Slashdot Mirror
FOX.com Apologizes to Linux Users
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*)
I don't think it was incompetence, really, just analness combined with ignorance. If you look at the script itself, it indicates that the writer wanted every person who viewed the site to view it the exact same way, without a pixel's difference. Thus, he had to check for browser and OS, since IE/win and IE/mac display differently, and NS/w and NS/m do too. And, of course, he checked for flash, and then decided to wrap all of this up into one script, all of the checks dependant on the other. And he knew not of Linux, and ended up excluding all alt OS's with a bad script. This is not the problem, however. The problem was the original intent of forcing everybody to see the exact same page.
:)
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?
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.
-BrentI don't know, why don't you download 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 and install.
-BrentMURDOCH: LINUX IS THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER
"Fuck M$", Says High-Powered Executive
Note: This article subsumes a previous article posted by the United Press International.
NEW YORK, NY (UPI) - Businessman Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the immense and powerful News Corporation, sang the praises of the popular Linux operating system today at Fox News Headquarters in New York. In addition, Murdoch also announced the cancellation of a previously-planned program entitled "World's Least-Supported Operating Systems." The program was part of Fox's new fall line-up.
"What a jag-off I've been," admitted Murdoch.
"We all do things in life that we're ashamed of," explained Murdoch. "For my part, I allowed myself to be swept up by a large, domineering corporation. I allowed myself to be manipulated. I allowed the rascals in Redmond to brainwash me." Murdoch's voice cracked dramatically at several points in his speech.
"But we're past all of that now," continued Murdoch. "And I'm a better man because of it. That's why I say 'to hell with M$!' 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."
Nick Petreley contributed to this story.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
And after all this commotion, Slashdot has a right to complain that it isn't worth visiting anyway? WTF?
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."
"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
No, they most likely went to the "Recycle Bin." :)
Can you guys check it, I cannot from my present location.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
What I'm even more curious about is how many emails did the webmaster/PR team received.
/dev/null?
:)
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.
Well, I was visiting their site with JavaScript shut off (so that their detection code wouldn't work). I quite enjoy their content (on the X-files site) and I just think their web designers went "over the top" with the creation of the page.
... (to skip the intro).
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).
:-)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I'll believe it when I see it, but just to check, I load up fox.com. However, now I'm on a windows box.
:)
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.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Its always great to see big commercial companies bend their will to help us. I mean, they could have just said "ah, screw it, none of those nerds ever watch TV anyways" but they didn't. It's showing how large companies are willing to accept linux as a big thing now.
;-)
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
Yeah, but they're a tv station. TV is flashy, catches the eye. What the hell did you expect? This isn't the website for National Geographic, or PBS... it's fox, the station that brings you the simpsons, and other stuff that pales in comparison to the simpsons.
Exactly. I had added a nice splash page to a site I was working on. Took no time to load. My bossed liked it, the board members like it, and the initial reaction was great. Then, the user feedback came in...
"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.
especially when there's a better way. Put a small flash movie on the first page which just loads the front page of the flashed site. Auto refresh in 3 seconds or so to the non-flashed site. If they have flash, they'll go to the flash site, else they'll go to the other. I don't understand why people go nuts with the javascript.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I guess the best way to add to your karma on this story is to bash roblimo, so I must play the karma whore and do:
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.
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 - no longer there) that was over 80k and I optimised it down to 22k (same quality) with Gifsicle. 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) to realise the truths of webdesign that we've mentioned.
I've got a couple comments on my new web design page, but nothing sophisticated enough. Yet.
Lets win this by making awareness
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The front page has commentary for all stories, and as long as the staff's commentary is obviously their own words, I don't see anything wrong. The italicized text is supposed to be the scoop, while the normal text is the staff's comments to the scoop. For the actual news, you have to click on the link. This is what Slashdot is.
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?
Sig goes here
Hmmm...maybe I'll change 'incompetent' to 'not wide enough thinker'. Although I think there is a fine line between 'ignorance', 'fucking idiot' and incompetent :)
Dana
IMHO, it's not just Fox that are at fault here, it's commerical "web design" in general. Ever notice how places like PCWeek, Altavista, mp3.com, and many -- many -- others use pages replete with br and such to force the 640x480 look on people? Most of the time it's not even centred, forcing me to stare at the left 30% of my monitor.
