|
|
Posted by Jaxtraw on 05/07/06 17:42
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Sun, 7 May 2006, Jaxtraw wrote:
>
>> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>>> Many a time I've been told of naive users who couldn't understand
>>> why their Back button no longer worked, so the only way out that
>>> they knew was to exit the whole browser and start again. They had
>>> no idea that the original browser window was hidden underneath the
>>> new one that the misguided author had forced on them.
>>
>> ...so they close the window, and find the original one beneath.
>
> I meant just what I said - and not what you wanted me to have said.
>
>> "Target" is a valid design choice
>
> There are lots of things which authors deem to be a "valid design
> choice" - without apparently caring what the consequences could be for
> their readers.
>
>> and it's ludicrous that the w3C would just decide to remove this
>> useful feature
>
> If you understood the point of "strict", you would not waste your time
> saying that.
>
>> that has been around for donkey's years.
>
> And still -is- doing almost as much harm as it's ever done.
> Especially for the naive users at whom it's targetted. (We more-
> experienced users have learned how to tame it in some modern browsers,
> thus regaining some of the control that we're supposed to get over
> our browsing situation, according to the web's original aims.)
>
>> I understand that many people feel "the user is king" but that isn't
>> true.
>
> I'm sure they're duly humbled in your presence. :-(
>
>> Now, many people will say "I find that irritating. I don't want
>> that. I am the USER and my desires are paramount". Well, tough.
>
> I'm glad you made that clear! Let's hope other authors can learn from
> your mistakes.
>
>> I'd prefer TV without adverts too, but I recognise that if my wishes
>> as a TV user are carried out, the TV company won't make any money,
>> go bankrupt, and then I won't get the primary thing I want (free TV
>> programmes) either.
>
> Hang on, what *is* this? You might have decided that the web is just
> another form of commercial TV, but some of us use it for very
> different reasons.
>
>> With this, the w3c seems to have taken a specific philosophical
>> position, imposing on the web how they think it should be.
>
> On the contrary: they codify the interworking specifications
> for different mechanisms, which include a range of very different
> technologies. It's *you* who is trying to "impose" your personal
> view of what the web ought to be (commercial TV, apparently).
No, I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone. You are saying the web
should be for *this* purpose and thus websites should be *this* way. I'm
saying there are different types of website for different purposes. The
goals of somebody with a commercial website, for instance, are vastly
different to a hobby website or an academic one.
Any commercial site isn't about giving the user what they want- it's about
convincing them to want what you have, when you get down to it. And from a
commercial perspective, surfers are just faceless traffic, a resource to be
utilised. No doubt you think that's terrible, but that's the way it is. If
some surfer I do not know and never will doesn't want my product, then I
want something else out of them if I can get it; like trading him across to
another site in return for one of *their* surfers who may buy what I'm
selling. I don't as such frankly my dear give a damn whether they like new
windows or not- what I do know is that new windows will be far more
productive in terms of trading traffic, so that's what I'll do.
The w3c OTOH seem to be stuck in the idea of information being the only
purpose of the web. Hence the flaws in CSS that still treat web pages as
"documents" with headings and paragraphs- they still haven't, and probably
never will, get their head around the idea that that is only one use for the
web and that people want proper layout tools and that most webpages are
multiple documents with multiple flows (which is why we've gone from table
based layout to DIV soup).
"some of us use it for very different reasons"
Some of you do, yes, but that's just one use- the analogy to commercial TV
is entirely apt, since many websites these days are either selling things or
giving things away in return for traffic ("viewers").
I've nothing against their kind of site, or your kind of site. I'm merely
pointing out that my kind of site exists too :)
Ian
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|