OT-Killing Pop-ups as a webmaster

[Jay Honeck]

I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get search
engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
notches in the "results".

Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad that
now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it -- and
hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )

As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?

Thanks in advance...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02
>
> Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad
> that now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL
> see this, right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag?
> (See it -- and hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )

No, Jay, I think you need to disable your Gator. :) FWIW, I don't get any
pop-ups when viewing your site.

Gator is a spyware app that will display pop-up ads based on the content
you're viewing. It's insidious stuff and needs to be killed as quickly as
possible, in my not so humble opinion. It's not the only one of its kind,
but it is one of the most prevalent.

Here's a site with links to a few spyware removal tools:
http://www.spyware-removal-tools.com/

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Jay Honeck]

> No, Jay, I think you need to disable your Gator. :) FWIW, I don't get
any
> pop-ups when viewing your site.

Well, it seems that some adware was actually disabling Internet Explorer.
When it crashed (right after bringing up the stupid pop-up ad), Microsoft
sent me to the Pest Patrol website.

I downloaded their software, and it found 49 examples of adware and spyware
on my computer! I deleted them all, and we'll see if things stabilize. The
pop-up ad that was appearing when I opened my website is gone, at least.

Sorry for the false alarm -- the problem was obviously on the "user" end.

Thanks anyway!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

> Well, it seems that some adware was actually disabling Internet Explorer.
> When it crashed (right after bringing up the stupid pop-up ad), Microsoft
> sent me to the Pest Patrol website.
> I downloaded their software, and it found 49 examples of adware and spyware
> on my computer! I deleted them all, and we'll see if things stabilize. The
> pop-up ad that was appearing when I opened my website is gone, at least.

Now, can someone tell me how to disable whatever it is that wants to
load Microsoft Internet Explorer when I click on a URL? I don't want
Internet Explorer on my machines.

[BTIZ]

more OT..

Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...

which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
button added... or was it some other java script you picked up and
inserted.. also there seems to be a rather large "table" at the bottom of
the main page.. you can see it in the source code.. but it does not display
on the web..

BTW.. I did not get the "pop up", but I have most pop ups disabled via
Norton and MS IE. I tend to only get the MS Popups now..

Bill T
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02...
> I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get
search
> engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
> notches in the "results".
>
> Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad that
> now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it --
and
> hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
>
> As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
> potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
>
> Thanks in advance...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

I have had good luck with Proxomitron for blocking pop-ups. If I had to
live with pop-ups all the time I would probably end up hardly using the net.
There are other good blockers out there also.

Please, please, PLEASE do *NOT* use his page as an example of how to code
HTML. It is a total mess internally. The "table" you are referring to is a
long string of erroneous closing tags for tables and table elements that
aren't open. It's lucky this page displays at all.

When you make a web page it should pass validation. Here's one to try:
http://www.w3schools.com/site/site_validate.asp . Pages that validate
properly stand a much better chance of working on different platforms (PC,
Mac, Linux) with different browsers (IE, NS, Opera, etc). Any sites I make,
or have made for me, must validate.

Peter



"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:svEtb.3269$Ue4.933@fed1read01...
> more OT..
>
> Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
>
> which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
> button added... or was it some other java script you picked up and
> inserted.. also there seems to be a rather large "table" at the bottom of
> the main page.. you can see it in the source code.. but it does not
display
> on the web..
>
> BTW.. I did not get the "pop up", but I have most pop ups disabled via
> Norton and MS IE. I tend to only get the MS Popups now..
>
> Bill T
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02...
> > I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> > afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get
> search
> > engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
> > notches in the "results".
> >
> > Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad
that
> > now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> > right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it --
> and
> > hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
> >
> > As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
> > potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> > webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
> >
> > Thanks in advance...
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >
>
>

[Jeff]

what do you want on your machine?
nutscrape ?
just tell nutscrape to be the default browser in its preferences.

john smith wrote:

> > Well, it seems that some adware was actually disabling Internet Explorer.
> > When it crashed (right after bringing up the stupid pop-up ad), Microsoft
> > sent me to the Pest Patrol website.
> > I downloaded their software, and it found 49 examples of adware and spyware
> > on my computer! I deleted them all, and we'll see if things stabilize. The
> > pop-up ad that was appearing when I opened my website is gone, at least.
>
> Now, can someone tell me how to disable whatever it is that wants to
> load Microsoft Internet Explorer when I click on a URL? I don't want
> Internet Explorer on my machines.

[Jeff]

Been doing this since 1997, I dont bother with that validate stuff, I dont think
its very accurate.
I just check pages with different browsers and if they load fine I am happy.


Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> I have had good luck with Proxomitron for blocking pop-ups. If I had to
> live with pop-ups all the time I would probably end up hardly using the net.
> There are other good blockers out there also.
>
> Please, please, PLEASE do *NOT* use his page as an example of how to code
> HTML. It is a total mess internally. The "table" you are referring to is a
> long string of erroneous closing tags for tables and table elements that
> aren't open. It's lucky this page displays at all.
>
> When you make a web page it should pass validation. Here's one to try:
> http://www.w3schools.com/site/site_validate.asp . Pages that validate
> properly stand a much better chance of working on different platforms (PC,
> Mac, Linux) with different browsers (IE, NS, Opera, etc). Any sites I make,
> or have made for me, must validate.
>
> Peter
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:svEtb.3269$Ue4.933@fed1read01...
> > more OT..
> >
> > Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
> >
> > which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
> > button added... or was it some other java script you picked up and
> > inserted.. also there seems to be a rather large "table" at the bottom of
> > the main page.. you can see it in the source code.. but it does not
> display
> > on the web..
> >
> > BTW.. I did not get the "pop up", but I have most pop ups disabled via
> > Norton and MS IE. I tend to only get the MS Popups now..
> >
> > Bill T
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02...
> > > I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> > > afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get
> > search
> > > engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
> > > notches in the "results".
> > >
> > > Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad
> that
> > > now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> > > right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it --
> > and
> > > hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
> > >
> > > As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
> > > potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> > > webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance...
> > > --
> > > Jay Honeck
> > > Iowa City, IA
> > > Pathfinder N56993
> > > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > > "Your Aviation Destination"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:14:25 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Sorry for the false alarm -- the problem was obviously on the "user" end.

http://lavasoft.element5.com/support/download/
is also a good (and free) removal tool.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:18:30 GMT, john smith wrote:

>Now, can someone tell me how to disable whatever it is that wants to
>load Microsoft Internet Explorer when I click on a URL? I don't want
>Internet Explorer on my machines.

check http://www.litepc.com/
-> http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Jeff > wrote:

> Been doing this since 1997, I dont bother with that validate stuff, I
> dont think
> its very accurate.
> I just check pages with different browsers and if they load fine I am
> happy.

which means nothing wrt the HTML being correct.

You've been doing this since '97 and you still don't know what
valid HTML is?

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...

Well, Bill, despite Peter's (and others) elitist attitudes toward building a
web page, this ain't rocket science. Microsoft FrontPage -- for all of its
quirks -- is head and shoulders above any other web editor I've tried, for
ease of use.

