Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4900 > unrolled thread

Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 10:18 +0000
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-15 11:30 +0100
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 10:34 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 20:27 +0000
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 22:23 +0000
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-15 14:32 +0100
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 22:27 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-16 04:26 -0300
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-16 10:08 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-16 14:34 -0400
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-16 20:12 +0000
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-18 15:39 -0300
            Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-18 20:25 +0100
              Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-09-18 23:41 +0300
              Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-19 12:56 +0200
                Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-19 12:57 +0100
                Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-19 15:50 -0300
                  Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-09-19 21:57 +0100
            Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-18 23:32 +0000
              Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-19 16:37 +0000
                Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-19 20:19 +0200
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Underactive Moth <underactivemoth@gmail.com> - 2014-09-16 08:21 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-16 10:10 +0000
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-09-16 13:57 +0100
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-09-15 14:24 +0000
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-15 14:37 -0300
        Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2014-09-15 20:20 +0000
          Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-16 04:14 -0300
    Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-19 07:40 +0000
      Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-20 02:42 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#4900 — Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea

http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/

   My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension. I
   found this out when I showed a friend the Radial Blitz website. He
   complained that something was lacking. He turned on screen sharing to
   show me and sure enough my large screenshot slider was nowhere to be
   seen.

   Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the problem. Obviously
   I didn't expect the slide show to function, but I expected at least a
   static image. The theme designer likely never even considered that
   somebody would have JavaScript disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a
   critical web technology?

   I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features are
   well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to consider why
   somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my list seems to support
   their position.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4904

In article <FFMZh+gZtKnIvllfI6s+Dsz7@dont-email.me>, Rich
<rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> 
>    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension. I
>    found this out when I showed a friend the Radial Blitz website. He
>    complained that something was lacking. He turned on screen sharing to
>    show me and sure enough my large screenshot slider was nowhere to be
>    seen.
> 
>    Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the problem. Obviously
>    I didn't expect the slide show to function, but I expected at least a
>    static image. The theme designer likely never even considered that
>    somebody would have JavaScript disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a
>    critical web technology?
> 
>    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features are
>    well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to consider why
>    somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my list seems to support
>    their position.

In my email client, I disable any javascript an email may contain when
displaying that email. My email client doesn't run without javascript
enabled but I do at least give a polite message to users to that
effect, if they try to run with it disabled in the browser.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4905

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <FFMZh+gZtKnIvllfI6s+Dsz7@dont-email.me>, Rich
> <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> > 
> >    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking
> >    extension. I found this out when I showed a friend the Radial
> >    Blitz website. He complained that something was lacking. He
> >    turned on screen sharing to show me and sure enough my large
> >    screenshot slider was nowhere to be seen.
> > 
> >    Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the problem.
> >    Obviously I didn't expect the slide show to function, but I
> >    expected at least a static image. The theme designer likely
> >    never even considered that somebody would have JavaScript
> >    disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a critical web
> >    technology?
> > 
> >    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features
> >    are well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to
> >    consider why somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my
> >    list seems to support their position.

> In my email client, I disable any javascript an email may contain
> when displaying that email. My email client doesn't run without
> javascript enabled but I do at least give a polite message to users
> to that effect, if they try to run with it disabled in the browser.

My email client is mutt, so there is no need to disable javascript,
because text mode email clients do not know anything about html
formatted emails to even begin to think about javascript.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4915

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <FFMZh+gZtKnIvllfI6s+Dsz7@dont-email.me>, Rich
>> <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
>> > 
>> >    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking
>> >    extension. I found this out when I showed a friend the Radial
>> >    Blitz website. He complained that something was lacking. He
>> >    turned on screen sharing to show me and sure enough my large
>> >    screenshot slider was nowhere to be seen.
>> > 
>> >    Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the problem.
>> >    Obviously I didn't expect the slide show to function, but I
>> >    expected at least a static image. The theme designer likely
>> >    never even considered that somebody would have JavaScript
>> >    disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a critical web
>> >    technology?
>> > 
>> >    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features
>> >    are well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to
>> >    consider why somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my
>> >    list seems to support their position.
> 
>> In my email client, I disable any javascript an email may contain
>> when displaying that email. My email client doesn't run without
>> javascript enabled but I do at least give a polite message to users
>> to that effect, if they try to run with it disabled in the browser.
> 
> My email client is mutt, so there is no need to disable javascript,
> because text mode email clients do not know anything about html
> formatted emails to even begin to think about javascript.

