Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.misc |
| Subject | Re: Blocking JavaScript seems like a good idea |
| Date | 2014-09-16 10:08 +0000 |
| Organization | My Linux Box |
| Message-ID | <lv926g$fb3$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <FFMZh+gZtKnIvllfI6s+Dsz7@dont-email.me> <878ull3t7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lv7p5d$8jf$2@dont-email.me> <87r3zcm3fw.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
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).
Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web