Sure, you can go with Dreamweaver for more "power" -- if you've got a few
weeks of your life to devote to something as stupid as learning a new
program. Nowadays, with PCs as powerful as mainframes once were, there is
simply no reason for a program to be anything but naked-butt simple to use.
If it's NOT, that's indicative of poor programming design, IMHO.

If you're used to Microsoft Word -- and who isn't nowadays? -- FrontPage is
very familiar feeling. Much of the data is interchangeable, actually, and
you can share stuff from one program to the other. This really smoothes the
learning curve, and lets you start producing almost immediately.

> which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
> button added...

My menu style (on the left side of my page) is called "A graphical style
based on the Network theme" -- whatever THAT means. I picked it cuz
everyone says it looks nice! :-)

I write off this whole debate over HTML editors and technique as nothing
more than the "DOS vs Windows" debate, redux. Ten (or was it 15 now?)
years ago, I was the dinosaur, decrying the "stupid PC users who were using
the new 'Windows' as a crutch". I could be heard grumbling stuff like
"Why don't these idiots learn DOS, instead of forcing this stupid GUI down
our throats?"

Well, I learned that you've gotta keep moving with the technology. Dig
your heels in on something like this, and you'll end up being an expert in
Borland Paradox database design, trapped in a Microsoft Access world.

I know, cuz I AM one of *those*, and it sucks... :-(

And, by the way, FWIW I have deleted all that "table" HTML crap at the
bottom of the opening page. I have no idea what it was, or how it got
there -- nor do I care. It apparently had no effect on performance, which,
in the end, is all that matters.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:41:18 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
>
>Well, Bill, despite Peter's (and others) elitist attitudes toward building a

this has nothing to do with elitism. Your point of view is simple
ingnorance.

>If you're used to Microsoft Word -- and who isn't nowadays? -- FrontPage is
>very familiar feeling. Much of the data is interchangeable, actually, and
>you can share stuff from one program to the other. This really smoothes the
>learning curve, and lets you start producing almost immediately.

.... and produces another one producing more or less crap - and he is proud
of it.

>> which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
>> button added...
>
>My menu style (on the left side of my page) is called "A graphical style
>based on the Network theme" -- whatever THAT means. I picked it cuz
>everyone says it looks nice! :-)

yeah. tried to use it without JS? :-)

>I write off this whole debate over HTML editors and technique as nothing
>more than the "DOS vs Windows" debate, redux. Ten (or was it 15 now?)

nope. there is a language with *rules* (you know, such things like an ADIZ
in aviation). Frontpage ignores most of them.

>And, by the way, FWIW I have deleted all that "table" HTML crap at the
>bottom of the opening page. I have no idea what it was, or how it got
>there -- nor do I care.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this describes your attitude pretty good (at least regarding your website;
even when you was told why etc.)

> It apparently had no effect on performance, which,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the end, is all that matters.

ah! and how will you know?

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Doug Vetter]

BTIZ wrote:
> more OT..
>
> Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...

This is such a common topic that I hestiate to respond to it,
particularly because it's so OT, but friends don't let friends use
FrontPage. :-)

May I suggest that you (and Jay, and the remainder of the bipedal world
for that matter) NOT waste your time with FrontPage? It creates
HORRIBLE (meaning, non-standards-compliant) HTML and some of the most
annoying website designs I've ever seen. One particular annoyance is
the use of JAVA for simple menu buttons (!) Uh, talk about an improper
use of the technology.

Some recommendations:

1) Go get a copy of Dreamweaver. You owe it to yourself AND the people
who will visit your site.

http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/

It creates near PERFECT HTML and has a really nice WYSIWYG editor.
Incidentally, you don't NEED Dreamweaver or FrontPage to create a
website...they only eliminate the need to code raw HTML for the vast
majority of sites. And, when you finally discover the wonders of
standards-compliant CSS, Dreamweaver will significantly simplify
creation of CSS styles.

2) Check out the following site, which contains a lot of really good
(and strangely funny) advice on how to create a user-friendly site that
emphasizes content and compatability over flashiness and gimicktry.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

For what it's worth, my site was created with Dreamweaver and uses no
flash, java, javascript or any other client-side dependent crap, and the
first line in almost every email I get that references the site is "hey,
you have a really nice site".

And no, I'm not being vain...only providing a personal example of
what's possible with what I'll choose to call a "minimalist, yet
technically competant" approach to website design.

Oh, one other thing. STOP using IE. Go grab the latest Mozilla or
Firebird browsers. They both have pop-up ad blocking built in.

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad that
> now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it -- and
> hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )

It doesn't happen for me.

George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[Jay Honeck]

> ... and produces another one producing more or less crap - and he is proud
> of it.

Well, Martin -- I speak with hundreds of hotel guests, most (like, 99.9999%)
of whom know nothing about HTML, or any of the so-called HTML "standards" to
which you (and others) refer.

The number one thing I hear about our website is that it is so much easier
to navigate and is actually chock-full of real information about the hotel
than most commercial sites. Too many sites are nothing but "fluff", and
cool graphics. I have tried to avoid that, in favor of stuff that potential
hotel guests might actually be interested in seeing.

> >I write off this whole debate over HTML editors and technique as nothing
> >more than the "DOS vs Windows" debate, redux. Ten (or was it 15 now?)
>
> nope. there is a language with *rules* (you know, such things like an ADIZ
> in aviation). Frontpage ignores most of them.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. You, like we former DOS-heads once did,
seem to view these "rules" as inviolate and unbreakable. This, my friend,
will be your ultimate downfall.

DOS had rules, too. Windows first worked within them, then ignored them and
made new ones.

Where is DOS now?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> this has nothing to do with elitism. Your point of view is simple
> ingnorance.

No. Jay's point of view is pragmatic. He's a small business owner trying
to advertise his hotel with a minimum of cost using the tools at his
disposal. If he wanted to hire a Siegelgale or one of us professional
developers, I'm sure he'd get validated HTML. As it is, his point of view
is quite correct: If it works, it's good enough. If he's not getting any
complaints from users about the site not loading, why bother fixing what
isn't broken?

The fact that users may not be able to view the site and will not complain
about doesn't detract from his desire to produce a web page using simple
tools.

> this describes your attitude pretty good (at least regarding your
> website; even when you was told why etc.)

And this demonstrates your elitist attitude that Jay was complaining about.
He's made it clear that he's not a developer and he doesn't need to be one.
If one of you professional, validating web developers care to donate your
time to advise him of proper tagging, I'm sure he'd be open to the idea...

>> It apparently had no effect on performance, which,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> in the end, is all that matters.
>
> ah! and how will you know?

How do you know what testing he's done?

Damn. Give the boy a break. He's using low-end tools to minimize costs to
develop a low-profile brochure-ware site. It's not like he's building a
financial management system.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[EDR]

In article >, Jeff > wrote:

> what do you want on your machine?
> nutscrape ?
> just tell nutscrape to be the default browser in its preferences.

That and Mozilla. Some URL's still attempt to load IE before I stop it.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:42:41 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> ... and produces another one producing more or less crap - and he is proud
>> of it.
>
>Well, Martin -- I speak with hundreds of hotel guests, most (like, 99.9999%)
>of whom know nothing about HTML, or any of the so-called HTML "standards" to
>which you (and others) refer.
>

millions of flies can't be wrong! folks! eat ****!

