I've also got a beta account on Google pages, and am a web designer. The HTML it creates is passable, but not good. It can't touch the horror that MS Word creates (but what could?), but it still uses tags, which I find a bit odd.
You can manipulate the raw code, but it's not set up in a way that would encourage the average user to do so.
Overall, I found it a comparable product to the other basic WYSIWYG web building tools that have been online for years...a cleaner interface (a la Google, they do that well), but really nothing new.
It's easy to use though. One needn't know so much as how a site is structured in order to build a site, and linking between pages is pretty intuitive. There doesn't seem to be any way to see an overall structure of the site you're creating though. You can end up just building and adding pages from here, there any everwhere, but never having the benefit of seeing a site or file structure to keep architecture in check.
That said, I suspect that most of the people who use this product will be building little site...a few pages...and don't have big demands for advanced features.
Thank you for posting that information. I am a Marquette University graduate, and have every intention of following up with them on this decision. I understand well that private schools have the right to make their own rules, and are not necessarily subject to the same policies as are state schools, but as a progressive school that represent fairness (caring for all, as their motto goes, being a Jesuit institution and all), I would certainly expect more from them. It's a school that encourages students to fight for what's right. And then it turns around and silences in this fashion. Puh-leeze.
I think Fuddruckers has already been slashdotted or they got wise to it and pulled the site.
Kudos to the developer for claiming what is his. Too often in this day and age, it's too hard to do.
How does Google continue to turn heads with most of their other projects? Innovation. If their product can out-perform AIM or MSN, then it too will turn the heads of the web savvy...and that includes students.
Not saying that Google has this up their sleeve, but if they do, I don't doubt they will launch something with a twist or value-add for the users.
You may know hundreds of people, but honestly, have you surveyed them all about how they receive their television signal? I think not. And I suspect you are making assumptions on their televiewing tastes based on your own preconceived notions.
Personally, I'm quite connected, have high-speed Internet (which gets all-too-much use) and I use rabbit ears on my TV.
I live right next to a major metro area and pick up about 14 channels quite flawlessly, so it's never been an issue for me.
Don't assume that the people you know are "normal" and therefore MUST have either cable or satellite. I bet if you asked everyone who knows me how I get my TV signal, many of them would falsely assume I have cable or satellite. Unless I specifically mention it, it's the default assumption.
Re:Looking at the distribution ...
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Frankly, my gender very rarely has anything to do with my comments at Slashdot, so why would I even bring it up? Though, my name may give it away if anyone were to notice.
That said, I suspect there are a lot more women reading and replying than most Slashdotters give credit. What should we do? Use a sig that says "I'm a chick. Please regard opinion accordingly?"
This is okay, but I'd rather see Google do what Google does best -- that is, break new ground and not just re-package what other portals have been doing for years. Call me nuts, but I would have expected more of an "oh cool" factor coming out of Google on this.
they will have to rely on superior coding (maybe), or hope that most new computer users will simply use whatever comes installed as long as it doesn't suck too hard.
One shouldn't discount the fact that this tactic has worked for them in the past. There are still a lot of users (not power-users by any means, but average run-of-the-mill users) who would never consider downloading a different browser and using it. When they see a big blue "e" on the screen of their new computer, and when they click it, POOF! they're online...well, they're happy. End of story.
I think the gmail beta "invite-only" concept started for testing but has remained and blossomed as pure marketing. I mean, in an average user's mind, what's so special about signing up for yet *another* free, web-based e-mail account? How do you jazz it up, even if it does offer some special features that others don't?
Duh, make it invitation only. Make the invitees feel as though they've been invited to a special party meant only for the elite. Then they'll sign up. Then they'll take the time to check it out because they have a privilege not widely available.
It's a great marketing plan...and it seems to be one that Google has embraced. Look at Orkut. How long's that puppy been in beta, on an invite-only basis?
Because then users would be forced to log in to eBay in order to see these messages, whilst an e-mail in the mailbox is a tacit invitation to come back and check something out.
It can accomplish a lot. If the police have determined the location of several of these pictures and can locate that a suspect has travelled to these places, it is the basis (albeit not the be-all-end-all) of a good case against them.
All this information comes together as pieces in a puzzle. And by identifying those pieces, it's part of a much larger picture.
And FWIW, you can have a hard time taking it seriously but this situation isn't about "this country." From your context, I assume you're talking about the U.S., and this story is about the Toronto police -- Canada. Different country.
Maybe there are a few more women among you than you realize. This is the first time I've posted, but a read quite a bit. But we're out here...I'm just not a contributor to open source development.