Mine too, been using mutt for 10 or 15 years now. As an aside, I never
understood why people were deceived by scam emails, a glance at the
route path on any suspicious email should be a quick verification.
Then I tried looking at the email headers in MS Outhouse; it opened a
text box that displayed just a couple of header lines, no wonder MS
users get suckered by scam emails. I guess MS considers its users too
dumb to view email headers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4917

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >> In article <FFMZh+gZtKnIvllfI6s+Dsz7@dont-email.me>, Rich
> >> <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> >> > 
> >> >    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking
> >> >    extension. I found this out when I showed a friend the Radial
> >> >    Blitz website. He complained that something was lacking. He
> >> >    turned on screen sharing to show me and sure enough my large
> >> >    screenshot slider was nowhere to be seen.
> >> > 
> >> >    Turns out a script blocking extension was causing the
> >> >    problem. Obviously I didn't expect the slide show to
> >> >    function, but I expected at least a static image. The theme
> >> >    designer likely never even considered that somebody would
> >> >    have JavaScript disabled. Should they, or is JavaScript a
> >> >    critical web technology?
> >> > 
> >> >    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's
> >> >    features are well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd
> >> >    like to consider why somebody would disable it. To my own
> >> >    chagrin, my list seems to support their position.
> > 
> >> In my email client, I disable any javascript an email may contain
> >> when displaying that email. My email client doesn't run without
> >> javascript enabled but I do at least give a polite message to
> >> users to that effect, if they try to run with it disabled in the
> >> browser.
> > 
> > My email client is mutt, so there is no need to disable javascript,
> > because text mode email clients do not know anything about html
> > formatted emails to even begin to think about javascript.

> Mine too, been using mutt for 10 or 15 years now.

I'm probably close to the 15 year mark myself.  Switched to mutt back
when it was clear that elm development had halted, and wasn't going to
pick back up.  And since mutt and elm are more similar than different,
the switch was not a big transition.

> As an aside, I never understood why people were deceived by scam
> emails, a glance at the route path on any suspicious email should be
> a quick verification.

Yeah, a quick "h" when viewing the email (assuming one uses mutt's
built in viewer) to see the headers, and one can see through a lot of
scams.  But then again, most (99%) of the scams I either 1) don't see
anyway (crm114's already filtered them away) or 2) I notice as scams
without even needing to look at the headers.

> Then I tried looking at the email headers in MS Outhouse; it opened a
> text box that displayed just a couple of header lines, no wonder MS
> users get suckered by scam emails. I guess MS considers its users too
> dumb to view email headers.

Honestly, that's MS's total thought process: "the users are too dumb to
understand" ... "so don't show it to them".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4909

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
>
>    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension.
<snip>
>    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features are
>    well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to consider why
>    somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my list seems to support
>    their position.

Later:

  "As a website designer it’s a big problem for me though. HTML and CSS
  are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation. Used
  correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge benefit to
  user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of information, to
  providing interactive forms that guide the user, or presenting voting
  and rating buttons for articles."

All of which can be provided without client-side scripting.  "Used
correctly" (to borrow the author's own term) such scripting should do no
more than improve on the functionality that is there for all visitors.
Many designers don't seem to be able to build sites that operate
perfectly well without JS, but with JS enhancements for those that like
that kind of thing.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4918

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
> >
> >    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension.
> <snip>
> >    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features
> >    are well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to
> >    consider why somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my
> >    list seems to support their position.

> Later:

>   "As a website designer it?s a big problem for me though. HTML and
>   CSS are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation.
>   Used correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge
>   benefit to user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of
>   information, to providing interactive forms that guide the user, or
>   presenting voting and rating buttons for articles."

> All of which can be provided without client-side scripting.  "Used
> correctly" (to borrow the author's own term) such scripting should do
> no more than improve on the functionality that is there for all
> visitors. Many designers don't seem to be able to build sites that
> operate perfectly well without JS, but with JS enhancements for those
> that like that kind of thing.