>The number one thing I hear about our website is that it is so much easier
>to navigate and is actually chock-full of real information about the hotel
>than most commercial sites. Too many sites are nothing but "fluff", and

compared to so many home-made websites from many (esp Americans) I come by
and that are really a pain in the ass yours is really rather informative.
But you are pointed to the correct ways of how things are done and you
simply ignore them.

>> nope. there is a language with *rules* (you know, such things like an ADIZ
>> in aviation). Frontpage ignores most of them.
>
>Thanks for reinforcing my point. You, like we former DOS-heads once did,
>seem to view these "rules" as inviolate and unbreakable. This, my friend,
>will be your ultimate downfall.

HTML is standardised. You are referring to proprietaire products.

>DOS had rules, too. Windows first worked within them, then ignored them and
>made new ones.
>
>Where is DOS now?

you compare one Microsoft crap with another Microsoft crap. Microsoft is
NOT standard (or compare Mac OS 8 with Mac OS 9, also non standard).
Hello!!!! This would be the same as when everyone would have Cessna, Piper
or Lycoming as reference in aviation (and this would be ridiculous).

HTML is standardised (as many other things are) and M$ is simply ignoring
them (at best). They find people like you finding that OK.

Once again: eat ****, because million of flies can't be wrong.

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:49:51 GMT, John T wrote:

>> this has nothing to do with elitism. Your point of view is simple
>> ingnorance.
>
>No. Jay's point of view is pragmatic. He's a small business owner trying
>to advertise his hotel with a minimum of cost using the tools at his
>disposal. If he wanted to hire a Siegelgale or one of us professional
>developers, I'm sure he'd get validated HTML. As it is, his point of view
>is quite correct: If it works, it's good enough. If he's not getting any
>complaints from users about the site not loading, why bother fixing what
>isn't broken?

He probably will never hear from those.

>The fact that users may not be able to view the site and will not complain
>about doesn't detract from his desire to produce a web page using simple
>tools.
>
>> this describes your attitude pretty good (at least regarding your
>> website; even when you was told why etc.)
>
>And this demonstrates your elitist attitude that Jay was complaining about.
>He's made it clear that he's not a developer and he doesn't need to be one.
>If one of you professional, validating web developers care to donate your
>time to advise him of proper tagging, I'm sure he'd be open to the idea...

I am not a developer (and I am ashamed that my company website is crap; but
I know that it is crap,but in the background I am working on letting it
rebuilt by professionals), but I know what has to be done. And I donate my
time and tell him _*NOW*_.


>>> It apparently had no effect on performance, which,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> in the end, is all that matters.
>>
>> ah! and how will you know?
>
>How do you know what testing he's done?

Well, when your experience level is on the basis of a user (asking for help
on pop-ups that appear by surfing his own website) then I don't expect him
knowing how to test his website on a lousy modem connection.

>Damn. Give the boy a break. He's using low-end tools to minimize costs to
>develop a low-profile brochure-ware site. It's not like he's building a
>financial management system.

This sounds like "Hey folks, come to my 1st class hotel with suites, I
offer better service than all the chains, but - uh, sorry - marketing is
done by myself. I hardly know what I do on the website, but it somehow
works."
Not using JS for navigation? Hey, it is _so_ cool and nobody complained
except 1 or 2 wakkos, but they are so into 'standards' ...


Hey, I know how to hold a screwdriver. May I do your annual on your plane?

Sorry for sounding harsh ...

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> Hey, I know how to hold a screwdriver. May I do your annual on your
> plane?
>
> Sorry for sounding harsh ...

You don't sound harsh. You're just being an ass (as usual, I might add).
It's not like he's working on somebody else's site now, is it? The only
business he risks with his web site is his own, isn't it? Since that's the
case, why not be polite about *suggesting* improvements (you know, something
we like to call "constructive criticism").

In the meantime, perhaps you should avoid his site so you don't muddy your
PC with his HTML and JS.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:48:38 GMT, John T wrote:

> The only
>business he risks with his web site is his own, isn't it?

true

> Since that's the
>case, why not be polite about *suggesting* improvements (you know, something
>we like to call "constructive criticism").

well, Jay comes and asks questions and asks for suggestions.

There were suggestions like "validate your site", "don't use Frontpage",
"it is not the best idea to use JS in the navigation", "there is crappy
code in the bottom of the page"

_I_ call that constructive, YMMV

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Jay Honeck]

> you compare one Microsoft crap with another Microsoft crap. Microsoft is
> NOT standard

Wow. Talk about tilting at windmills. (That's a "Don Quixote" reference,
in case it doesn't translate well....)

The score is 98 to 2, and you still think Microsoft hasn't won the OS war?

You are, at best, incurably optimistic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:53:44 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> you compare one Microsoft crap with another Microsoft crap. Microsoft is
>> NOT standard
>
>Wow. Talk about tilting at windmills. (That's a "Don Quixote" reference,
>in case it doesn't translate well....)

it reached the target.

>The score is 98 to 2, and you still think Microsoft hasn't won the OS war?

hm, what has an OS to do with internet, esp. WWW?

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Peter Gottlieb]

Since '97?

To be "accurate" you have to both validate AND check with the entire series
of browsers (all types, all versions). Validation doesn't help you solve
browser bugs!

One thing you can to to ease the testing burden is to mine the logs for the
existing site (if any, or a similar audience if not) and see what browsers
(and versions) visitors are using. Then you can test what 99.9% of visitors
use and hope for the best for the rest.

On large projects there is a complete specification including the testing
plan. By the time I make the proposal I have a pretty good feel for what
the client wants and specify the testing plan accordingly. Some want as
cheap as possible and could deal with IE-only compatibility, others want the
99.9% or better level and are willing to pay for it.


"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> Been doing this since 1997, I dont bother with that validate stuff, I dont
think
> its very accurate.
> I just check pages with different browsers and if they load fine I am
happy.
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> > I have had good luck with Proxomitron for blocking pop-ups. If I had to
> > live with pop-ups all the time I would probably end up hardly using the
net.
> > There are other good blockers out there also.
> >
> > Please, please, PLEASE do *NOT* use his page as an example of how to
code
> > HTML. It is a total mess internally. The "table" you are referring to
is a
> > long string of erroneous closing tags for tables and table elements that
> > aren't open. It's lucky this page displays at all.
> >
> > When you make a web page it should pass validation. Here's one to try:
> > http://www.w3schools.com/site/site_validate.asp . Pages that validate
> > properly stand a much better chance of working on different platforms
(PC,
> > Mac, Linux) with different browsers (IE, NS, Opera, etc). Any sites I
make,
> > or have made for me, must validate.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> > news:svEtb.3269$Ue4.933@fed1read01...
> > > more OT..
> > >
> > > Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
> > >
> > > which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
> > > button added... or was it some other java script you picked up and
> > > inserted.. also there seems to be a rather large "table" at the bottom
of
> > > the main page.. you can see it in the source code.. but it does not
> > display
> > > on the web..
> > >
> > > BTW.. I did not get the "pop up", but I have most pop ups disabled via
> > > Norton and MS IE. I tend to only get the MS Popups now..
> > >
> > > Bill T
> > > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > > news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02...
> > > > I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> > > > afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to
get
> > > search
> > > > engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a
few
> > > > notches in the "results".
> > > >
> > > > Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad
> > that
> > > > now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see
this,
> > > > right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See
it --
> > > and
> > > > hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
> > > >
> > > > As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse
the
> > > > potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> > > > webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance...
> > > > --
> > > > Jay Honeck
> > > > Iowa City, IA
> > > > Pathfinder N56993
> > > > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > > > "Your Aviation Destination"
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>

[Chuck]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> this has nothing to do with elitism. Your point of view is simple
> ingnorance.
>


Jay said that he is learning.
His page looks good, simple, not a lot of flashy crap like a lot of other
pages.
His page loads fast and has no errors.

