Yahoo Keeps Offering Real; Fox Now Allows Linux

Jason Shindler writes "Looks like Yahoo! is back on the "real" bandwagon -- they will continue offering Real as an option to broadcast.com customers. Slashdot earlier reported that they were switching exclusively to Windows Media Player (yuck!)" Internetnews.com story here. Another quick followup: Fox got lambasted here on Slashdot earlier this month for denying www.fox.com access to people who don't use Windows or Mac operating systems. Later they apologized and said they'd fix the problem. They have kept their word. Thanks, Fox people!

Comments

The Fox page

[jfunk]

Well, they managed to fix their javascript to allow Netscape for Linux get in.

One more problem. I usually leave javascript off to avoid popups, which I hate. No javascript == blank page.

I just checked in Lynx and got the same thing.

Yet again, many blind and low bandwith are locked out of a site.

I hate "web designers."

Don't sound so fanatical about Linux!

[dustpuppy]

Mathboy, it's great to see that you obviously love linux, but have a read of the article and then what you wrote.

No longer can people who obviously dont know a thing about linux or have ignored it because it seemed unimportant at the time (fox webdesigners, ahem) continue to IGNORE linux.

Fox.com never ignored Linux - right from the start they wanted to make their site accessible by every browser and every platform - they simply needed time to get to that stage (at least that's what it says in the article).

This is just one of many signals that linux is being accepted into the mainstream, EVEN if its by force.

No it isn't - as Fox said, they wanted accessibility by everyone. Linux supporters had zero impact on fox's decision since they were already going to support Linux in the first place. Nobody forced anyone to do anything.

The reason I'm having a go at you (in a friendly way ;) is that while it is great that you are an avid Linux supporter, you sound like one with a big inferiority complex.

Relax, Linux is destined to take it's place amongst the big guns of the OS marketplace - you don't do the Linux camp any favours by sounding fanatical.

Cheers.

real issue comes down to site design principles

[poopie]

There are far too many "web programmers" who just graduated from a Macromedia course, just installed Frontpage 2000, or just purchased Javascript for dummies that are working on high profile sites. Sometimes I like flash and flair, but when done right it should not hinder non-graphical browsing of a site. IT CAN BE DONE - you just need to know more about text and graphic html rendering and know when to NOT add yet another spinning whirlygig and when not to use javascript or java

If the site doesn't work under lynx, there's a problem. The main page should at least properly autodetect browser type or offer different content options.

Better yet, don't use features that would require a particular browser version, or at least don't use feature that only work in the latest verison on $BROWSER with latest version of $PLUGIN

There's going to be significantly less flash, flair, and graphics on sites in the upcoming future to support mobile users using WAP on PDAs to access the internet wirelessly over low speed connections and displaying on small screens.

Render your non-portable html on that!

Re:real issue comes down to site design principles

[Chasuk]

I agree and disagree simultaneously. I agree that web designers should strive for cross-browser compatibility, but not: "If the site doesn't work under lynx, there's a problem." Compatibility can be stretched to the point of irrelevancy.

In actual numbers, I'll bet that there are more Internet Explorer-using Croatians than the entire web-browsing Linux community. If some question that assumption, pick Italians instead. Hell, pick the Chinese or even the Finnish. The same ratio probably applies. It seems to me rather pathetic that we whine when the trivial content of a single website is inaccessible to a tiny fraction of the web-browsing world, and yet we don't even consider it worth our notice that millions of users can't access the content of the majority of arguably more important sites.

We can't design for everybody, and I don't believe that we should try. We should design for the majority, yes, but it is obstinate to insist that we should design for all. If that is part of your credo, bless you, but don't expect everyone to share your religion.

Slashdot uses JavaScript, which means that it isn't accessible to everyone, but I don't think many of us rue the extra capabilities that this provides. As for as the aesthetics versus functionality argument, I think that both can be achieved. When the two behemoths in the browser war are entirely CSS and XML compliant, then that dual nature should be easy, or at least much-simplified.

One final point: I'm seen very few websites with essential or non-duplicable information. If people really don't like the "flashy" extensions, stop visiting the sites that use them. When the numbers drop, so will the extensions. However, personally, given the choice between an aesthetically-pleasing site which provides the same information as a dull or unimaginatively presented site, I'll choose the former every time. I'm not talking about the garish, how-many-fonts-can-I-fit-on-one-page, midi-music playing, banner-scrolling, dark blue letters on black background travesty. And, yes, I know that one person's aesthetic dream is another's design nightmare. Still, I believe that reasonable compromises can be reached, and will satisfy a far larger audience.

Time to dismount from your Lynx high-horse

[dustpuppy]

Poopie, once upon a time I used to agree with your sentiments and I too used to throw my hands up in despair at the web programmers who just graduated from a Macromedia course ....

That was before I realised I was trapped in the past. In the past, the HTML was just a markup language and the Internet merely a big library of text documents ... sorry, documents with hyperlinks.

Most things evolve over time and that is what has happened with the Internet. Sure, non-graphical browser compatible pages have a place, but for entertainment sites (that is the business fox is in), plain non-graphic sites are about as entertaining as ... well ... as plain text documents.

So if a site doesn't render properly in a text browser - who cares?!? Times have moved on - the Internet isn't about text anymore, it is about entertainment, aesthetics, convenience and ease of use. To the common person, text is (for the most part) the exact opposite of these values.

I also disagree with your point about WAP on PDA's. They will be no less flash or flair when WAP takes off (and it will take off). I predict that most sites will optimise certain sections of their sites for WAP and leave the rest with all the gee-wiz graphic/Javascript stuff.

For example, a movie site will have a sections which contains the movie sessions times and is optimised for WAP. The rest of the site with movie trailers, reviews etc. will be the same as it is now.

Let's take a reality check: If I wanted to watch Seinfeld, I wouldn't choose to watch it on a small portable handheld TV if I could watch it on a 20" TV. Similary, most people would prefer to surf the Net on a computer/TV screen rather than a 3" by 4" Palm V screen - people will choose the most appropriate tool for the application.

Anyway, to get to the end of my long-winded spiel, my point is that to design a purely 'flash and flair' site is no crime. It is simply catering to what the markets wants and making use of the technology in it's current evolved state.

Those that complain that sites should be viewable in a text browser all the time simply show that they haven't understood the transformation that the Internet has undergone since it first went 'public' (and I mean that in the nicest possible way :)!

Cheers.

Forgot something?

[finkployd]

Besides the all the errors with thinking the web is the internet, you also forgot that someone who is blind or uses some kind of audio "reader" to browse web pages needs a certin amount of text in the page.

Here is another news flash, a page can contain all the flashy, tastless, macromedia crap you want, and still have text support.

And you are wrong on the point about FOX catering to the needs of their customers. Appearently they recieved enough complaints that they decided to change the accessibility of their site so that everyone can view it. Same rational you gave, with the opposite result.

Finkployd