from the article:
"The Web is nothing like that. Instead, the Web is much more like a book or a magazine. People come to the Web primarily to read and see pictures, and they can flip to a new page or to a completely different site whenever they feel like it."
so does this mean that print advertising doesn't work? strange, i though that's how newspapers made their money.
i think the problem is people's expectations of web-based advertising. just because you didn't get a click-through doesn't mean your brand wasn't absorbed.
i've been running ie6 for a few weeks now, and apart from it completely fscking up a number of things (what do you expect), it does have one kief feature which pre-parses your cookies and informs you if a cookie looks suspect.
one such example is if an HTML layer-type banner (you know the one's that aren't just images, but are actual HTML pages placed inside a layer within a DIV) tries to drop you a cookie it will warn you and block it if you choose.
i'm sure my mother would have no idea how to turn off cookies by herself - but this at least goes a step further to inform a luser of the possible intrusion.
i assume it checks the URL in window.location object and if it doesn't match the URL of the cookie it warns you.
i know its not exactly giving you 100% privacy protection - but its a start, and i've found it very handy.
hmmm. good points. but yes and no. i often use the internet to shop around for better deals so that i don't have to walk down tottenham court road in the pouring rain with thousands of beautiful electronic goods shouting at me from their windows "you must own me".
i digress. i've done a lot of web-based branding type exercises before. lets just take one example. a large financial services company. now, there is very little "cool" about financial services. but flash (the concept not neccessarily the software!) is important. for instance, we ran a high-yield rate investment campaign. and on the front page we had a flash animation going WHOOO HAAAA CHECK OUT THIS CAN MAKE YOU RICH kind of thing. this "banner" received 48% of our "first click traffic".
now to take this back into the context of the original post. when we moved the banner off the front and returned things back to normal, we still had a hyperlink to the page in just normal old text. the "first-click" traffic dropped down to 12%. and so the point i was trying to make was that the presentation of your content is always important.
but you are very right, don't over-do it and irritate the user into a click-away. that does impact on the brand.
in your idiology, at the half-time interval you wouldn't have television adverts you would have news readers telling people about the benefits of a product.
nice ideas, but not only do you forget about the importance of BRANDING, but you've totally forgotten about the human psyche here. if i paint a grey block red, its has different appeal.
well if you've read TBL's book, weaving the web, you will probably find many things that are the "entire foundation of the web". for instance, tim basically wanted all browsers to have in-line edit and post functionality for web pages so like-minded professors could collaborate over the web on intellectual-type stuff. basically like a wikki.
just because TBL dreamt up the web (although gauging from his OWN comments in the book, the idea wasn't solely his) doesn't mean that whatever he thought the web should be, must be. his dream has been commercialised and has suffered the consequences. whatever he says is actually quite redundant and should be taken with a pinch of salt considering that he's an intellectual and microsoft are a large money making commercial beast.
secondly, this whole thing about making your site readable by as many browsers as possible... for the last 4 years i've been developing WEB APPLICATIONS. not little porn popup animated gif scrolling div tags blah blah stuff - like REAL applications. from usability surveys i've both read and conducted, i have a long list of "irritating things" that clients encouter using web-based SOFTWARE (not BROCHUREWARE). many irritations stem from having too many server requests. so we try to do more stuff in the client to not annoy the user. a lot of this is revolves around div tags, layers, inner html.
anyway, my point here is two-fold:
a) microsoft's adherance to the W3C DOM is better than NS/Mozilla. So for every damn function we have to agent detect and change the DOM hierarchy because of this!
b) microsoft have added functionality that is outside of the W3C specifications (RIGHT CLICK CONTENT MENUS!!! et al) which vastly improves the user experience.
and, really, we are building this web applications for corporate intranets and extranets. the users are either within the organisation (and so we can choose the browser) or are in another large organisation. looking at our public WWW logs, we get 8% traffic from non IE users. To give better functionality to 92% of users, and losing 8% of users is a number i'm quite happy with.