Back off!
You were a beginner too at one point...

[Chuck]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...

>
> well, Jay comes and asks questions and asks for suggestions.
>
> There were suggestions like "validate your site", "don't use Frontpage",
> "it is not the best idea to use JS in the navigation", "there is crappy
> code in the bottom of the page"
>
> _I_ call that constructive, YMMV
>

CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is the way the criticism is worded.

Sounds like to me that most people have been a little harsh on Jay.

That's NOT constructive criticism.

[Tobias Dussa]

"Chuck" > writes:
> > There were suggestions like "validate your site", "don't use Frontpage",
> > "it is not the best idea to use JS in the navigation", "there is crappy
> > code in the bottom of the page"
> > _I_ call that constructive, YMMV
> CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is the way the criticism is worded.

I beg to differ, but I think that the difference between constructive
and destructive criticism is this:
Destructive criticism just points out what is bad (as in, for examle,
"your HTML code sucks").
Constructive criticism not only points out weaknesses, but also offers
help as to how to avoid or alleviate those weaknesses (as in, for
example, "your HTML code sucks, because you are using an inferior tool
to produce it; if you use this other tool, your code will be better").

In my book, the wording of the criticism may be wise or not-so-wise,
in terms of the probability of getting across the point of the
criticism, but it does not make a difference as to whether the
criticism is constructive or destructive. Just my $.02.

> Sounds like to me that most people have been a little harsh on Jay.

That may be, but IMHO also has nothing to do with whether or not the
criticism is constructive or not (and, BTW, even less with whether or
not the criticism is justified or not).

Regarding the original topic, Jay, I personally find your site easy to
navigate and not overly flashy, so from my perspective, thumbs-up with
regard to ergonomy. Furthermore, your page is usable with my trusty
w3m web browser, which does not support any JavaScript, let alone any
fancier stuff, and better yet, your page is also decently useful in
text mode, which earns top marks on my list. ;-) However, I also think
that the HTML code that FrontPage creates is crappy and a waste of
resources, in the sense that a lookalike web page could be created
with less effort in terms of network bandwidth or computing power. (I
realize that one might argue that nowadays, anybody without a DSL
flatrate and a 3 GHz processor and 512 MB of RAM is just plain an
old-fashioned fart who lives in the past, but then again, I also think
that such a line of arguing is a general excuse for all sorts of
purposeless waste of resources, so there is good reason to reject this
argument, IMHO.) So, I second the advise that you ought to do
yourself a favor by getting better HTML editing software.

With regard to the rest of the discussion, I think everybody is
entitled to a little leeway when approaching a new field of
experience. I am sure most of us started our aviation careers with
some pretty bumpy landings (I certainly did ;-)). But we also all
practised until we got decent landings, so as long as you realize that
you can still improve your web page (at least to the point where it
conforms to existing HTML standards), you are good to go, in my
opinion.

Finally, I would like to refer you to a newsgroup where there are
people that have more knowledge on the subject and are more likely to
have valuable thoughts and hints regarding your web page, so maybe
you'd get more qualified comments than mine at
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html or even
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design.

Cheers,
Toby.
--
You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

[BTIZ]

I understand all of the above Doug... but when the salary paying company is
using MS FP for it's INTRANET and wants you to learn it.. and pays for the
course and a home copy for me to use as I desire..

then learn it I shall.. and make myself more valuable to the company... and
with what I learn.. if I can "convince" the company that they need to move
to Macromedia/Dreamweaver.. or some other "software of the decade" .. then
we will make that costly transition at a later time.. (after promotions and
I am the decision maker to spend the companies $$)

BT

"Doug Vetter" > wrote in message
et...
> BTIZ wrote:
> > more OT..
> >
> > Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
>
> This is such a common topic that I hestiate to respond to it,
> particularly because it's so OT, but friends don't let friends use
> FrontPage. :-)
>
> May I suggest that you (and Jay, and the remainder of the bipedal world
> for that matter) NOT waste your time with FrontPage? It creates
> HORRIBLE (meaning, non-standards-compliant) HTML and some of the most
> annoying website designs I've ever seen. One particular annoyance is
> the use of JAVA for simple menu buttons (!) Uh, talk about an improper
> use of the technology.
>
> Some recommendations:
>
> 1) Go get a copy of Dreamweaver. You owe it to yourself AND the people
> who will visit your site.
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/
>
> It creates near PERFECT HTML and has a really nice WYSIWYG editor.
> Incidentally, you don't NEED Dreamweaver or FrontPage to create a
> website...they only eliminate the need to code raw HTML for the vast
> majority of sites. And, when you finally discover the wonders of
> standards-compliant CSS, Dreamweaver will significantly simplify
> creation of CSS styles.
>
> 2) Check out the following site, which contains a lot of really good
> (and strangely funny) advice on how to create a user-friendly site that
> emphasizes content and compatability over flashiness and gimicktry.
>
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
>
> For what it's worth, my site was created with Dreamweaver and uses no
> flash, java, javascript or any other client-side dependent crap, and the
> first line in almost every email I get that references the site is "hey,
> you have a really nice site".
>
> And no, I'm not being vain...only providing a personal example of
> what's possible with what I'll choose to call a "minimalist, yet
> technically competant" approach to website design.
>
> Oh, one other thing. STOP using IE. Go grab the latest Mozilla or
> Firebird browsers. They both have pop-up ad blocking built in.
>
> Safe flying,
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA
>
> http://www.dvcfi.com
> --------------------
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

I have no problem with you or anyone using poor (but usable) tools to make
web pages. Obviously a web page with some internal problems problems is
much better than not having a web page.

However! I think it is a very bad idea to take such a sloppily created page
and use it as an example of good HTML code! That's the issue I have.

I did web stuff for something like 10 years and learned (the hard way...)
about browser compatibility.