HI GUYS!!! *waving*
Slashdot Mirror
I've also got a beta account on Google pages, and am a web designer. The HTML it creates is passable, but not good. It can't touch the horror that MS Word creates (but what could?), but it still uses tags, which I find a bit odd. You can manipulate the raw code, but it's not set up in a way that would encourage the average user to do so. Overall, I found it a comparable product to the other basic WYSIWYG web building tools that have been online for years...a cleaner interface (a la Google, they do that well), but really nothing new. It's easy to use though. One needn't know so much as how a site is structured in order to build a site, and linking between pages is pretty intuitive. There doesn't seem to be any way to see an overall structure of the site you're creating though. You can end up just building and adding pages from here, there any everwhere, but never having the benefit of seeing a site or file structure to keep architecture in check. That said, I suspect that most of the people who use this product will be building little site...a few pages...and don't have big demands for advanced features.
Thank you for posting that information. I am a Marquette University graduate, and have every intention of following up with them on this decision. I understand well that private schools have the right to make their own rules, and are not necessarily subject to the same policies as are state schools, but as a progressive school that represent fairness (caring for all, as their motto goes, being a Jesuit institution and all), I would certainly expect more from them. It's a school that encourages students to fight for what's right. And then it turns around and silences in this fashion. Puh-leeze.
Science takes its cues from Nip/Tuck. How frightening!
I think Fuddruckers has already been slashdotted or they got wise to it and pulled the site. Kudos to the developer for claiming what is his. Too often in this day and age, it's too hard to do.
How does Google continue to turn heads with most of their other projects? Innovation. If their product can out-perform AIM or MSN, then it too will turn the heads of the web savvy...and that includes students. Not saying that Google has this up their sleeve, but if they do, I don't doubt they will launch something with a twist or value-add for the users.
You may know hundreds of people, but honestly, have you surveyed them all about how they receive their television signal? I think not. And I suspect you are making assumptions on their televiewing tastes based on your own preconceived notions. Personally, I'm quite connected, have high-speed Internet (which gets all-too-much use) and I use rabbit ears on my TV. I live right next to a major metro area and pick up about 14 channels quite flawlessly, so it's never been an issue for me. Don't assume that the people you know are "normal" and therefore MUST have either cable or satellite. I bet if you asked everyone who knows me how I get my TV signal, many of them would falsely assume I have cable or satellite. Unless I specifically mention it, it's the default assumption.
Frankly, my gender very rarely has anything to do with my comments at Slashdot, so why would I even bring it up? Though, my name may give it away if anyone were to notice.
That said, I suspect there are a lot more women reading and replying than most Slashdotters give credit. What should we do? Use a sig that says "I'm a chick. Please regard opinion accordingly?"
This is okay, but I'd rather see Google do what Google does best -- that is, break new ground and not just re-package what other portals have been doing for years. Call me nuts, but I would have expected more of an "oh cool" factor coming out of Google on this.
One shouldn't discount the fact that this tactic has worked for them in the past. There are still a lot of users (not power-users by any means, but average run-of-the-mill users) who would never consider downloading a different browser and using it. When they see a big blue "e" on the screen of their new computer, and when they click it, POOF! they're online...well, they're happy. End of story.
Attn: MCI customers, carve out a few hours to sit on hold should you require assistance. Then expect the run-around. Repeat ad nauseum.
Duh, make it invitation only. Make the invitees feel as though they've been invited to a special party meant only for the elite. Then they'll sign up. Then they'll take the time to check it out because they have a privilege not widely available.
It's a great marketing plan...and it seems to be one that Google has embraced. Look at Orkut. How long's that puppy been in beta, on an invite-only basis?
99 zeros blog
Because then users would be forced to log in to eBay in order to see these messages, whilst an e-mail in the mailbox is a tacit invitation to come back and check something out.
It can accomplish a lot. If the police have determined the location of several of these pictures and can locate that a suspect has travelled to these places, it is the basis (albeit not the be-all-end-all) of a good case against them. All this information comes together as pieces in a puzzle. And by identifying those pieces, it's part of a much larger picture. And FWIW, you can have a hard time taking it seriously but this situation isn't about "this country." From your context, I assume you're talking about the U.S., and this story is about the Toronto police -- Canada. Different country.
Oh come on...don't they sometimes partner with them before buying them out and swallowing all their best products?
And what if you lose it? Do you then lose access to everything?
This sounds like a book outlining an art blondes mastered centuries ago...
just kidding!!!...says the blonde
Don't forget being able to freely file-share music in Canada. It's protected under the law here.
If you really have issues with being referred to as a "geek" or a "nerd," why do you read Slashdot: News for Nerds?
Maybe there are a few more women among you than you realize. This is the first time I've posted, but a read quite a bit. But we're out here...I'm just not a contributor to open source development. HI GUYS!!! *waving*