i completely grok your points, however you took my post out of context. i didn't go into much detail as the POINT i was addressing was the "intuitiveness" and "user-friendlyness" of.NET. i've developed on just about anything and everything for well over 10 years and when i picked up the.NET ide and played with it it was incredibly INTUITIVE and USER-FRIENDLY.
yes you can be an idiot who doesn't know how to program and make a mess of things giving more senior coders a tough time to refactor/migrate your code with it. but i'll cast my mind back to when i first learnt perl and think about some of the reall bad code that i wrote during that period.
maybe you haven't been using the same.NET beta that myself a number of my friends have been using...
as JAVA developers we have been incredibly impressed by the "intuitive" and "dev-friendly" environment. up till now the best JAVA IDE we've come across is IntelliJ, but now this.NET thing kicks its ass!
for instance...
right-click discover services. ba-da-bing, the IDE queries your web server, extracts all the WSDL it needs and you are immediately ready to start developing thin clients on top of web servers.
right-click, new web service... creates all the class structures for you and takes you right to the "insert your code here".
um... intuitive package importing, collapsable code regions and namespaces...
of course, this is all lost on hard-core linux fans. "if i can't do it in vi then it sucks".
maybe you should give the beta a test drive and you may be as impressed as we are (and yes, we have all been VERY anti-microsoft for the last three years).
i've been running a low-key brand AP, enterasys. they don't sell direct to the public, but if you can get your hands on one it would be well worth your while.
surely its not the artists' choice at all. its the record companies who just use artists to make more money. if nobody can copy the music, they make more money...
um...
the audio out of my soundcard goes into my uberamp and that is basically my cd player! so what, now i can't play cd's anymore? also, when i travel i take cd's on the plane with me and play them on my notebook. now i can't do that either? i think that's just dumb!
i agree entirely with what you are saying. however...
i'm not sure about american universities, i'm from south africa and a large amount of our university bills are subsidised by the government - who essentially own the universities. now the tables are turned. THEY have invested money in YOU! and ducking out of class, surfing the net, blah blah means that they feel the same anger you felt about having your money wasted (on a less personal level obviously!).
so i think you have to take into perspective that the universities are also trying to protect their own investment - which they are very much entitled to do.
secondly...
when i was at university, i had a LAN connection in my room. now you can imagine a res full of students ripping down mp3's, mpeg movies, warez, porn and so on to their hearts content. what does this do? 1. bandwidth costs money; 2. bandwidth is a scarce resource.
so as valid as your points are about parenting, i feel that there are also fiscal reasons for the univisities to implement such a policy.
as far as office productivity goes, linux is not a better solution. it may be cheaper, and to us who can grep, awk, sed and bind - yeah its a better operating system.
but time and time again i keep saying that linux still does not have an integrated end-to-end productivity package like microsoft office.
pre-flame:
1) please don't say star office. just don't. this whole shell thing that takes over my desktop just to view a document. t-h-e v-e-r-y s-l-o-w i-n-t-e-r-f-a-c-e.
2) outlook. ok. outlook may suck at times, by why is ximian copying its interface? because my mother can use it. secondly. its all very well for ximian to make an email client that looks like outlook, but the corporate backbone to outlook is exchange. yes exchange can suck big time at times, but regardles, i can schedule a meeting with 8 people all ot once by just checking their diary availability, so i don't have to email each one to ask them when they are available.
so where i am getting at is that this is probably the best time for the linux community to pull together and develop towards the goal of developing an end-to-end-idiot-proof-my-mother-can-use-it-and-a- monkey-can-administer-it set of applications. then people will be able to have BOTH a CHEAPER and a BETTER solution - like linux!
