Reach Out!
She was just looking for toys when I took this series of pictures. So inquisitive, she is. And cute too. It has been a most interesting day today, if for nothing else that I learned a few random things. First off, I learned that there are
still people on the Internet that behave like children. Secondly, I learned that entering on the order of 90+ blog entries in a short period of time brings up word verification to prevent spam.
Related to childish behavior, there's a guy online that's responsible for
why Firefox is blocked (dot com). Now, I won't deny it -- I'm a proud Firefox (and prior to the fox, Mozilla/Netscape) user. I believe it to be the more robust and standards-compliant browser than the magic IE. His claim is that a product included in Firefox (AdBlock) violates web site publisher's rights to advertising revenue for free content (and basically aligns the process of viewing a web site without ads to that of stealing content).
He goes on to make broad claims about Firefox users, stating that blocking the browser by User-Agent will cause minimal financial impact (for a site) since Firefox users generally don't make up a lot of the 'online spending.'
What the hell?
This fellow (and/or any aligned organization behind/with him) clearly has it wrong. If your content is so precious that losing ad revenue implies users are stealing your content, require paid registration
before viewing said content. Skip ads altogether. Or do something like the SomethingAwful forums. Ads for the free views; a one-time paid registration for active users. That doesn't seem so bad. He's clearly hung up on himself or his content (or the content which he presumes to 'save' from the Firefox User-Agent). This is simply ridiculous. And [the principle]
really pisses me off. If it's truly worth it, people will be willing to pay. If [the content] isn't worth it, it shouldn't be there (and ad revenue relied upon to support it).
Seriously, a user's choice of browser is
personal and generally has nothing to do with ad revenue. Hell, look at the [free version of] Opera browser. It's got a damn ad right on the browser window -- all the time (at least it does in my older version). Denying contents by User-Agent is simply retarded. I
hate the fact that even recent-model Ford vehicles don't have automatic daytime running lights (like superior GM vehicles and other manufacturers). But I don't go around claiming that Ford drivers can't use the same roads, streets, or parking spaces as other vehicles because of it. There may be some people who choose a non-Ford vehicle because of its lack of DRL availability, but I'm guessing most pick a Ford for the same reason everyone else selects a particular vehicle.
Similarly, I'm sure there are people that select Firefox because of its potential AdBlock feature. But not everyone. And I don't care
what sort of 'demographic' data you base a claim on, but if you purposely prevent
one user from accessing your content online simply based upon a personal choice (not even based on excessive bandwidth usage or something else legitimate), you have
failed the Internet community.
This just angers me beyond belief. If it's that important, don't have it online. Or protect your revenue stream some other way. Petty shit like redirects based on UA are immature and should be banned. I know that I'd personally blacklist (and spread my thoghts about it) any site I legitimately tried to view if I were ever presented with the Why Firefox is Blocked landing page.
Ridiculous.
An interesting side note is that I bookmarked the landing page with del.icio.us. When I returned to it tonight (for reference when I wrote this post), I discovered the site owner had created a new landing page (index1.php) and the old one (index.php) gives out some canned response about 'wrong entry point.' I'm guessing this is because he's had a load of hits recently due to this getting out on Digg and del.icio.us amongst other places. I find it ironic that someone needing to make such an important statement to the world finds it necessary to change a landing page (presumably due to bandwidth or other related overwhelming issues). If you play with the big dogs, expect to get bit, dude.
Another thing on this subject that really gets me is the "requirement" of Internet Explorer for viewing a particular site. "Best Viewed In..." crap is so 1997. STANDARDS, people! While I was reading about this subject earlier today (on another 'referenced' site related to the Firefox blocking bit), I wanted to deck the writer of the post in question. The claim was that Firefox is an inferior browser since it doesn't support all ActiveX controls.
??!?!!
It is 2007. If you, as a designer, site owner, or other technologically adept person
require an ActiveX control for your website to function correctly (given all the other well-supported technologies available), you missed the mark. Completely.
I don't care that IE holds the lion's share of the market. It doesn't matter to me. I work to ensure that what I'm involved with works consistently in as many browsers as possible. Generally I test first and foremost with Firefox. Then move to IE, then to Opera. Once they all render roughly the same, I am generally pleased (and presume that other browsers will also render roughly the way I intend). Playing the 'my browser is superior because it can render/display X when yours can't' game is stupid. And only causes legitimate users frustration when something doesn't work in their browser
of choice.
Alright, I'm beating a dead horse here. So I'll move on.
In other news, I discovered that once you make about 90 posts to the blog in a short period of time (an hour and a half or so), you start being prompted for word verification.
I learned this during my activity tonight when I started migrating old news posts from my old TWiki-based system to the blog here. I will later remove that web, so to preserve the information I need to move it here. I managed to get through roughly the first year of my news system posts (from September 1, 2002 to September 1, 2003). If you use the 'OldNews' category, you'll filter down to what I've managed to bring across so far.
It will take some time to complete, but so far it's going pretty well. It's a very tedious process (lots of copy/paste), but it could be a whole lot worse.
So I might have to wait until Wednesday to do more massive re-posting. We'll see. I still need to work in the basement at some point in time (and I need to finish wiring for the sconce lights in our bedroom before we get ready to paint)...so that may be tomorrow evening's project.
We'll see how that goes. But until next time...keep your stick on the ice...
"Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theater."
- Gail Godwin
--MZ