Contradiction of Advice?

On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:53:32 -0700, VK wrote:

[...]
For Web 2.0 generation of services Javascript is an assumed integral
part of the client - just like its ability to render HTML code.

"Assumed" by who? The socalled "Web 2.0" is nothing but a marketing
word. A hype to allow for some smart guys make money. For the user's
side it usually makes the things more dangerous, more expensive (in
terms of bandwidth, processing time, memory usage). And the funny thing
is, when all the gimmicks are run and all the fancy buttons are clicked,
the data must get transfered to the server nevertheless.

OK, you are ready for one of these Java / ASP / .NET conferences of
type "Save our traditional Web values and our as*es!" The same words,
the same arguments over years - just names are changing. I don't want
to listen it anymore - not without a good per hour payment at least.

Hmm, kind of paradox, isn't it? So why are you arguing if you don't
want to listen anyway? - And as far as the "traditional Web values" are
concerned: Yes, I've been building networks for longer than the web even
exists. To bring people in touch, to make information available, to
build way of communication. And although personally I am only a small
part of that movement in the eighties of the last century I'm still
proud of it. That's why I feel so sorry whenever I see how the net's
potentials are wasted for gimmicks.

Respectively the only fallback for "the boys & girls" who decided for
some reason to experiment with their browser settings - such fallback
is a nice message suggesting how to bring the spoiled settings back to
normal.

Of course you're free to feel that way. I prefer to browse the web
w/o any scripting enabled until I find a presentation that's interesting
and the benefit of enabling scripting outweights the prossible problems.
Then, and only then, _I_ decide to let the browser load/execute the
javascript. And if FireBug or the ErrorConsole (depending on the
browser I'm using at that time) pops up to complain about the code
I switch the scripting off again. I emphasize that because it appears
that quite a lot of web-page builders forget that it's not them but
the readers who decide whether to use a graphical browser at all or
to dis-/enable scripting or IFRAMEs or sound or ...

That is the common mistake remained from the Internet bubble and
"everything for free just visit us" promo projects.

Hu? Who was talking about "free"? I've been writing about accessibility.
Whether it's "free" or not is a completely different question.

Commercial site is
not an information you can take in any way you want. It is a _service_
provided to you for free of charge or for money - but still a service,
a goody. You holly right as a customer is either take the goody on
conditions spelled by the merchant or do not take it.

Sure. But it's your "service" provider who is in charge to make his
"service" accessible or not. And it's the user who decides to accept
a "service" or not.

You also have
right to be protected from the monopoly situation when you either have
to deal with this particular merchant or no goody at all. You have
right for the quality guarantee, money back, secure use etc. - but you
have no right to take a goody on your own conditions you just made up.

But of course I have that right. If a plumber would place a sign in his
window saying "Our services provided only for customers with red hair
and green shoes" I could either colour my hair and buy the requested
shoes or - just walk along to another plumber who doesn't care about
my hair or shoes but just wants to make business. The same with the
web. It's always me who decides whether I enable images, javascript,
flash and alike or not.

It is another remainder of the Web young age when the common social
behavior habits were regarded as non-applicable for some reason to the
Web. No one tears out bonus shampoo bottle from the big one and
requiring to let him go "because this comes for free". No one
requiring for "buy one - get one free" his free one only, so leaving
the one for money in the store.

Again you're going astray. We're not talking about "free" here.

[...]
You don't like the conditions the service is provided on, you don't
agree with some paragraphs? Just don't use it, find another merchant -

Exactly! Just what I said.

but don't paint the walls of his store into green with blue spots
"because it is needed for my most pleasurable shopping experience".

Interesting idea, indeed.

Just a few samples of well known Web 2.0 services that came first to
my mind and visited with Javascript disabled:
[...]
Thank you so much! Indeed wonderful examples for how to build barriers
to keep potential users outside and annoyed.

? Did you check the current capitalization of say Facebook or their
capitalization growth ober the last say 12 months?

If I would take that as a serious argument I would have to buy a WinDOS
machine at once to allow for the zombie nets to grow. After all, that's
a big business, isn't it? Well, not for me, but someone at least. But ...
But why should _I_ care for someone else's money? Apart from that:
Those hype "services" could actually increase their customer base if
they would lessen their barriers.

I provided not just
some Web 2.0 projects: I mentioned the ones with millions of dollars
success.

Well, what you call "success" is nothing more than some stock values.
It's not real money at all. And we've all seen what such "success" is
worth just ten years ago. But that's quite another story which has
nothing to do with the question we're discussing here.

Yes, most probably they missed their two pennies from Mr.
Watermann and certain amount of other users. This was carefully
accounted before the roll up, believe me - and considered as too small
to care about.

Well, that's fine with me. If you'd cared to read what I said in my
other postings you'd have seen that I wrote, that the ones building a
web-site should consider (i.e. think about) where to use scripting and
where it's just a barrier. So if someone _decides_ to keep out part of
the possible audience, that's clearly his/her choice. The problem I
mentioned is that obviously a lot of people just cut&paste some script
snippets into their pages because "it's cool" without even thinking and
gauging the benefits and problems.


--
Matthias
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST Microsoft ATTACHMENTS
/ \

On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:47:47 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:36:27 +0200, Matthias Watermann wrote:
...
Only too often the behaviour
is more like infantilizing than helpful.

You're talking about Vista, right? ;-)

Well, I'm unable to confirm or deny that as I abandoned that family of
socalled operating systems about fifteen years ago. The real problem
with those software products is that meanwhile a lot of people grew up
under the impression that what they see and are forced to do with
WinDOS boxes is the true or natural thing to do. Just a tiny example:
Does anybody think about the TAB character nowadays? It's a character,
in fact, but over the years it became a navigational key instead (like
the arrow keys). - Hmm, that may be off-topic, but at least it's one
incarnation of the problem we were discussing in this thread: That
people should _think_ about what they're doing instead of just barking
with the pack.


--
Matthias
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST Microsoft ATTACHMENTS
/ \

Matthias Watermann wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:47:47 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:36:27 +0200, Matthias Watermann wrote:
...
Only too often the behaviour
is more like infantilizing than helpful.

You're talking about Vista, right? ;-)

Well, I'm unable to confirm or deny that as I abandoned that family of
socalled operating systems about fifteen years ago. The real problem
with those software products is that meanwhile a lot of people grew up
under the impression that what they see and are forced to do with
WinDOS boxes is the true or natural thing to do. Just a tiny example:
Does anybody think about the TAB character nowadays? It's a character,
in fact, but over the years it became a navigational key instead (like
the arrow keys). - Hmm, that may be off-topic, but at least it's one
incarnation of the problem we were discussing in this thread: That
people should _think_ about what they're doing instead of just barking
with the pack.


I agree with this.

Another thing to think about is that sites like Facebook are perhaps
in a lot of ways breaking the law in many countries by not makeing
information accessible.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org