Peter


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:28Ltb.213582$Tr4.618517@attbi_s03...
> > Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
>
> Well, Bill, despite Peter's (and others) elitist attitudes toward building
a
> web page, this ain't rocket science. Microsoft FrontPage -- for all of
its
> quirks -- is head and shoulders above any other web editor I've tried, for
> ease of use.
>
> Sure, you can go with Dreamweaver for more "power" -- if you've got a few
> weeks of your life to devote to something as stupid as learning a new
> program. Nowadays, with PCs as powerful as mainframes once were, there is
> simply no reason for a program to be anything but naked-butt simple to
use.
> If it's NOT, that's indicative of poor programming design, IMHO.
>
> If you're used to Microsoft Word -- and who isn't nowadays? -- FrontPage
is
> very familiar feeling. Much of the data is interchangeable, actually, and
> you can share stuff from one program to the other. This really smoothes
the
> learning curve, and lets you start producing almost immediately.
>
> > which "Theme/Style" did you use to create the left menu with the hover
> > button added...
>
> My menu style (on the left side of my page) is called "A graphical style
> based on the Network theme" -- whatever THAT means. I picked it cuz
> everyone says it looks nice! :-)
>
> I write off this whole debate over HTML editors and technique as nothing
> more than the "DOS vs Windows" debate, redux. Ten (or was it 15 now?)
> years ago, I was the dinosaur, decrying the "stupid PC users who were
using
> the new 'Windows' as a crutch". I could be heard grumbling stuff like
> "Why don't these idiots learn DOS, instead of forcing this stupid GUI down
> our throats?"
>
> Well, I learned that you've gotta keep moving with the technology. Dig
> your heels in on something like this, and you'll end up being an expert in
> Borland Paradox database design, trapped in a Microsoft Access world.
>
> I know, cuz I AM one of *those*, and it sucks... :-(
>
> And, by the way, FWIW I have deleted all that "table" HTML crap at the
> bottom of the opening page. I have no idea what it was, or how it got
> there -- nor do I care. It apparently had no effect on performance,
which,
> in the end, is all that matters.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Tobias Dussa" > wrote in message
...
> > Sounds like to me that most people have been a little harsh on Jay.
>
> That may be, but IMHO also has nothing to do with whether or not the
> criticism is constructive or not (and, BTW, even less with whether or
> not the criticism is justified or not).

IMHO, you are wrong. For criticism to be constructive, it not only has to
offer advice as to how things can be done better, it has to do so without
insulting the person being criticized. And by "insulting" I don't mean just
saying that the person is doing it wrong. I mean things like calling the
person ignorant, and using words like "crap" to describe the product of
their efforts.

Martin's "advice" (to pick an example at "random") is FAR from insult-free
and as such, is FAR from being constructive, regardless of how factual it
might be.

Pete

[Tobias Dussa]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:
> > > Sounds like to me that most people have been a little harsh on Jay.
> > That may be, but IMHO also has nothing to do with whether or not the
> > criticism is constructive or not (and, BTW, even less with whether or
> > not the criticism is justified or not).
> IMHO, you are wrong. For criticism to be constructive, it not only has to
> offer advice as to how things can be done better, it has to do so without
> insulting the person being criticized.

Then on this matter we disagree. As I have written in the part of my
posting you have clipped, I totally agree that it is most probably
counter-productive to dress criticism in words that offend the other
person, because that doesn't get you anywhere far. Yet, IMHO, that is
an entire different (yet not at all unimportant!) property of
criticism that has nothing to do with the property of being
constructive or destructive. These two qualities (constructiveness
and wordiness, or whatever you want to call it, I can't think of a
proper word here, sorry) are orthogonal, if you will. Criticism may
be nicely worded, but destructive; similarly, it may be harshly (or
offensively) worded, but constructive. Ideally, one would like nicely
worded _and_ constructive criticism.

> And by "insulting" I don't mean just
> saying that the person is doing it wrong. I mean things like calling the
> person ignorant, and using words like "crap" to describe the product of
> their efforts.

We are in agreement that such wording is offensive. (I would advise
everyone not to be insulted by it, though. Makes life a lot easier if
you don't get p-o-ed so quickly. ;-))

> Martin's "advice" (to pick an example at "random") is FAR from insult-free
> and as such, is FAR from being constructive, regardless of how factual it
> might be.

I still think you are mixing up different and unrelated qualities of
criticism. (And, IMHO, factuality is yet another quality that is
orthogonal to the two other qualities I have mentioned above.)

In my opinion, it is a very helpful (and in some instances quite
necessary) virtue to be able to take criticism even if it is offensive
or insulting. In fact, even the most offensive criticism might (and
hopefully does!) contain insights that are valuable, and by
disregarding the entire criticism, you are throwing away that
insight. You may not like it, but it sometimes does pay to listen to
a person that is not as friendly as you'd like her to be.

But, as always, YMMV. I realize us German-speaking folks are
considered an unfriendly bunch, because we tend to be rather
unfriendly-sounding even when we don't mean it, so that probably
doesn't help the discussion at hand, either...

Cheers,
Toby.
--
You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

[Newps]

I use an ad blocker and never get any ads, popups, animations, music etc.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get search
> engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
> notches in the "results".
>
> Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad that
> now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it -- and
> hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
>
> As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
> potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
>
> Thanks in advance...

[Chuck]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...

> I did web stuff for something like 10 years and learned (the hard way...)
> about browser compatibility.
>


I'm running IE 6.0.2800.1106 and www.AlexisParkInn.com looks and works fine
for me.

How about the other people here? Is it compatiable with your browser?

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> you compare one Microsoft crap with another Microsoft crap. Microsoft is
>> NOT standard
>
> Wow. Talk about tilting at windmills. (That's a "Don Quixote" reference,
> in case it doesn't translate well....)

Everything starts at the beginning. I'm sure (bringing us back to remotely
on-topic) that people thought of manned powered heavier-than-air flight the
same way.

But the fact is that we are getting more and more clients/potential clients
hot behind our avoidance of MSFT products. It may be small, yet, but more
and more people are awakening to the fact that there are alternatives, and
that it would be tough to find one worse.

> The score is 98 to 2, and you still think Microsoft hasn't won the OS war?

And all attempts at manned heavier-than-air manned flight failed. Until one
didn't.

> You are, at best, incurably optimistic.

This would appear to be the right place for it.

- Andrew

[Peter Gottlieb]

I believe that is the latest version.


"Chuck" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
>
> > I did web stuff for something like 10 years and learned (the hard
way...)
> > about browser compatibility.
> >
>
>
> I'm running IE 6.0.2800.1106 and www.AlexisParkInn.com looks and works
fine
> for me.
>
> How about the other people here? Is it compatiable with your browser?
>
>

[Jim Baker]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RVMtb.212725$HS4.1823321@attbi_s01...
> > ... and produces another one producing more or less crap - and he is
proud
> > of it.
>
> Well, Martin -- I speak with hundreds of hotel guests, most (like,
99.9999%)
> of whom know nothing about HTML, or any of the so-called HTML "standards"
to
> which you (and others) refer.
>
> The number one thing I hear about our website is that it is so much easier
> to navigate and is actually chock-full of real information about the hotel
> than most commercial sites. Too many sites are nothing but "fluff", and
> cool graphics. I have tried to avoid that, in favor of stuff that
potential
> hotel guests might actually be interested in seeing.
>
> > >I write off this whole debate over HTML editors and technique as
nothing
> > >more than the "DOS vs Windows" debate, redux. Ten (or was it 15 now?)
> >
> > nope. there is a language with *rules* (you know, such things like an
ADIZ
> > in aviation). Frontpage ignores most of them.
>
> Thanks for reinforcing my point. You, like we former DOS-heads once did,
> seem to view these "rules" as inviolate and unbreakable. This, my friend,
> will be your ultimate downfall.
>
> DOS had rules, too. Windows first worked within them, then ignored them
and
> made new ones.
>
> Where is DOS now?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Jay,

I couldn't agree more with your comments about HTML. Who gives a flying fig
what the internal code is....you're not selling internal code. Your website
looks great and the wife and I are interested in coming all the way out
to Iowa City to see the town and Inn based solely on the excellent sales
job of the website. We live in the L.A. area and believe me, visiting Iowa
City wasn't on our priority list for vacation sites. But the next time
we're
driving the U.S., which we do every couple of years for a vacation now
that the kids are out of college and on their own, we're going to give your
place a try....again, based only on the very informative, user friendly and
visually attractive web site. Hell, I hope the internal code structure
does suck!!! That gives me confidence that someday I could buy a copy of
Front Page and do a much more modest site just to hang our vacation pictures
on LOL!!

