What about guns and cars? Both of those, realisticly are more dangerous.
But the human race hasn't been wiped out by either of those invetions.
I think that you should be more worried about gun control and car laws at the moment.
I don't see how someone would be alowed to just go around with one of thses things and knock people out. Someone could do the same thing with a baseball bat. Just becasue it's a new peice of technology. Dosn't mean the laws change.
Although. you do have a good point about the future. when AI starts to get more of the I in it.
Why are they always getting caught in those fishing nets ?
Becasue they use sonar to detect objects in front of them. So nets don't show up (thats why dolphins and whales get beeched). The nets are also hards to see underwater anyway.
If you wrote a virus that infected peoples computers. Then changed all the microsoft icons to pentagrames. Then I spose that could be considered art.
Or if you wrote a program that expressed your self in a differnt, not so harmful way. I spose that could be consided art aswell.
Why do I think this? Cause I'm a graphic designer/web designer. If I made a personal web site for my self. I would consider it a peice of art.
But if I was doing it as a job for someone. I don't consider it art. Becasue I'm not expressing my self. I doing work for someone.
I spose you could say that I was expressing on the behalf if I was doing a oil painting for an ad. I think of what I do more as design/engineering. I trying to communicate with the person who is using my site. Not trying to express myself to them.
I think thats one of the biggest differnces between an artist and a designer. I spose what make you which, depends on what your doing it for.
If course, these things tend to overlap a bit in the real world. I think a game progaer would be a bit of both in this case. Depending on how much much creative control he had over the game.
I think that makes goups like britney spear, backstreet boys, designers. Since they have been designed for a target audience. I hardly think britney does it to express herself. Well... except in that.;)
The fucking point is that you shouldn't be trying to fuck around with fancy columns and nice fonts that break so fucking easily. Once you have a version that works, and is readable, and gets the point across, then you can worry about all that shit. Incidentally, I buy from the place that gives the best service. Not the one that looks nicest.
The only reason they are breaking so easily is that they arn't supported properly by older browsers. And fancy colums and fonts still don't have anything to do with it sorry.
But would you buy from a site that had a hard to understand site, that gives you the run around, just trying to find one small peice of info on there site?
If you webt to the site in the artical, you'd notice that it has hardly any images. but it is still very clean, and easy to use.
Design isn't about making things looking nice, of course, thst still encoraged depending on you target audience etc... It's about communication. And that bascily means, laying out the site so people can understand it. Not nessesarily having lots of images an flash animations.
I don't care...
I don't care about your fancy layout.
I don't care about your animated GIFs.
I don't care about your eye candy.
I don't care about your exact positioning "needs".
I don't care about your midi sound effects.
I don't care about your Java "enhancements".
I don't care about your Flash animation.
I don't care about your ego.
Yeat ANOTHER person who still doesn't' get it. Getting browsers to support standards has got nothing to do with java/flash/images/sound.
Tables are great. They help my browser format large amounts of information so that I can understand your data. But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.
Graphics can help your site make sense and help me to understand your message and naviate easier. But please don't pollute my browser with hundreds of micro-images just to achieve some special effect that could be replaced with a simple navigation bar on the side.
Thats another good reason to use a browser that supports standards. So web designers don't have to place 1000's of micro images, or build complex, multi-collum, interlocking, rowspan style tables -- Just to place something at x,y
Getting browsers to support standards has got nothing to do with fancy looking sites, images or sound etc..
The point is to give web designers proper web developing tools so they can make good sites. That are usable, have good content, but still have a bit of style--but not having to resort to extreams in doing so.
I can tell you right now. If slashdot made their HTML, HTML 4.0, and CSS 1.0 compliant. It would deffinitly load alot faster. And would be much more easier to manage. Aswell as having benifits to the user. (except those using 4.0 or less browers).
If you want clean and useful content. Then up-grade to a standards compliant web brower.
Exactly. If the standards are supported properly. The web designers won't have to use clunky images or layouts as much.
Yes, some sites have no content and treat the web as a TV set, or a printed page. But that is due to bad design skills. and is irrelivent to the topic at hand.
they never said not to use IE5.0. Is IE5.0 a 4.0 browser? No it isn't. No need to worry then.
Lynx? considering that it's only a text browser. It shouldn't make the slightest bit of differnce. Infact, if anything. It should be better, since web designers can use new tools like CSS, instead of relying on images. Text decorated via CSS will still be readable in Lynx. Text decorated via image, won't be.
But if you developed a C program and it only worked properly on a newer vesion of the OS, of any platform, and this was a very wide spread problem. Wouldn't you encorage your users to upgrade?