>I wouldn't put the terrorist attacks past MS as a way to downplay the ongoing monopoly proceedings.
oh. i can't believe that statement! that's the sort of rant that gives linux an evil-geek-virus-writing-socialist-spotty-nerd-angr y-teenager name. well done, you are really helping to spread the word.
that's what in it for you. hailstorm is essentially a platform to host components (like EJBs). passport makes it possible for components in hailstorm to exchange exposed data so that they can interoperate.
an example. if your bank uses hailstorm and you authenticate with passport and amazon.com uses hailstorm and passport authentication - you would be able to (once your've authenticated with passport) just click buy and amazon's components could invoke components on your bank with your passport id and say "give me the money now".
i know you can save your profile and everything on amazon and so you may still ask "so what's in it for me". that was just the first example that came to mind and if you can see the advantages of such an interoperative infrastructure then here.
and, yes, there are probably risks and stuff involved but lets let it evolve and give it a chance.
personally i don't really see the large fuss here other than a bunch of socialists wanting total freedon and total security - we've read enough about that for me to continue down that line.
firstly let me ask what really constitutes privacy. for the last decade or so, we have been walking into shopping malls and being recorded on CCTV. oh no, my privacy is invaded! somewhere in some great big "vault o' videos" there is my personal life sitting there recorded.
ok. so now the bigger threat to privacy becomes more evident - technology and CCTV. the ability to digitally identify somebody by their face. how does this really infringe on your privacy...
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Joe Soap walking into the cafe.
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Fred Smith walking into the gym.
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Bill Gates walking into Linux World.
um yes. so we are going to have a billion Bings a second. like somebody is really going to bother with that.
do you really think the FBI is going to read my email to my mother asking her how the cat is?
do you really think that the CIA is going to watch me showering. if they do, i actually don't care because i would rather have the CIA watch me showering at night than have a GREAT BIG FUCKING 767 FLY THROUGH MY WINDOW!
if the fbi did have a ninja-decrypt key that they could read emails with and stuff, they are going to decrypt bin laden's emails, not my mothers. there are too many uninteresting people of the face of the planet for the fbi to bother about.
i know what the risk is. the risk is the ubercorporation purchasing the CCTV tapes and figuring out that Fred Smith goes to gym three times a week and so they send him a catalogue of tight cycling shorts and muscle tops. i think he would quite like that!
am i missing something here. do you people really feel so strongly about being recorded on CCTV and having the fbi scan your emails for "bomb, plane, nuke" to the extent that you would rather jump out of a 100 story building than allow that to happen?
It's "a cancer," Microsoft officials said. "An intellectual-property destroyer." Almost un-American.
two reasons. firstly, i know this guy who was invited to speak at redmond at some microsoft event or another. he mentioned to me that during his lecture he looked up to the back of the auditorium to see 4 remote control cameras focusing on himself and the audience and so on. 4 months later the exact functionality and methodology he was lecturing on was released within office XP!
secondly, i had my first real introduction to the.NET platform. i never realised that it incorporates a virtual machine and that one of the new features of c# is garbage collection and that com+ objects use containers to separate business logic from application logic. um, JAVA anyone?
i'm not a total microsoft basher, i believe they have played a big role in bringing the desktop to non-geeks and i still believe their end-to-end useability is better for novice users than any flavour of linux+x that i have ever encoutered (although ximian is getting there quickly). but the fact that they accuse open source of being IP destroyers amuses me.
Slashdot Mirror
from my experience using .NET, each service is a virtual directory within an http server.
on a virtual directory you can implement ACL's based not only on IP origin, but windows users/active directory/whatever.
so what's the problem? just because now its not in your gauntlet ruleset doesn't make it any less secure or auditable.
well, yes and no.
i didn't realise that love drove anakin to hate. that was spoiled by the trailer.
need i say more?
from the article: "The Web is nothing like that. Instead, the Web is much more like a book or a magazine. People come to the Web primarily to read and see pictures, and they can flip to a new page or to a completely different site whenever they feel like it."
so does this mean that print advertising doesn't work? strange, i though that's how newspapers made their money.
i think the problem is people's expectations of web-based advertising. just because you didn't get a click-through doesn't mean your brand wasn't absorbed.