Best Regards,

Jim

[G.R. Patterson III]

Chuck wrote:
>
> How about the other people here? Is it compatiable with your browser?

Netscape 4.79. Most of the stuff is lots better than the last time we did this
exercise. The renovation photos page comes up blank, but will appear correctly
if I hit "reload" or transition elsewhere and back up into it.

George Patterson
They say nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is, death
doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.

[Jay Honeck]

> But, as always, YMMV. I realize us German-speaking folks are
> considered an unfriendly bunch, because we tend to be rather
> unfriendly-sounding even when we don't mean it, so that probably
> doesn't help the discussion at hand, either...

Don't worry, Toby.

With Grandparents named "Schmidt" and "Honeck", you *know* I'm used to harsh
German-speaking folk! :-)

Your points are well made, and well taken.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff]

At 600,000+ unique hits a month and no complaints about page problems, must
be doing something right.

Bob Noel wrote:

> rrect.
>
> You've been doing this since '97 and you still don't know what
> valid HTML is?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Jeff]

Front page is a good program, I use it and I know alot of others who use it, I
know some people who use dream weaver and liked to argue that it was better, but
they are basically the same, if something works no need to change to anything
else.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> It apparently had no effect on performance, which,
> in the end, is all that matters.

exactly

[Jeff]

I dont understand what is wrong, is his website not working for you, can you not
read it?
Everything aside, can you see his site the way he intended it to be seen?


Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:42:41 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >> ... and produces another one producing more or less crap - and he is proud
> >> of it.
> >
> >Well, Martin -- I speak with hundreds of hotel guests, most (like, 99.9999%)
> >of whom know nothing about HTML, or any of the so-called HTML "standards" to
> >which you (and others) refer.
> >
>
> millions of flies can't be wrong! folks! eat ****!
>
> >The number one thing I hear about our website is that it is so much easier
> >to navigate and is actually chock-full of real information about the hotel
> >than most commercial sites. Too many sites are nothing but "fluff", and
>
> compared to so many home-made websites from many (esp Americans) I come by
> and that are really a pain in the ass yours is really rather informative.
> But you are pointed to the correct ways of how things are done and you
> simply ignore them.
>
> >> nope. there is a language with *rules* (you know, such things like an ADIZ
> >> in aviation). Frontpage ignores most of them.
> >
> >Thanks for reinforcing my point. You, like we former DOS-heads once did,
> >seem to view these "rules" as inviolate and unbreakable. This, my friend,
> >will be your ultimate downfall.
>
> HTML is standardised. You are referring to proprietaire products.
>
> >DOS had rules, too. Windows first worked within them, then ignored them and
> >made new ones.
> >
> >Where is DOS now?
>
> you compare one Microsoft crap with another Microsoft crap. Microsoft is
> NOT standard (or compare Mac OS 8 with Mac OS 9, also non standard).
> Hello!!!! This would be the same as when everyone would have Cessna, Piper
> or Lycoming as reference in aviation (and this would be ridiculous).
>
> HTML is standardised (as many other things are) and M$ is simply ignoring
> them (at best). They find people like you finding that OK.
>
> Once again: eat ****, because million of flies can't be wrong.
>
> #m
>
> --
> http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
> http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[John Godwin]

"Chuck" > wrote in
nk.net:

> How about the other people here? Is it compatiable with your browser?

(1) Opera 7.20
(2) No.

(1) Netscape 7.1
(2) No.

(1) MSIE 6.0.2800.1106
(2) Yes. (Surprise)

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[Jeff]

Now I have to rewrite what I was writing, I visited your webpage with
nutscrape and your faq page crashed my browser.

But your page talks about how to make pages works and how crappy some sites
are. You have several problems, one being your not to experienced at using
your graphics program what ever it may be (photoshop what ever), your faq
page crashed my browser. Its not browser friendly, I wont visit it again
because I dont want my browser to crash.


Doug Vetter wrote:

> particularly because it's so OT, but friends don't let friends use
> FrontPage. :-)
>
> May I suggest that you (and Jay, and the remainder of the bipedal world
> for that matter) NOT waste your time with FrontPage? It creates
> HORRIBLE (meaning, non-standards-compliant) HTML and some of the most
> annoying website designs I've ever seen. One particular annoyance is
> the use of JAVA for simple menu buttons (!) Uh, talk about an improper
> use of the technology.
>
> Some recommendations:
>
> 1) Go get a copy of Dreamweaver. You owe it to yourself AND the people
> who will visit your site.
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/
>
> It creates near PERFECT HTML and has a really nice WYSIWYG editor.
> Incidentally, you don't NEED Dreamweaver or FrontPage to create a
> website...they only eliminate the need to code raw HTML for the vast
> majority of sites. And, when you finally discover the wonders of
> standards-compliant CSS, Dreamweaver will significantly simplify
> creation of CSS styles.
>
> 2) Check out the following site, which contains a lot of really good
> (and strangely funny) advice on how to create a user-friendly site that
> emphasizes content and compatability over flashiness and gimicktry.
>
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
>
> For what it's worth, my site was created with Dreamweaver and uses no
> flash, java, javascript or any other client-side dependent crap, and the
> first line in almost every email I get that references the site is "hey,
> you have a really nice site".
>
> And no, I'm not being vain...only providing a personal example of
> what's possible with what I'll choose to call a "minimalist, yet
> technically competant" approach to website design.
>
> Oh, one other thing. STOP using IE. Go grab the latest Mozilla or
> Firebird browsers. They both have pop-up ad blocking built in.
>
> Safe flying,
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA
>
> http://www.dvcfi.com
> --------------------

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02...
> I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get
search
> engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
> notches in the "results".
>
> Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad that
> now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it --
and
> hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
>
> As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
> potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
>
> Thanks in advance...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
Not with a free pop-up preventer.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

Just returned to Minnesota, after a visit to Iowa City.

Jay's (3 story x 3 buildings) Inn is much, much nicer than it appears in the
web photos. The rooms are great, especially compared to most big hotel
chains. The Inn is cozy and relaxing, and sits next to the Iowa City
airport. There is much to do, as I discovered, in Iowa City - University
town. Jay's Inn has a friendly family-run feel to it.