HTML 3.2 is supported, and will continued to be. But that dosen't change the fact that older browsers don't support even those standards properly.
"There is a lot of growth in web access through devices other than the personal computer -- WAP phones, PDAs, voice browsing, etc. Now this group comes along totally ignoring this direction (which for my money emphasizes content over glitz) and pushes for everyone to use (and code to) only the platforms that support all the latest and greatest "features"."
To quote www.alistapart.com: "This is not about graphic design. It's about the separation of style from content, which will allow us to do amazing things. Like redesign an entire site in hours instead of months. Stop authoring and debugging stupid, browser-specific markup. And support non-traditional browsers, from Palm Pilots(TM) to Braille readers, without building multiple versions of every page. All pretty good stuff. "
From looking at the page it appears to be a heavily graphics design oriented group, or what is known as the "pixel perfectionists".
Actually, the site has hardly any images on it. And what images there are, are small in KB size.
And yes, it does look a bit on the flash side. But then again, they are web-designers.
Once again, that is the whole point in this doing this.
Once again, someone has not read the artical, or bothered to do a bit of research before ranting off about something.
Please go back to that site and tell me where it says that they want to force everyone to use images.
If these standards are supported. Then it would be possasble to deliver you information on a 26400-28800 modem, with no graphics. With out having to re-direct you to a differnt version of the site. The whole point is to make the web more accessable, and that includes you and your 26400-28800 modem.
Everyone has been going on and on, and talking about this as if they where trying to force eveyone to have the flash player installed. I'm sorry, but you are wasting your time. I think A quote from this related artical says it best:
This is not about graphic design. It's about the separation of style from content, which will allow us to do amazing things. Like redesign an entire site in hours instead of months. Stop authoring and debugging stupid, browser-specific markup. And support non-traditional browsers, from Palm Pilots(TM) to Braille readers, without building multiple versions of every page. All pretty good stuff.
Also, they make it clear that his move isn't for everyone. IE, big sites like yahoo and amozon. But they could still have a little link instead of redirecting.
In case you did hear me in a previous post, or didn't see the quote above. They are trying to make the web more acessable. Not trying to make sure that people can see neat/cool/flashy sites.
Since when the hell have the standards have had anything to do with flashing images and scrolling marguees?
The newer browerser are staring to support standared that take into account acceibility.
THATS THE WHOLE POINT IN THIS!!!!!
I don't usaly do posts like this. But I'm feed up with people who never bother to read up about the fucken subject they are posting about.
The whole point in this exercise of getting people to upgrade there browser. Is so that the web is more accesible to everyone. INCLUDING visualy impared people. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT MAKING SITES LOOK PRETTY!!!.
That's the problem: it's very easy to write good HTML. "Web designers" like to pretend that it's hard, that's what gives them a career. They sell flashy, expensive garbage that looks good to a manager viewing a local copy for the first five minutes. That's where the majority of the profit is, anyway. There's certainly a need for navigational interface designers and back-end programmers, but they hardly care about HTML features.
No it isn't, It isn't easy to write good HTML. Becasue it dosn't work the way you want it to half the time.
Since where have you been a communications/design/engineer/gui expert?
If you think there is more to design than flashy looking web-pages then you are very wrong.
I can tell when a web-page has been designed by a professional designer because it is easy to use, and i get what I want do with no hassels.
These new standards arn't flashy, look pretty features, There are tools, that in the right hands, can make web-site much more useful/easier to use/whatever... for everybody.
SO please got to uni and spend a few years leaning about design, and communication skills before accusing new standards of just being new tools for designers to make things look pretty.
There has, in fact, been no truly useful addition to HTML since the first few years of development. It has only had gobs of useless and annoying eye-candy piled on top of (obscuring and interfering with) the content and navigation.
Please back that up with acctualy facts, examples, or atleast opinions. And plese dont confuse browser features, with browser standards.
Have you ever been to www.w3.org?
Every point you made is silly.
They can all be solved... It's mainly narrow minded people like you who are standing in the way. After all, the internet was just a fad wasn't it?
Batteries:
Batteries/energy sources are advancing all the time. I would be suppised if these thing would be powed by flexible solar panels. When your not reading, but flip is over. And it will charge.
Priporiatary standards:
Thats always a in the begining, but they get srited, if you do something about it. HTML is a good example. While ther's alot of shit about the standards at the moment. fact is, all basic HTML can be read on any browser.
Just becasue people might begin to use e-paper, dosn't mean that important stuff won't be printed on paper anymore.
Duribility:
Sure, e-paper might never be as durable as real paper (well, except for the fact that paper can be soaked or burned, or riped easly). Does everything have to be rock solid? Cars, PC's, laptops, whatches are all very fagile when you think about it, but that hasn't stoped them.