I suspect some of the problem is that these "designers" are unable to
think past their latest idea for eye candy to realize that those who
have javascript turned off (or like myself, blocked by default via
noscript) would be perfectly happy with a 1994 layout of the
informational content of the site.

They somehow think the eye candy add's informational value (usually it
does not, it just adds eye candy).

I'd be fine with the text information looking like it was a 1994 web
page.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4922

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> I suspect some of the problem is that these "designers" are unable to
> think past their latest idea for eye candy to realize that those who
> have javascript turned off (or like myself, blocked by default via
> noscript) would be perfectly happy with a 1994 layout of the
> informational content of the site.
> 
> They somehow think the eye candy add's informational value (usually it
> does not, it just adds eye candy).
> 
> I'd be fine with the text information looking like it was a 1994 web
> page.

<SMUG>
I'm a highly literate person, quick with text, spent decades getting
that way. Good at it.  Show me the words.
</SMUG>

Only that's orthogonal to marketing.  It's largely orthogonal to
managing the user's "experience".  Shpx, I'll manage my own
experiences, TYVM.  I just can't get over how the people who want to
*sell* you their product create mare's nests of Webstoff [1] to
obfuscate the info about it.


[1] Newly discovered elemental substance, like unobtanium or
    administratium.  Cf. also bogons. :-)
-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4927

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> > I suspect some of the problem is that these "designers" are unable to
> > think past their latest idea for eye candy to realize that those who
> > have javascript turned off (or like myself, blocked by default via
> > noscript) would be perfectly happy with a 1994 layout of the
> > informational content of the site.
> > 
> > They somehow think the eye candy add's informational value (usually it
> > does not, it just adds eye candy).
> > 
> > I'd be fine with the text information looking like it was a 1994 web
> > page.

> <SMUG>
> I'm a highly literate person, quick with text, spent decades getting
> that way. Good at it.  Show me the words.
> </SMUG>

+1

> Only that's orthogonal to marketing.  It's largely orthogonal to
> managing the user's "experience".  Shpx, I'll manage my own
> experiences, TYVM.  I just can't get over how the people who want to
> *sell* you their product create mare's nests of Webstoff [1] to
> obfuscate the info about it.

Probably because they realize that if they "just" gave you the text,
they would also have to admit to you that their newfangled 2.0 gadget
is nothing more than the same identical garden spade you bought last
year, just with a different shade of green paint (because they couldn't
get last years green color for the same price this year, and switched
paint suppliers).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4934

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Rich wrote:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>
>>> http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
>>>
>>>    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension.
>> <snip>
>>>    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features
>>>    are well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to
>>>    consider why somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my
>>>    list seems to support their position.
>
>> Later:
>
>>   "As a website designer it?s a big problem for me though. HTML and
>>   CSS are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation.
>>   Used correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge
>>   benefit to user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of
>>   information, to providing interactive forms that guide the user, or
>>   presenting voting and rating buttons for articles."
>
>> All of which can be provided without client-side scripting.  "Used
>> correctly" (to borrow the author's own term) such scripting should do
>> no more than improve on the functionality that is there for all
>> visitors. Many designers don't seem to be able to build sites that
>> operate perfectly well without JS, but with JS enhancements for those
>> that like that kind of thing.
>
> I suspect some of the problem is that these "designers" are unable to
> think past their latest idea for eye candy to realize that those who
> have javascript turned off (or like myself, blocked by default via
> noscript) would be perfectly happy with a 1994 layout of the
> informational content of the site.
>
> They somehow think the eye candy add's informational value (usually it
> does not, it just adds eye candy).
>
> I'd be fine with the text information looking like it was a 1994 web
> page.
>
>
But some of the problem is that this started not long after 1994.

What I think happened is that among that wave that came later, the ones 
who wanted the internet for their own purposes, they didn't look around 
and see what was there, they saw the internet as a solution for what they 
needed.

"Let's put movies on the internet, that way documentary films will get 
distribution".  Maybe that's true, but it loads the cost of distribution 
onto the end user.  It also changes the internet from a very interactive 
medium to a more passive medium.

