"Please be aware that polic dog handlers will soon be partolling this area"
I never realised that drugs on the premesis were such a big problem. Security here at Saturn Penetentury has been recently stepped up, so i guess that is related.
Please go and read an entirely other day and drew. Both very different, but both VERY good.
I get mad every time i read this article on dack. Reading the comments from supposedly intelligent people like Gabo Mendozo (indidentally, gabocorp has a trailer up. it's only taken him one and a half years). I don't have the time or space to go through all the emails on that page, but i'll do one:
"Back buttons and address bars aside,"
Major browser features aside. You are kidding, right? The ability for people to go back a page, or to go straight to a page are fundemental.
"you state that Flash is unprintable, unbookmarkable, keyword searching, and the visitied / unvisited is disabled..."
And he was correct in saying this
"sometimes this is the case, but flash IS printable (upgrade your plugin -and read the white paper it's far MORE printable than an HTML page)"
It's printable as long as you upgrade? I don't remember having to get the latest browser to be able to print. And what about users who have an older version. Do we just assume they will upgrade?
"keyword searching is possbile if the developer has implemented it,"
And how many times have i seen search in page implemented? Never.
"and as far as the visited/unvisited is concerned, that can be programmed as well."
Again, never seen it myself.
"(Not that I would, I don't think it's all that useful, there are better visual cues out there as well)"
You don't find knowing which links you've visited usful? You're joking, right?
The best mail on the page comes from Joel Moser who describes flash users' attitudes as 'Macintoshian'. Flash users nearly always fail to see any fault in the usability of sites made with flash. It's sad really, since a flashesque technology will undoubtably be the mainstay of the web in the future. Just not in it's current form.
I'm running a new feature through this page: Matt Kelly - Fucking Idiot
Matt Kelly is a columnist for the mirror, a uk tabloid that i read. He writes a daily(?) column called "Kelly's i", in which he is supposed to talk about the Internet. Herein the problem lies. He's never used it. I can find no other explanation for most of the rubbish he prints.
First up today, is the BAWP article in the 27/11/2000 issue. He makes fun of the BAWP, because he hasn't heard of them. Well, obviously just because he hasn't heard of them doesn't mean they don't matter. I'm willing to bet that he's never heard of the W3C, ICANN or RIPE, but that certainly doesn't make it ok if their web site gets hacked by some kids.
In the same column, he goes on to review once-upon-a-forest in his 'Site of the day' feature. He calls it 'the weirdest site out there' and 'totally senseless'. Totally senseless meaning what exactly. This isn't journalisim. This is name calling.
Yesterday (28/11/2000), he excelled himself by copying, almost verbatim, this week's article from alertbox, then didn't credit the source. Copying someone else's material and passing it off as your own is not journalisim (Guess whether this phrase will make a regular appearance).
I was thinking the other day (not something i encourage :D) about what people i know will be like in 10-20 years. See if you can answer these questions too (answers in the forum):
Who is going to be settled down, married with kids: Elizabeth Gadsden
Who is going to have a sucessfull career: Jen Marchant
Who is going to be famous: Marianne Headington
Who is not going to have a job, and be living off their parents: Paul 'Warren' Wright
Who are you still going to be good friends with: Kate Dearnaley
Who are you going to be with: Rebecca Shore
[note]: since this item was first posted i've realised that i was perhaps a little harsh. To be honest Matt Kelly's column provides at least mild amusement. Maybe this was the point.