As for "aviation theme" ...this was the biggest surprise. Reading about it
is one thing ...seeing it is something else. EVERYWHERE are aviation
artifacts, aviation artwork, signed historic photos, airplane models,
aviation magazines, airplane wallpaper, blueprints of old planes, dials,
switches and instruments from planes, propellers, framed aviation posters,
framed airplane pictures, and the list goes on, and on, and on. You'll never
get to your room if you stop to look at everything. Slight exaggeration, but
not by much. :-)

After staying at the Inn (and seeing the town) I'd recommend Jay's place as
a fun destination not to be missed. The 7 Amana Colonies (20 miles away by
car) is a must!! Iowa's biggest tourist attraction. There is a grass strip
airport right next to the historic town - any closer and you'd be landing on
Main Street.

Know the code and get a first night discount. (Atlas) tail-number.

--
Montblack


("Jim Baker" wrote)
> I couldn't agree more with your comments about HTML. Who gives a flying
fig
> what the internal code is....you're not selling internal code. Your
website
> looks great and the wife and I are interested in coming all the way out
> to Iowa City to see the town and Inn based solely on the excellent sales
> job of the website. We live in the L.A. area and believe me, visiting
Iowa
> City wasn't on our priority list for vacation sites. But the next time
> we're
> driving the U.S., which we do every couple of years for a vacation now
> that the kids are out of college and on their own, we're going to give
your
> place a try....again, based only on the very informative, user friendly
and
> visually attractive web site.

[Eclipsme]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:UdBtb.10159$Dw6.66595@attbi_s02...
> > I changed some of the metafiles (or "meta tags") in my website this
> > afternoon, emphasizing "hotels" more. I did this in an effort to get
> search
> > engines to "see" our site more clearly, and (hopefully) move us up a few
> > notches in the "results".
> >
> > Well, something worked. Within an hour I had acquired a "pop-up" ad
that
> > now shows up every time I open my website. (I assume you ALL see this,
> > right?) It appears to be "keying" on the "hotels" meta tag? (See it --
> and
> > hopefully our site -- at www.AlexisParkInn.com )
> >
> > As most of you know, I'm learning HTML on the fly here -- so excuse the
> > potentially dumb question, but: Is there anything I can do from the
> > webmaster's side to eliminate this kind of "pop-up parasite"?
> >
> > Thanks in advance...
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >

Hmmm... I don't get the popup. Perhaps you acquired a bit of spyware? Try
downloading Search and Destroy, an excellent free program for deleting
spyware from computers. If this thought is correct, the problem lies in your
computer and not on your website.

Harvey

[EDR]

In article >, John
Godwin > wrote:

> > How about the other people here? Is it compatiable with your browser?
>
> (1) Opera 7.20
> (2) No.
>
> (1) Netscape 7.1
> (2) No.
>
> (1) MSIE 6.0.2800.1106
> (2) Yes. (Surprise)

(1) iCAB 2.6
(2) NO

[Jay Honeck]

> Just returned to Minnesota, after a visit to Iowa City.
(Lots of nice stuff snipped)

*blush* Thanks, man.

> Jay's (3 story x 3 buildings) Inn is much, much nicer than it appears in
the
> web photos.

Okay, NOW we're on to some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism here. What, exactly do
you mean by that?

If you mean the photos suck, I agree with you. I have struggled to take
pictures in our suites that "capture" their spaciousness and the "feeling"
you get in them, to no avail. Because you simply can't "back up" far enough
to take in an entire room, I can't seem to take a photo that really "works".

One promising option: I just purchased a new Canon FS400, which came with
some nifty software for "stitching" several photos together. (A crude first
try can be seen at http://alexisparkinn.com/renovation.htm ) This
certainly helps with that "looking through a tube" feeling of most interior
photos, but it's far from perfect.

Anyone got a better idea? Anyone know how to do one of those "virtual
tours"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Godwin]

EDR > wrote in :

> (1) iCAB 2.6
> (2) NO

(1) HotJava 3.0 :o)
(2) No.

(1) Mosaic 3.0
(2) What's XML?

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[John Godwin]

Doug Vetter > wrote in news:muMtb.19345$YZ2.6250949
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:

> 1) Go get a copy of Dreamweaver. You owe it to yourself AND the people
> who will visit your site.
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/dreamweaver/

Doug, I agree that Dreamweaver makes better and more consistently
accessible web pages. I'd also consider, however, whether the user is a
casual web writer or someone that does it for a living or supports some
organization. I, personally, am a Dreamweaver MX user.

When asked, I recommend that people shy away from MS Front Page unless
they are certain that MSIE is the only browser which will access the
site. Microsoft has a habit of hooking into their own code segments
which may not exist in other corresponding competitive programs. On the
otherhand, I also suggest that they stay away from Dreamweaver unless
they have the time to learn it, a reason to spend the money, and the need
for the bells and whistles.

There are several web page authoring programs (some free and some
shareware) which I've heard do an adequate job of web creation. Folks
might want to check <http://download.com.com/>

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[Frank]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Jay.. I am also learning HTML and MS FrontPage...
>
> Well, Bill, despite Peter's (and others) elitist attitudes toward building
> a
> web page, this ain't rocket science. Microsoft FrontPage -- for all of
> its quirks -- is head and shoulders above any other web editor I've tried,
> for ease of use.
>
> Sure, you can go with Dreamweaver for more "power" -- if you've got a few
> weeks of your life to devote to something as stupid as learning a new
> program. Nowadays, with PCs as powerful as mainframes once were, there is
> simply no reason for a program to be anything but naked-butt simple to
> use. If it's NOT, that's indicative of poor programming design, IMHO.

I understand (and agree) that learning to use new software can be a pain. In
this case however there is a different issue involved besides whose
software is better.

It is certainly in your best interests to produce web pages that conform to
standards. By settling for "good enough" you ignore a growing trend of
people using alternatives to MS software. Many people are opting to run
other browsers on MS not to mention other OS's (Linux, Mac) altogether.

I use Mozilla (or Konquerer) on Linux. As a result I encounter many sites
that do not conform and are therefore unavailable to me. If it's something
like the video clips you link to it's not too big of a deal, although I
would like to view them. But if I'm trying to make travel plans then your
place is skipped and we both lose. (Fortunately I am able to see most of
your site without trouble. Besides, if I ever have to travel in your neck
of the woods I won't need a browser to book a room.)

On more of a philosophical note, the internet works because users and
providers _cooperate_ on protocols. Tolerance of non-conforming sites hurts
us all. I submit that one cannot continue to _knowingly_ publish
non-conforming pages and be a good internet 'citizen'.


--
Frank....H

[Jay Honeck]

I find it fascinating that you say:

> On more of a philosophical note, the internet works because users and
> providers _cooperate_ on protocols. Tolerance of non-conforming sites
hurts
> us all.

Yet admit:

> I use Mozilla (or Konquerer) on Linux. As a result I encounter many sites
> that do not conform and are therefore unavailable to me.

I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because of
YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
illogical.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > Just returned to Minnesota, after a visit to Iowa City.
> (Lots of nice stuff snipped)
>
> *blush* Thanks, man.
>
> > Jay's (3 story x 3 buildings) Inn is much, much nicer than it appears in
> the
> > web photos.
>
> Okay, NOW we're on to some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism here. What, exactly do
> you mean by that?
>
> If you mean the photos suck, I agree with you. I have struggled to take
> pictures in our suites that "capture" their spaciousness and the "feeling"
> you get in them, to no avail. Because you simply can't "back up" far enough
> to take in an entire room, I can't seem to take a photo that really "works".
>
> One promising option: I just purchased a new Canon FS400, which came with
> some nifty software for "stitching" several photos together. (A crude first
> try can be seen at http://alexisparkinn.com/renovation.htm ) This
> certainly helps with that "looking through a tube" feeling of most interior
> photos, but it's far from perfect.