;-)
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. 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) 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.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I do web stuff and a lot of clients insist on doing stupid things like Flash splash screens and stupid animated gifs. We urge them to reconsider and explain to them that we have their users' best interests (which means their best interests) at heart but they ignore us. In the end, they control the purse strings. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happenend here.
My biggest qualm with the intro movies is that I usually open in new window and forget about it for 10 minutes, rendering useless the animation.
If I wanted to be force fed flashy graphics, I'd watch TV.
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 which run down the bad tricks that should be avoided, and to www.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.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The 30-second Flash Intro on fox.com makes more sense if you consider it this way:
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. 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.
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.
I'm no webmaster but, unless their setup is truly bizarre, deleting the check for browser and OS should take about 20 seconds
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.
I'm not saying that they deserved all of the nasty mail that I assume they got, but they sure learned how many people want to have the linux option available to them. Putting the word out. It was news to make a point, and I think it did. I would never say that Fox was an evil corporation (wait, aren't they all?), but they have now actually been introduced to our friendly OS and maybe the fervour with which they were flamed will lead them to our higher ground.
.sig sounded funny when I thought of it\/
\/This
\/soon to be replaced by real humour\/
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
The liberal adherence to, and application of, the Linux Advocacy HOWTO. Know it Live it Love it And you'll see more positive results like this.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
It's all well and good that fox.com has apologized, but I'd prefer the apology to be accompanied by a fix. I'm no webmaster but, unless their setup is truly bizarre, deleting the check for browser and OS should take about 20 seconds. What exactly is their problem? I am not booting to winbloze just to have the experience of viewing there site. My uptime is too important to my ego :)
Today's web pages are so full of animations of anykind. What are there goals anyway: sale things on the web or inform people. You can't go on those sites without being invade by publicity. I think this is sad. They want to reach the mass so they build the latest plug-in technology running on the latest browser on the world #1 selling OS (not the best). The first thing we know is that those pages do not have any valuable information on it...
...they fired whatever company they hired to create their pages in the first place. I don't think it was an attack on the linux community in the first place, it was merely incompetance. No one should be *forced* to download a plugin to view your site, suggest it, sure, but offer a link to a page that doesn't have Flash (especially since Flash is usually used only on the entrance page anyway!)
And why would you want incompetent people to design your site?
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
- daniel
Turn off your computer and go outside
I think the important thing is they are trying. Only if they would speed up and get the site up quicker, and it's a very simple mod so it shouldn't take more than a day. Oh well.
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.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
Rather than looking to TV for an example, look to "normal" (ie: non-web) computer programs. Most have a splash screen of some sort, consisting mostly of the program name, a copyright notice, and some fancy graphic.
:-)
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
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
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
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, a definite must-read for designers. The other is a far less ambitious work, my own short treatise on Diversity in Web Design. Both are replete with links to further resources.
There's also a subtle connection between the themes of bad keyboard strategies 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.
I don't believe that there is one answer to the Flash/animation/splash screens question. From what I see,
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.
Well it may be fine for all the Win95 users if Fox makes a pledge but leaves the actual site unavailable to Linux users, but for those of us on Linux a pledge is just a pledge until they actually do something. If you can't handle the bloat you shouldn't be surfing a TV network's site in the first place. TV is a very high bandwidth business.
Let's sieze the moment and demand that fox--web page and all--embrace open source. The community should be able to contribute diff patches to Simpsons scripts. I want to be able to download and edit my own version of the local affiliate news feeds. I want to remotely log into the freaking water cooler where the employees take breaks.
Roblimo, Ok, so Fox did something wrong...big deal...they fixed it...and in good faith. Why do you use Slashdot.org as a soapbox to give your un-needed commentary?
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
# Hack the planet, it's important.
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.
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
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
I mean, why the inflammatory phrase like "now if they made the site worth viewing..." ?
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.
Wouldn't it be great if front page stories could be moderated?
Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com.
Score: -1 (Flamebait)
Heh.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
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...
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.