Slashdot Mirror

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

If you read the parent, it complained about the lack of readability, not the lack of Flash.

The morons are using a background containing solid black when essential text on top of it is black.

They use a number of different typefaces on pages, creating a non-uniform look, which slows down reading.

The icons are unintuitive or unclear. What does the icon for local history and genealogy represent? Looks like flying hot dogs to me.

They link to pages that are under construction without indicated that such is the case. (Check out the mad Tux action in this one - quite amusing considering they used Frontpage.)

They use ALL CAPS for a publication where emphasis can and should be marked in other ways.

They use single line breaks instead of paragraphs, which makes it very hard to read.

It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure out that they will never keep static pages like this updated, which will lead to large portions of the site being useless.

Last but not least, the site lacks an overall unified graphical language. Standard graphics are not standard, but are different from section to section (yet shared between some sections). The lack of stylistic uniformity creates an unstructured site that is hard to navigate. It would have been better to use only one or two fonts and have common graphics for all sections, perhaps color-coded for different sections of the site (like /. for example).

Flash hardly improves readability, and the parent post said nothing about that, so don't even go there.

It's not just their domain name that is pornographic! Their Kids' Zone contains plenty of pornographic words, phrases, and references, or how about:

• Adult
• Teen
• Videos
• Come in and join the fun!

Filth! Children need to be protected against these nasty things called libraries!

However, I don't have a problem with a library using some form of control to block access to sites that lie outside of the mission of a public library.

The difference is between (a) not buying books you don't like, and (b) ripping pages out of the books you already have. (given to you free, indeed)

Libraries are there to store and provide information. As much as possible. Any site incorrectly blocked reduces the amount of information available at the library, thus "reducing the ability of the library to perform its mission" in your vocabulary, whereas leaving "non-core" sites unblocked does not reduce the amount of information available at the library.

--
The flesh library might have more categorisation problems in store with their new adult arrivals pages.

Tux on the library website. *shrug*

Their web site totally looks like it was done in 1986! Transparent swirly morphing GIFs? Horrible tiled backgrounds? Yeeeeeee!

After three months of work by the staff, Oda was justifiably proud of the site.

Three months of work? Are you fucking kidding me?