Re:Use window.location.replace('newlocal.html');
on
Web Site "Lock-In"
·
· Score: 1
The correct way is: window.location.replace('newpage.html');. This replace the old page with the new in the browsers history.
The correct way is to send a 301 or 302 HTTP response. This works seamlessly in all browsers regardless of JavaScript support, which means that even the lowly search engine can find and index newpage.html.
I didn't read the book, but "stuff that Neilson says" can be found in his site, which is really bad. Would anyone dare say that spreading text across the whole width of the screen is good user interface?
Neilson doesn't spread text across your entire screen; you do. Unlike with PDF and Word documents, Web pages allow you, the reader, to decide how wide lines of text should be by changing the width of your browser window. A Web author can try to control the width, but it only makes for an unusable site when my preferred width is narrower.
I disagree strongly with this statement. The Web is an information medium that most people just happen to interact with visually at the moment. There are certainly many non-visual users such as search engines and other robots as well as blind people.
The visual focus common among today's Web designers is seriously hampering the growth of the Web into content-rich but visually-challenged devices like pagers and cellphones.
You can find the inside scoop through the company's SEC filing. They are planning to generate revenue through their "virtual bookstore". They're just an Amazon affiliate.
You can read about TopClick's financials and future plans through their SEC filing. Note that they have no revenue.
Also, they are apparently planning to "replace the existing search-based site [...] in February, 2000" (oops) at which time "the existing search-based web site will be retired from service". So don't get too hooked on their search engine!
Slashdot Mirror
The correct way is to send a 301 or 302 HTTP response. This works seamlessly in all browsers regardless of JavaScript support, which means that even the lowly search engine can find and index newpage.html.
HTTP is your friend.
A superfast, minimalist search engine? Sounds perfect for Lynx, but no:
I've already expressed my disappointment to webmaster@raging.com.
Neilson doesn't spread text across your entire screen; you do. Unlike with PDF and Word documents, Web pages allow you, the reader, to decide how wide lines of text should be by changing the width of your browser window. A Web author can try to control the width, but it only makes for an unusable site when my preferred width is narrower.
I disagree strongly with this statement. The Web is an information medium that most people just happen to interact with visually at the moment. There are certainly many non-visual users such as search engines and other robots as well as blind people.
The visual focus common among today's Web designers is seriously hampering the growth of the Web into content-rich but visually-challenged devices like pagers and cellphones.
You can find the inside scoop through the company's SEC filing. They are planning to generate revenue through their "virtual bookstore". They're just an Amazon affiliate.
Looks like a pretty weak business model to me...
You can read about TopClick's financials and future plans through their SEC filing. Note that they have no revenue.
Also, they are apparently planning to "replace the existing search-based site [...] in February, 2000" (oops) at which time "the existing search-based web site will be retired from service". So don't get too hooked on their search engine!