Resolution:
You obvouly didn't do you research now did you.
e-paper isn't anything like a CRT, or LCD, or the new LED displays. That was the whole pint in making them. The resolution will increase in time.
Vaporware technology:
What thr F has flying cars, and blacklight power got to do with electric paper? You mean like personal computer, rocket ships, nuclear reactors?
Just becasue some technologies don't work, dosn't mean other wont.
Flexability:
What the hell is stopping e-books coming in differnt formats? How do you know they will have a web page as a cover?
Acctually, they could have much more fexibility. IE, play videos on the cover. No book I've seen has ever done that.
Software:
Huh? I have a Palm Vx, and I never have any of the problems that you say. Except for the scrolling, But that's where e-books are better.
Surly pressing a button isn't that much harder that turning a page. And I'm sure that someone could make an e-book that worked like that anyway.
I just can't belive how narrow minded are. If you want to rant about it. Please, give at least one decent point. No one is focing you to use one.
You say his OS is crap. It's not designed for the proto-geek. It's designed for the main stream
Yes.. it is designed for the main stream. But it still dosn't excuse that fact that it is crap. It still dosn't change the fact that is has poor UI/GUI (which i thought would be more important in the main stream). Is still dosn't change the fact that it is slow, and unrelible.
Gates is evil you say? How many other corporate mogals donate billions of their cash to charity?
That's irrelivent. Just becasue he dose give money to charity. dosn't mean he isn't "evil"(what ever is mean by that anyway). Why dosn't he more? Is he just donating enough $$ to not feel guilty about his wealth?
This man had ideas and passion. And such his empire was founded upon. Not his years attending Yale, Dartmoth, Harvard, or any other worthless Ivy league school. Call this man evil, and you call the typical geek evil.
Just becasue someone has ideas and passion, dosn't make them a good person! Any intelligent person can figure that out a mile away.
The man, what ever his passions and ideas are, wants to dominate the marketplace. I personal thing that he want to be part of something big. And that meybe he is a bit selfish in that thought. He just want to have HIS internet, and HIS software, and HIS future. that's his problem. He isn't truly innivative. except for himself.
Accually, we had one of the CGI guys from Lord of the Rings come round and talk to us.
They said that they have alot of the apps ported to Lunix, I'm not sure if it was just their own software, like the AI simulator. Or if they have ports Maya, and other big 3D giants as well.
Of cource. I doubt any of it would be open source, or even free. But thats a differnt story.
This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!!!
The reason why most of the content out there is shit. Is becasue web designers can't use half of the good damn tools they have!!!
I have plenty of really good, usefull ideas. But I can't use them 'casue they don't work in the browsers!!!!!
So instead of me making a really, fun/usefull/easy to use/whatever website. I have to go back and make a basic site, bacasue that they only thing I know will work.
Why dosn't every rich person sponsor a child?
Why don't we be kind to people?
Because we can't be bothered for various reasons.
Do you really think that any of the big browser companies really give a shit about making a good product?
Do you really think that apple care about providing the best usibility for OS X?
Do you really think that Palm care if you are dissapointed becasue they provide you with a cheap, plastic spare stylus when you spend $400 on what they called a high quality product?
They are companies, here to make money. Thats what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
But the human race hasn't been wiped out by either of those invetions.
I think that you should be more worried about gun control and car laws at the moment.
I don't see how someone would be alowed to just go around with one of thses things and knock people out. Someone could do the same thing with a baseball bat. Just becasue it's a new peice of technology. Dosn't mean the laws change.
Although. you do have a good point about the future. when AI starts to get more of the I in it.
Becasue they use sonar to detect objects in front of them. So nets don't show up (thats why dolphins and whales get beeched). The nets are also hards to see underwater anyway.
Should read:
Well... except in that way.
Don't you have it when you make a mistake on the puntchline?
If you wrote a virus that infected peoples computers. Then changed all the microsoft icons to pentagrames. Then I spose that could be considered art.
Or if you wrote a program that expressed your self in a differnt, not so harmful way. I spose that could be consided art aswell.
Why do I think this? Cause I'm a graphic designer/web designer. If I made a personal web site for my self. I would consider it a peice of art.
But if I was doing it as a job for someone. I don't consider it art. Becasue I'm not expressing my self. I doing work for someone.
I spose you could say that I was expressing on the behalf if I was doing a oil painting for an ad.
I think of what I do more as design/engineering. I trying to communicate with the person who is using my site. Not trying to express myself to them.
I think thats one of the biggest differnces between an artist and a designer. I spose what make you which, depends on what your doing it for.
