and your site look half-assed.
What you should do, if you're using Flash/Shockwave in your site design, is leave out the diagnostic code and let that dumb little you-don't-have-the-plugin icon show up for the tiny handful of users that don't have it. You can offer those three or four people a link nearby for a non-Flash/Shortwave version of your site. Dump the diagnostic code.
It's so strange to me that a site which spends thousands to look good doesn't test the project on every platform, every browser. Lame.
Intro screens were once useful, but not anymore. (Score:3)
Most people don't complain about these. Moreover, they actually have a purpose. They are there to "hide" the program start-up. Most programs take a second or 2 (or in the case of MS' programs, a minute or 2 (sorry, couldn't resist)) to load up, into memory. Rather than sit there, loading, and doing nothing visibly, leaving the user to wonder, "did I actually click the icon? does the program actually work?", the splash screen provides some sort of feedback to inform the user that something is, indeed happening.
And this is a Good Thing (TM). One of my biggest pet peeves about XEmacs (an otherwise nice program (no flamewars, please!)) is that it doesn't do that. It just sits there and loads in the background, and I never know whether it's loading or not, for the first several minutes.
So the natural impulse to most web designers, when creating a web site, is to treat it as a standalone program. For the most part, I think this actually works. Except for a few things, like the splash screen.
Since the splash screen takes just as long to load as the normal starting page would, it becomes useless. Moreover, you can tell when the main screen loads. Even if, for whatever reason, the main page takes a while to load, you can still tell when the process has started. You can still tell when the site exists. So the splash screen becomes pointless. Redundant.
In fact, if -- as is apparently the case here (I haven't actually checked the site out myself) -- the splash screen takes a long time to load, it is counterproductive. It re-introduces the very problem it was designed to solve.
But most web designers, for whatever reason, don't realize this intuitively. The splash screen seems just as valid (especially when they are designing it on a local system) as it would have been on a standalone program.
So it becomes up to us ("us" being the web-browsing public) to inform them that their lovely splash screen is, in fact, detrimental to fluid browsing.
Just a few thoughts of mine... don't kill me over them
--
- Sean
Re:Hopefully... (Score:2)
There is major competition in the web-designer business (a company I work for had to compete for a client against a "free webhosting + design for the first year" offer from a rival), and cute clients know that. So they will use every failure you make to get something cheaper.
Some clueless people seem to have nothing else to do than to write email to companies about their websites (why do you use cookies? your background is too bright! your pages load too slow! why can't I...? why don't you...?) and everything gets forwarded to the webdesigners who then have to investigate why some asshole on the other end of the world has a shitty provider/browser/ broken os/14.4k modem and whatnot and reply with a sensible answer. But the same company would eventually fire you if just wrote a fully navigator 3.0/ie 3.0-compatible page without frames+plugins+javascript, cause they all use a fast connection with newer browsers and compare your design with the overloaded ones you can see everywhere.
In this case the complaint was rightfull, but I wouldn't be surprised if that exact design was demanded by fox.
Re:I'd like to know ... (Score:2)
In the "old media" world, sure, Emmett and I would be racing to get the scoop and would trample each other for it, but in this case it would have been pointless. Sure, competition is good, but there are plenty of cases where cooperation is better.
Emmett put a lot of work into that story and did a great job with it. Go, Emmett!
BTW, you're right about how hard it was to track down the people who actually run Fox's site. Even the Fox media relations people didn't know.
Another BTW: the e-mail Slashdot readers sent did a lot of good. According to a couple of (anonymous) people inside Fox, there was some major embarassment over this, and there are many employees there who are as frustrated as anyone else with the long, slow, bureaucratic process they must go through to get approval for a Web site change that is only going to take an hour or so to actually implement.
- Robin
Plus Ça Change... (Score:4)
We shouldn't be surprised that once money makers got involved that the web became just another casualty in the war on our minds. Information is less important than image. Literacy is less important than economics. Critical reasoning is less important than feel-good emotive response. Welcome to our brave new world; we hope you like it, because you don't have any choice. Best to just lie back, close your eyes, and think of England--er--America.
Neil Postman's non-fiction book, Amusing Ourselves to the Death, is a disturbing report of this phenomenon that offers no real solution. Bruce Sterling's science fiction novel, Distraction, is not just a decent story; it's also filled with social commentary about a world in which media image is paramount. I heartily recommend both books. Huxley's Brave New World wasn't that great a read, but he was scarily on-target about a lot of this.
Here are two links to resources related to this disturbing trend. The first is to the Any Browser Campaign [anybrowser.org], a definite must-read for designers. The other is a far less ambitious work, my own short treatise on Diversity in Web Design [perl.com]. Both are replete with links to further resources.
There's also a subtle connection between the themes of bad keyboard strategies [perl.com] and bad webpage design. In both cases, we have people who think they're making things better for one portion of the populace at the cost of making things worse for another portion.