Because VNC establishes a screen session with the client whereby Citrix allows you to create a virtual session on the server.
This means that with Citrix you can have 10 people all running MsWord on the same Windows box whereas with VNC its 1:1.
i've been running ie6 for a few weeks now, and apart from it completely fscking up a number of things (what do you expect), it does have one kief feature which pre-parses your cookies and informs you if a cookie looks suspect.
one such example is if an HTML layer-type banner (you know the one's that aren't just images, but are actual HTML pages placed inside a layer within a DIV) tries to drop you a cookie it will warn you and block it if you choose.
i'm sure my mother would have no idea how to turn off cookies by herself - but this at least goes a step further to inform a luser of the possible intrusion.
i assume it checks the URL in window.location object and if it doesn't match the URL of the cookie it warns you.
i know its not exactly giving you 100% privacy protection - but its a start, and i've found it very handy.
"Dammit, I hate DOS, why dont they just use real commands"
as in "move" as opposed to "mv" ?
hmmm. good points. but yes and no. i often use the internet to shop around for better deals so that i don't have to walk down tottenham court road in the pouring rain with thousands of beautiful electronic goods shouting at me from their windows "you must own me".
i digress. i've done a lot of web-based branding type exercises before. lets just take one example. a large financial services company. now, there is very little "cool" about financial services. but flash (the concept not neccessarily the software!) is important. for instance, we ran a high-yield rate investment campaign. and on the front page we had a flash animation going WHOOO HAAAA CHECK OUT THIS CAN MAKE YOU RICH kind of thing. this "banner" received 48% of our "first click traffic".
now to take this back into the context of the original post. when we moved the banner off the front and returned things back to normal, we still had a hyperlink to the page in just normal old text. the "first-click" traffic dropped down to 12%. and so the point i was trying to make was that the presentation of your content is always important.
but you are very right, don't over-do it and irritate the user into a click-away. that does impact on the brand.
in your idiology, at the half-time interval you wouldn't have television adverts you would have news readers telling people about the benefits of a product.
nice ideas, but not only do you forget about the importance of BRANDING, but you've totally forgotten about the human psyche here. if i paint a grey block red, its has different appeal.
well if you've read TBL's book, weaving the web, you will probably find many things that are the "entire foundation of the web". for instance, tim basically wanted all browsers to have in-line edit and post functionality for web pages so like-minded professors could collaborate over the web on intellectual-type stuff. basically like a wikki.
just because TBL dreamt up the web (although gauging from his OWN comments in the book, the idea wasn't solely his) doesn't mean that whatever he thought the web should be, must be. his dream has been commercialised and has suffered the consequences. whatever he says is actually quite redundant and should be taken with a pinch of salt considering that he's an intellectual and microsoft are a large money making commercial beast.
secondly, this whole thing about making your site readable by as many browsers as possible... for the last 4 years i've been developing WEB APPLICATIONS. not little porn popup animated gif scrolling div tags blah blah stuff - like REAL applications. from usability surveys i've both read and conducted, i have a long list of "irritating things" that clients encouter using web-based SOFTWARE (not BROCHUREWARE). many irritations stem from having too many server requests. so we try to do more stuff in the client to not annoy the user. a lot of this is revolves around div tags, layers, inner html.
anyway, my point here is two-fold:
a) microsoft's adherance to the W3C DOM is better than NS/Mozilla. So for every damn function we have to agent detect and change the DOM hierarchy because of this!
b) microsoft have added functionality that is outside of the W3C specifications (RIGHT CLICK CONTENT MENUS!!! et al) which vastly improves the user experience.
and, really, we are building this web applications for corporate intranets and extranets. the users are either within the organisation (and so we can choose the browser) or are in another large organisation. looking at our public WWW logs, we get 8% traffic from non IE users. To give better functionality to 92% of users, and losing 8% of users is a number i'm quite happy with.