If course, these things tend to overlap a bit in the real world. I think a game progaer would be a bit of both in this case. Depending on how much much creative control he had over the game.
I think that makes goups like britney spear, backstreet boys, designers. Since they have been designed for a target audience. I hardly think britney does it to express herself. Well... except in that. ;)
The only reason they are breaking so easily is that they arn't supported properly by older browsers. And fancy colums and fonts still don't have anything to do with it sorry.
But would you buy from a site that had a hard to understand site, that gives you the run around, just trying to find one small peice of info on there site?
If you webt to the site in the artical, you'd notice that it has hardly any images. but it is still very clean, and easy to use.
Design isn't about making things looking nice, of course, thst still encoraged depending on you target audience etc... It's about communication. And that bascily means, laying out the site so people can understand it. Not nessesarily having lots of images an flash animations.
should read:
If you think there is nothing more to design than flashy looking web-pages then you are very wrong.
Yeat ANOTHER person who still doesn't' get it. Getting browsers to support standards has got nothing to do with java/flash/images/sound.
Tables are great. They help my browser format large amounts of information so that I can understand your data. But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.
Graphics can help your site make sense and help me to understand your message and naviate easier. But please don't pollute my browser with hundreds of micro-images just to achieve some special effect that could be replaced with a simple navigation bar on the side.
Thats another good reason to use a browser that supports standards. So web designers don't have to place 1000's of micro images, or build complex, multi-collum, interlocking, rowspan style tables -- Just to place something at x,y
Getting browsers to support standards has got nothing to do with fancy looking sites, images or sound etc..
The point is to give web designers proper web developing tools so they can make good sites. That are usable, have good content, but still have a bit of style--but not having to resort to extreams in doing so.
I can tell you right now. If slashdot made their HTML, HTML 4.0, and CSS 1.0 compliant. It would deffinitly load alot faster. And would be much more easier to manage. Aswell as having benifits to the user. (except those using 4.0 or less browers).
If you want clean and useful content. Then up-grade to a standards compliant web brower.
Yes, some sites have no content and treat the web as a TV set, or a printed page. But that is due to bad design skills. and is irrelivent to the topic at hand.
Lynx? considering that it's only a text browser. It shouldn't make the slightest bit of differnce. Infact, if anything. It should be better, since web designers can use new tools like CSS, instead of relying on images.
Text decorated via CSS will still be readable in Lynx. Text decorated via image, won't be.
HTML 3.2 is supported, and will continued to be. But that dosen't change the fact that older browsers don't support even those standards properly.
To quote www.alistapart.com:
"This is not about graphic design. It's about the separation of style from content, which will allow us to do amazing things. Like redesign an entire site in hours instead of months. Stop authoring and debugging stupid, browser-specific markup. And support non-traditional browsers, from Palm Pilots(TM) to Braille readers, without building multiple versions of every page. All pretty good stuff. "
From looking at the page it appears to be a heavily graphics design oriented group, or what is known as the "pixel perfectionists".
Actually, the site has hardly any images on it. And what images there are, are small in KB size. And yes, it does look a bit on the flash side. But then again, they are web-designers.
Once again, someone has not read the artical, or bothered to do a bit of research before ranting off about something.
Please go back to that site and tell me where it says that they want to force everyone to use images.
If these standards are supported. Then it would be possasble to deliver you information on a 26400-28800 modem, with no graphics. With out having to re-direct you to a differnt version of the site. The whole point is to make the web more accessable, and that includes you and your 26400-28800 modem.
This is not about graphic design. It's about the separation of style from content, which will allow us to do amazing things. Like redesign an entire site in hours instead of months. Stop authoring and debugging stupid, browser-specific markup. And support non-traditional browsers, from Palm Pilots(TM) to Braille readers, without building multiple versions of every page. All pretty good stuff.
Also, they make it clear that his move isn't for everyone. IE, big sites like yahoo and amozon. But they could still have a little link instead of redirecting.
In case you did hear me in a previous post, or didn't see the quote above. They are trying to make the web more acessable. Not trying to make sure that people can see neat/cool/flashy sites.
Maybe you should check out the following:
www.w3.org
www.webstandards.org
www.alistapart.com
Since when the hell have the standards have had anything to do with flashing images and scrolling marguees?
The newer browerser are staring to support standared that take into account acceibility.
THATS THE WHOLE POINT IN THIS!!!!!
I don't usaly do posts like this. But I'm feed up with people who never bother to read up about the fucken subject they are posting about.
The whole point in this exercise of getting people to upgrade there browser. Is so that the web is more accesible to everyone. INCLUDING visualy impared people. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT MAKING SITES LOOK PRETTY!!!.