Re: Intro Screens are NOT ALWAYS useless (Score:2)
geeks tend to enjoy direct access to text information with minimum distracting elements. I perfectly
understand the reasoning behind this. Indeed, it would be upsetting if yahoo.com would start using flash
animation and intro pages.
However, there is another group of people out there -- the "visual" crowd. It would be great if someone
would do statistical studies as to what proportion of web surfers this group constitutes.
Anyway, what's important is that many web sites are designed with these people in mind. Many product
promotion web sites found that it's easier to make a customer pay for the product if you first impress the
customer. It's just a simple logic. And it works.
I didn't like Flash for quite a while. Then I found another job with web development company. One of their
projects was for a large manufacturer who intended to sell electronic products online. The customer
*insisted* on mind blowing graphics, animation, etc. Yes, the site contained a lot of technical specifications
for the visitors like you, but it also had Flash. I was very impressed with the final results.
Just understand guys, there are web sites that are "selling" information (thus they are mostly text based),
and there are web sites that sell products. The later usually put a lot of effort into impressing visitors with
visual effects.
Still broken (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3)
I woudln't consider myself a hot-head, I just believe in professionalism. The NFB can sue because blind people are denied access to some web services, linux,Beos and other users were all denied service just the same.
Dana
Fox Should Go Open Source (Score:4)
Re:good move (Score:3)
I think they know the demographics for shows like "The Simpsons," "Futurama," and "The X-Files."
Keeping us nerds out wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do, and despite shows like "World's Scariest/Funniest/etc foo," they probably are somewhat intelligent.
Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Score:4)
Roblimo writes: Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com. (Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time.)
Don't take this as a flame, just a comment. I think your opinion should be heard, just maybe in the comments section. This way, we can seperate news from opinion...an important thing for any journalist to do.
One idea that might kill two birds with one stone is to automatically give the poster the chance to do the first post. This would eliminate some first post babies...but then we would see the wrath of the "I am 31337 HaX0r, SECOND POST!!!" hehe...
Like always, just my $.02,
-Davidu
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
I hate it that it's always those American originated systems that get credit.
Linux did not start in the U.S., and many of it's developers are not American.
I got the impression from the apology that their intent IS to make their site accessable from all platforms.
They should do a show about /. (Score:2)
TONIGHT! See the crazed fans of the internet deluge a mail server! A fan tries to hack the home page! And a riot ensues when a TV stations flash intro crashes thousands of angry surfers!
I think it has potential, I wonder if they're hiring? *grin* ctimes2
Why continue bashing them ? (Score:4)
We now know that they made an honest mistake: their web programmer simply used a pre-made script to detect the OS, that unfortunately locked out linux users.
Now, they've apologized and promised to correct the situation, and even given a reasonable timeframe. I don't see why people should be angry at Fox anymore. They're trying to make a good-looking, user-friendly website.
I expect the target population of that web site to be more likely to stay on site longer if the site looks good. For many people, having a really bland site, yet full of information that is easy to access, is a turnoff.
Not everybody on the web is a geek. Not everybody likes bland webpages. Not everybody can see a site like http://www.linuxhq.com/, which is perfectly structured but even at first glance incredibly boring. Some people need graphics, animations and sounds to keep them interested.
I don't see why we should expect media companies to target their site at geeks. I'm sure many of us would like a Fox site that gives us the schedule in a nice HTML compliant table with no formatting tags, and a brief technical description of each show separated by paragraph delimiters, but that's not going to happen. That's not what the target audience wants.
And why, of all companies, continue to be angry at Fox ? Most companies wouldn't even give the courtesy of an answer, never mind giving a timeframe for the problems to be fixed.
Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Off-topic) (Score:3)
Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com.
Score: -1 (Flamebait)
Heh.
The Net's S-N ratio is dropping (Score:2)
The Net's signal-to-noise ratio is rapidly dropping... not that it was that high anyways, but look at how much bandwidth is wasted on unnecessary Flash plugins, "cute" animations, "cool" special effects... especially on lame commercial pages so poorly designed all you ever see is ads, hype, and garbage, but it's next to impossible to find what you want. Ugh.
When I visit a website, I want to see what they got. Not the silly flashy stuff (unless the page is dedicated for that purpose) but the real stuff they have to offer: useful information, their products, etc.. Who cares about all that bandwidth hogging eye-candy anyways?! Where's the beef? I wish more web designers would knock this into their heads: put your products up front! publish your useful information up front! (if you have any, that is). Sites that contain endless animations usually are so poorly design it's next to impossible to navigate and find what you want. And too often than it ought to be, that is usually a sign that they have (almost) nothing of value to offer.
Sorry for this rant. I'm just so fed up and turned off by flashy commercial sites that I can't help it...
Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (Score:2)
Well, the way I see it, and I'm could be wrong, but Fox has a fairly large website. When you spend all that time developing (content), you make mistakes. Now, although they were a company hired to do that, they're just human beings. Human beings screw up. Sometimes you look at something that looks fine to you after weeks/months of work on the same project. They got the message, and said they're fixing it. It was a mistake. Leave it at that for now.