"It's advertising, so we have to be slick".  Hence all that glossy stuff, 
competing with old media, rather than being intimate and using words to 
speak the truth.

And it goes on.

SOme years back, Kraft Dinner no longer included the instructions for 
cooking it in a microwave. You had to go to a website, and that was an 
awful website (I may not have even gotten to try it), it was about style 
rather than substance.  The company was using it for promotion, but they 
couldn't tell the difference between information and "flash".

So it becomes  a recursive thing, advertisers expecting the internet to be 
as they knew it, which in turn raises the expectations of the readers.

I saw it starting in 1996, looking at "community group" webpages, they 
were all so nicely done, but they were markers.  They didn't try to lure 
people in, they didn't have an understanding of a webpage (you don't drive 
by a webpage, you have to go there deliberately, so no need for a glossy 
photo on the front page), they weren't using it for topical information. 
They had a bad foundation, and it often never got better.

I remember mentioning something about this to someone running a folk 
coffee house and she said something about "it's too much work to get the 
information about who is playing up".  But around that time, 1998, the 
organization that housed that coffee house had a very glossy webpage, 
including some butterfly that flitted about. "Me stupid, me like pretty 
butterfly".

It is and still is a cultural clash.  Since some many of the 
carptetbaggers were coming for their own reasons, they never bothered
to look at what existed, what worked well.  They had their own vision, and
had some guy implement it (that guy didn't have experience witht the group 
so he couldn't tell the group how to be effective on the internet) and 
used javascript or whatever rather than laying down a simple page of 
information, that was readable by all browsers.  In effect, those groups 
and businesses didn't grasp that the internet was about "getting the 
information about".  It was condiditional to them, you needed a certain 
browser, at the very least.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4935

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> 
>> > http://mortoray.com/2014/09/15/blocking-javascript-seems-like-a-good-idea/
>> >
>> >    My fancy new website is broken due to a script blocking extension.
>> <snip>
>> >    I don't think it's useful to argue for JavaScript, it's features
>> >    are well known and I find it invaluable. Instead I'd like to
>> >    consider why somebody would disable it. To my own chagrin, my
>> >    list seems to support their position.
> 
>> Later:
> 
>>   "As a website designer it?s a big problem for me though. HTML and
>>   CSS are simply not adequate for doing a lot of basic presentation.
>>   Used correctly, simple interactive features can provide a huge
>>   benefit to user experience. From simple hiding and revealing of
>>   information, to providing interactive forms that guide the user, or
>>   presenting voting and rating buttons for articles."
> 
>> All of which can be provided without client-side scripting.  "Used
>> correctly" (to borrow the author's own term) such scripting should do
>> no more than improve on the functionality that is there for all
>> visitors. Many designers don't seem to be able to build sites that
>> operate perfectly well without JS, but with JS enhancements for those
>> that like that kind of thing.
> 
> I suspect some of the problem is that these "designers" are unable to
> think past their latest idea for eye candy to realize that those who
> have javascript turned off (or like myself, blocked by default via
> noscript) would be perfectly happy with a 1994 layout of the
> informational content of the site.
> 
> They somehow think the eye candy add's informational value (usually it
> does not, it just adds eye candy).
> 
> I'd be fine with the text information looking like it was a 1994 web
> page.

Like mouse overs. Some sites seem to be completely infested with the
critters, you can barely move the mouse without something flashing in
your face. I'd prefer to just click on something if I want to view it.

Then there are animations and scrolling banners. I find it distracting
to try to read something when there's things moving on the screen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4970

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> Like mouse overs. Some sites seem to be completely infested with the
> critters, you can barely move the mouse without something flashing in
> your face. 

From the first time I saw a GUI browser on a Windoes machine, I
surmised that there would be a marketing-driven push to make the web
as much like TV as possible.  TV has been 60+ years of money machine
for the advertizing industry.  It may have been losing headway in
the last decade but they want more of the good times and the web is
the only candidate they see that might promise it.

I don't have a TV but when I go to the dentist, I get a free
homeopathic maintainance dose. I'm ahgast at the scrolling tickers,
popups, fast-paced crossfades etc. etc, all the technical effects that
keep your eyes on the screen but make it impossible to attend to
anything that appears there.