How many time does this have to be said?
No it isn't, It isn't easy to write good HTML. Becasue it dosn't work the way you want it to half the time.
Since where have you been a communications/design/engineer/gui expert?
If you think there is more to design than flashy looking web-pages then you are very wrong.
I can tell when a web-page has been designed by a professional designer because it is easy to use, and i get what I want do with no hassels.
These new standards arn't flashy, look pretty features, There are tools, that in the right hands, can make web-site much more useful/easier to use/whatever... for everybody.
SO please got to uni and spend a few years leaning about design, and communication skills before accusing new standards of just being new tools for designers to make things look pretty.
There has, in fact, been no truly useful addition to HTML since the first few years of development. It has only had gobs of useless and annoying eye-candy piled on top of (obscuring and interfering with) the content and navigation.
Please back that up with acctualy facts, examples, or atleast opinions. And plese dont confuse browser features, with browser standards.
Have you ever been to www.w3.org?
Batteries:
Batteries/energy sources are advancing all the time. I would be suppised if these thing would be powed by flexible solar panels. When your not reading, but flip is over. And it will charge.
Priporiatary standards:
Thats always a in the begining, but they get srited, if you do something about it. HTML is a good example. While ther's alot of shit about the standards at the moment. fact is, all basic HTML can be read on any browser.
Just becasue people might begin to use e-paper, dosn't mean that important stuff won't be printed on paper anymore.
Duribility:
Sure, e-paper might never be as durable as real paper (well, except for the fact that paper can be soaked or burned, or riped easly). Does everything have to be rock solid? Cars, PC's, laptops, whatches are all very fagile when you think about it, but that hasn't stoped them.
Resolution:
You obvouly didn't do you research now did you.
e-paper isn't anything like a CRT, or LCD, or the new LED displays. That was the whole pint in making them. The resolution will increase in time.
Vaporware technology:
What thr F has flying cars, and blacklight power got to do with electric paper? You mean like personal computer, rocket ships, nuclear reactors?
Just becasue some technologies don't work, dosn't mean other wont.
Flexability:
What the hell is stopping e-books coming in differnt formats? How do you know they will have a web page as a cover?
Acctually, they could have much more fexibility. IE, play videos on the cover. No book I've seen has ever done that.
Software:
Huh? I have a Palm Vx, and I never have any of the problems that you say. Except for the scrolling, But that's where e-books are better.
Surly pressing a button isn't that much harder that turning a page. And I'm sure that someone could make an e-book that worked like that anyway.
I just can't belive how narrow minded are. If you want to rant about it. Please, give at least one decent point. No one is focing you to use one.
Yes.. it is designed for the main stream. But it still dosn't excuse that fact that it is crap. It still dosn't change the fact that is has poor UI/GUI (which i thought would be more important in the main stream). Is still dosn't change the fact that it is slow, and unrelible.
Gates is evil you say? How many other corporate mogals donate billions of their cash to charity?
That's irrelivent. Just becasue he dose give money to charity. dosn't mean he isn't "evil"(what ever is mean by that anyway). Why dosn't he more? Is he just donating enough $$ to not feel guilty about his wealth?
This man had ideas and passion. And such his empire was founded upon. Not his years attending Yale, Dartmoth, Harvard, or any other worthless Ivy league school. Call this man evil, and you call the typical geek evil.
Just becasue someone has ideas and passion, dosn't make them a good person! Any intelligent person can figure that out a mile away.
The man, what ever his passions and ideas are, wants to dominate the marketplace. I personal thing that he want to be part of something big. And that meybe he is a bit selfish in that thought. He just want to have HIS internet, and HIS software, and HIS future. that's his problem. He isn't truly innivative. except for himself.
Of cource. I doubt any of it would be open source, or even free. But thats a differnt story.
The reason why most of the content out there is shit. Is becasue web designers can't use half of the good damn tools they have!!!
I have plenty of really good, usefull ideas. But I can't use them 'casue they don't work in the browsers!!!!!
So instead of me making a really, fun/usefull/easy to use/whatever website. I have to go back and make a basic site, bacasue that they only thing I know will work.
Why don't we be kind to people?
Because we can't be bothered for various reasons.
Do you really think that any of the big browser companies really give a shit about making a good product?
Do you really think that apple care about providing the best usibility for OS X?
Do you really think that Palm care if you are dissapointed becasue they provide you with a cheap, plastic spare stylus when you spend $400 on what they called a high quality product?
They are companies, here to make money. Thats what they do.
I'll just go get my dremel tool. I'm sure there's an attchment in there somewhere for cutting off chucks of the earth.