thanks.
i completely grok your points, however you took my post out of context. i didn't go into much detail as the POINT i was addressing was the "intuitiveness" and "user-friendlyness" of .NET. i've developed on just about anything and everything for well over 10 years and when i picked up the .NET ide and played with it it was incredibly INTUITIVE and USER-FRIENDLY.
yes you can be an idiot who doesn't know how to program and make a mess of things giving more senior coders a tough time to refactor/migrate your code with it. but i'll cast my mind back to when i first learnt perl and think about some of the reall bad code that i wrote during that period.
don't blame the ide for bad coding techniques...
maybe you haven't been using the same .NET beta that myself a number of my friends have been using...
.NET thing kicks its ass!
as JAVA developers we have been incredibly impressed by the "intuitive" and "dev-friendly" environment. up till now the best JAVA IDE we've come across is IntelliJ, but now this
for instance...
right-click discover services. ba-da-bing, the IDE queries your web server, extracts all the WSDL it needs and you are immediately ready to start developing thin clients on top of web servers.
right-click, new web service... creates all the class structures for you and takes you right to the "insert your code here".
um... intuitive package importing, collapsable code regions and namespaces...
of course, this is all lost on hard-core linux fans. "if i can't do it in vi then it sucks".
maybe you should give the beta a test drive and you may be as impressed as we are (and yes, we have all been VERY anti-microsoft for the last three years).
i wonder if CmdrTaco is "high-up" on a "worthwhile" pyramid scheme...
great. next i'll get a stamp with an mp3 of meg ryan saying "you've got mail". oh wait no, the DMCA will probably intercept my gas bill...
i've been running a low-key brand AP, enterasys. they don't sell direct to the public, but if you can get your hands on one it would be well worth your while.
surely its not the artists' choice at all. its the record companies who just use artists to make more money. if nobody can copy the music, they make more money...
well i enjoy music, but its more for in the background when i have guests around and stuff. my uberamp is for my uberdvd player and my ubertv.
just because i'm not an audiophile doesn't mean i should have to buy an ubercdplayer to listen to music!
um...
the audio out of my soundcard goes into my uberamp and that is basically my cd player! so what, now i can't play cd's anymore? also, when i travel i take cd's on the plane with me and play them on my notebook. now i can't do that either? i think that's just dumb!
i agree entirely with what you are saying. however...
i'm not sure about american universities, i'm from south africa and a large amount of our university bills are subsidised by the government - who essentially own the universities. now the tables are turned. THEY have invested money in YOU! and ducking out of class, surfing the net, blah blah means that they feel the same anger you felt about having your money wasted (on a less personal level obviously!).
so i think you have to take into perspective that the universities are also trying to protect their own investment - which they are very much entitled to do.
secondly...
when i was at university, i had a LAN connection in my room. now you can imagine a res full of students ripping down mp3's, mpeg movies, warez, porn and so on to their hearts content. what does this do? 1. bandwidth costs money; 2. bandwidth is a scarce resource.
so as valid as your points are about parenting, i feel that there are also fiscal reasons for the univisities to implement such a policy.
um no...
the gold standard broke down after the first world war.
as far as office productivity goes, linux is not a better solution. it may be cheaper, and to us who can grep, awk, sed and bind - yeah its a better operating system.
- monkey-can-administer-it set of applications. then people will be able to have BOTH a CHEAPER and a BETTER solution - like linux!
but time and time again i keep saying that linux still does not have an integrated end-to-end productivity package like microsoft office.
pre-flame:
1) please don't say star office. just don't. this whole shell thing that takes over my desktop just to view a document. t-h-e v-e-r-y s-l-o-w i-n-t-e-r-f-a-c-e.