The droids made that, they like it and they think the web should be
the same.

> I'd prefer to just click on something if I want to view it.

Yeah, well, you're just hopelessly literate, eh?  One them losers who
"believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of
discernible reality."  ;-)

I'll give mouseovers this: When a website displays an array of cute
icons, the meanings of which are, presumably, "intuitively obvious",
text mouseovers do help to interpret the yellow blotch with striations
or the red circle with a pointy squiggle.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4972

In article <87oaucojrr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> as much like TV as possible.  TV has been 60+ years of money machine
> for the advertizing industry.

Christ, another one who can't spell advertising.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4973

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:

>> for the advertizing industry.
>
> Christ, another one who can't spell advertising.

Say I go to the supermarket and there's this huge, wobbly pile of cans.
If I should bump into the pile and knock the the cans down, whose fault
is that, mine or the storeowner's?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4983

On 2014-09-18, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <87oaucojrr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer
><mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> as much like TV as possible.  TV has been 60+ years of money machine
>> for the advertizing industry.
>
> Christ, another one who can't spell advertising.


You would have loved that chap I came across on a course support forum
a couple of months ago.  Out of the blue he posted "American English is
the correct form." and this on a course run by a British university.

Thankfully everyone ignored him. :-)

-- 
Ernesto "Che" Guevera, commonly known as el Che, was an Argentinian
t-shirt tycoon.                                  -- TL;DR Wikipedia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4986

In article <hoeteb-9qh2.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> On 2014-09-18, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > In article <87oaucojrr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer
> ><mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> >
> >> as much like TV as possible.  TV has been 60+ years of money machine
> >> for the advertizing industry.
> >
> > Christ, another one who can't spell advertising.
> 
> You would have loved that chap I came across on a course support forum
> a couple of months ago.  Out of the blue he posted "American English is
> the correct form." and this on a course run by a British university.
> 
> Thankfully everyone ignored him. :-)

Mmmm :-)

In this case, -ise is correct wherever you live. There's a small number
of such words which *always* take -ise. Enterprise is another - as Capt
Kirk will tell you.

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4993

On 2014-09-18, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <87oaucojrr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer
> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> as much like TV as possible.  TV has been 60+ years of money machine
>> for the advertizing industry.
>
> Christ, another one who can't spell advertising.

Nobody in Canada can keep up with which spelling rules -- Brit or
Merkin -- are are in vogue in a given locale and my speel chucker is,
by happenstance, Merkin.  Give your attention, rather, to why the
Serapu need an explicit Serapu name for our province when its correct
name is perfectly good Latin.


Thanks for the constructive contribution to the dialogue.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4995

In article <8738bnigw7.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> On 2014-09-18, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <87oaucojrr.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, Mike Spencer
> > <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> >
> >> as much like TV as possible.  TV has been 60+ years of money machine
> >> for the advertizing industry.
> >
> > Christ, another one who can't spell advertising.
> 
> Nobody in Canada can keep up with which spelling rules -- Brit or
> Merkin -- are are in vogue in a given locale and my speel chucker is,
> by happenstance, Merkin.

Then your speel chucker is fucked. Advertising is *always* spelt thus,
wherever you are on the planet.

-- 
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your 
intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, 
and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. 
I want to know what the evidence shows."             -- Richard Dawkins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4976

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> > Like mouse overs. Some sites seem to be completely infested with
> > the critters, you can barely move the mouse without something
> > flashing in your face.

> ...

> I'll give mouseovers this: When a website displays an array of cute
> icons, the meanings of which are, presumably, "intuitively obvious",
> text mouseovers do help to interpret the yellow blotch with
> striations or the red circle with a pointy squiggle.

Which just goes to prove that the "intuitiveness" of the GUI's isn't so
"intuitive".  They are only "intuitive" _after_ you've learned what the
pictures mean.  What makes them, sometimes, easier to "learn" is that
many humans are better at remembering a picture than they are at
remembering a word.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4990

On 2014-09-18, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> Which just goes to prove that the "intuitiveness" of the GUI's isn't so
> "intuitive".  They are only "intuitive" _after_ you've learned what the
> pictures mean. 

*applause*

-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 43rd day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3180
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies”. Groucho Marx.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web