2) outlook. ok. outlook may suck at times, by why is ximian copying its interface? because my mother can use it. secondly. its all very well for ximian to make an email client that looks like outlook, but the corporate backbone to outlook is exchange. yes exchange can suck big time at times, but regardles, i can schedule a meeting with 8 people all ot once by just checking their diary availability, so i don't have to email each one to ask them when they are available.
so where i am getting at is that this is probably the best time for the linux community to pull together and develop towards the goal of developing an end-to-end-idiot-proof-my-mother-can-use-it-and-a
>I wouldn't put the terrorist attacks past MS as a way to downplay the ongoing monopoly proceedings.
r y-teenager name. well done, you are really helping to spread the word.
oh. i can't believe that statement! that's the sort of rant that gives linux an evil-geek-virus-writing-socialist-spotty-nerd-ang
that's what in it for you. hailstorm is essentially a platform to host components (like EJBs). passport makes it possible for components in hailstorm to exchange exposed data so that they can interoperate.
an example. if your bank uses hailstorm and you authenticate with passport and amazon.com uses hailstorm and passport authentication - you would be able to (once your've authenticated with passport) just click buy and amazon's components could invoke components on your bank with your passport id and say "give me the money now".
i know you can save your profile and everything on amazon and so you may still ask "so what's in it for me". that was just the first example that came to mind and if you can see the advantages of such an interoperative infrastructure then here.
and, yes, there are probably risks and stuff involved but lets let it evolve and give it a chance.
personally i don't really see the large fuss here other than a bunch of socialists wanting total freedon and total security - we've read enough about that for me to continue down that line.
firstly let me ask what really constitutes privacy. for the last decade or so, we have been walking into shopping malls and being recorded on CCTV. oh no, my privacy is invaded! somewhere in some great big "vault o' videos" there is my personal life sitting there recorded.
ok. so now the bigger threat to privacy becomes more evident - technology and CCTV. the ability to digitally identify somebody by their face. how does this really infringe on your privacy...
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Joe Soap walking into the cafe.
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Fred Smith walking into the gym.
CCTVrec.software: Bing. There goes Bill Gates walking into Linux World.
um yes. so we are going to have a billion Bings a second. like somebody is really going to bother with that.
do you really think the FBI is going to read my email to my mother asking her how the cat is?
do you really think that the CIA is going to watch me showering. if they do, i actually don't care because i would rather have the CIA watch me showering at night than have a GREAT BIG FUCKING 767 FLY THROUGH MY WINDOW!
if the fbi did have a ninja-decrypt key that they could read emails with and stuff, they are going to decrypt bin laden's emails, not my mothers. there are too many uninteresting people of the face of the planet for the fbi to bother about.
i know what the risk is. the risk is the ubercorporation purchasing the CCTV tapes and figuring out that Fred Smith goes to gym three times a week and so they send him a catalogue of tight cycling shorts and muscle tops. i think he would quite like that!
am i missing something here. do you people really feel so strongly about being recorded on CCTV and having the fbi scan your emails for "bomb, plane, nuke" to the extent that you would rather jump out of a 100 story building than allow that to happen?
i find this comment quite funny:
.NET platform. i never realised that it incorporates a virtual machine and that one of the new features of c# is garbage collection and that com+ objects use containers to separate business logic from application logic. um, JAVA anyone?
It's "a cancer," Microsoft officials said. "An intellectual-property destroyer." Almost un-American.
two reasons. firstly, i know this guy who was invited to speak at redmond at some microsoft event or another. he mentioned to me that during his lecture he looked up to the back of the auditorium to see 4 remote control cameras focusing on himself and the audience and so on. 4 months later the exact functionality and methodology he was lecturing on was released within office XP!
secondly, i had my first real introduction to the
i'm not a total microsoft basher, i believe they have played a big role in bringing the desktop to non-geeks and i still believe their end-to-end useability is better for novice users than any flavour of linux+x that i have ever encoutered (although ximian is getting there quickly). but the fact that they accuse open source of being IP destroyers amuses me.