Stitching is the only reasonably simple, easy, cheap option (there's
also perfectly good free software available that'll work with photos
from any camera). Wide-angle shots are the achilles heel of consumer
digital (and even a bit of a problem in many of the professional
cameras). For stuff that holds still, and where you can take your
time taking the photos, there's not really any downside to stitching.
Luckily your suites hold still, so you should be able to get somewhat
better images (I didn't think the images you have posted were bad
enough to comment on; but then I haven't seen the original, maybe
they're worse than I think :-)).

In wideangle work, and especially in architectural photography, you
need to get *really* anal about setting the camera level (or learn how
to correct it later). I've actually got a level I can put in my
"flash" shoe; but most of the time I just line up the edges of the
frame with various vertical lines, and get it level enough that way.

Lots of the photos really need brightness and contrast adjustment,
too. And I just noticed, looking at photos of the Red Baron suite,
that you seem to be somehow using 300k for a quality of image I can
generally provide with only 60k; that would make a *big* difference to
people on dial-up connections. (And those photos would really benefit
from being shot level, too.)

I know there are a billion competing demands for your money and your
time, but I'd suggest you either spend the money on some professional
photography (or at least on some professional photoshop work on
existing pictures), or else spend some time improving your own
photoshop skills some. If you can find someone local who's good, they
can teach you enough in a couple of hours to do the basic
brightness/contrast corrections pretty well, and that alone will make
a *big* difference, and not cost too much.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Bob Noel]

In article <d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because
> of
> YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?
>
> Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
> illogical.

not exactly. A website, by definition, claims to comply with the
HTML standards. A browser, by definition, is able to render HTML.
If a compliant browser can't properly display a webpage because
the site has invalid HTML, the fault lies with the site.

The whole point of the www is to move away from closed systems
and properitary software. The point is to move to platform
independance.

--
Bob Noel

[John E. Carty]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> > I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you
because
> > of
> > YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?
> >
> > Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
> > illogical.
>
> not exactly. A website, by definition, claims to comply with the
> HTML standards. A browser, by definition, is able to render HTML.


> If a compliant browser can't properly display a webpage because
> the site has invalid HTML, the fault lies with the site.

Valid by whose definition, W3C? The guidelines they come out with are
interpreted so differently by companies like Microsoft and Netscape that
it's hard to define valid :-)


> The whole point of the www is to move away from closed systems
> and properitary software. The point is to move to platform
> independance.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> In wideangle work, and especially in architectural photography, you
> need to get *really* anal about setting the camera level (or learn how
> to correct it later). I've actually got a level I can put in my
> "flash" shoe; but most of the time I just line up the edges of the
> frame with various vertical lines, and get it level enough that way.

Interesting. Photos that Mary takes are always (and I mean ALWAYS) three
degrees "off" to one side or the other. Using Photoshop I always have to
"rotate" the photo back to level.

We figure it's something to do with her eyes. (Probably why she can't hit a
baseball, either...)

> Lots of the photos really need brightness and contrast adjustment,
> too. And I just noticed, looking at photos of the Red Baron suite,
> that you seem to be somehow using 300k for a quality of image I can
> generally provide with only 60k; that would make a *big* difference to
> people on dial-up connections. (And those photos would really benefit
> from being shot level, too.)

Yeah, I've learned a lot about down-sizing photos since then. Take a gander
at the Amelia Earhart Suite, and see if the photos aren't more properly
sized?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5a5ub.221622$HS4.1934129@attbi_s01...
>
> If you mean the photos suck, I agree with you. I have struggled to take
> pictures in our suites that "capture" their spaciousness and the "feeling"
> you get in them, to no avail. Because you simply can't "back up" far
enough
> to take in an entire room, I can't seem to take a photo that really
"works".
>


I take a lot of real estate photos and a wide angle (not fisheye) lens is a
must. I use the Nikon Coolpix 5000 with wide adapter but anything similar
should do the job. See if anyone you know has something like that and
borrow it. Perhaps a local realtor might have one? If I were in that area
I would shoot it for you but, alas, no current plans.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03...
>
> I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because
of
> YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?
>
> Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
> illogical.
> --


Please send this to Bill Gates. This is JUST what he wants to hear! He
will be so happy!

Make products which claim to be compliant with standards (yet don't) but
that only really work together, then claim that everyone else is at fault
and it's not your problem, then boost prices in every market you become a
monopoly in.


Let me put this another way, related to aviation. Bill Gates decides he
will now build airplanes. So he buys several manufacturers and engine
suppliers. He then claims big improvements can be made if he had a special
additive in fuel. Unfortunately this additive corrodes the fuel systems of
older, non-compliant planes. No matter, it's optional. Most planes can be
retrofitted for it, but the older engines still don't run that well on it.
Now, Bill's planes are indeed good and he sells lots of them. Enough, in
fact, that he buys an oil company and has that company specialize in this
custom fuel. He sells it at a very low price, further enhancing the appeal
of his planes. His fuel company also sells regular avgas at very low
prices. Other oil companies decide the aviation market is too small to
fight for, so start dropping out. Bill's oil company ends up with 90% of
the market. Then he decides to start phasing in the additive and only
supplying fuel with it.

YOUR problem, dude; it's your plane that uses the "nonstandard" fuel.

(I know, terrible analogy, but still fun to think up and type)
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> (I know, terrible analogy, but still fun to think up and type)

It IS a terrible analogy. I found myself reading it, thinking to myself
"well, as long as the airplanes and fuel are less expensive that way and
just as safe, I could live with that." :)

A slightly (only slightly) better analogy might be the highway system.
Suppose those in charge of maintaining the highway system decided that,
since there are vehicles available that can handle pot-holes up to two feet
across, that they should not bother to fix pot-holes that large, even though
many vehicles on the road cannot safely negotiate pot-holes that large, or
may even be damaged by pot-holes that large.

(Analogy mapping: the highway is the Internet, the pot-holes are the
deviations from the HTML "standard", such as it is, and the vehicles are the
browsers. :) )

Anyway, it IS silly to blame a browser just because it cannot process
invalid HTML code. A great many programs are written to be "fault
tolerant", but the fact that they are fault tolerant doesn't mean that the
faults should be considered acceptable.

On the other hand, while Front Page is a great way to write incorrect HTML,
it also does what it's supposed to reasonably well. If someone doesn't care
about his web site not being viewable by some subset of the Internet
population, I see no reason that person should not feel free to use Front
Page as they see fit.

Pete

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > In wideangle work, and especially in architectural photography, you
> > need to get *really* anal about setting the camera level (or learn how
> > to correct it later). I've actually got a level I can put in my
> > "flash" shoe; but most of the time I just line up the edges of the
> > frame with various vertical lines, and get it level enough that way.
>
> Interesting. Photos that Mary takes are always (and I mean ALWAYS) three
> degrees "off" to one side or the other. Using Photoshop I always have to
> "rotate" the photo back to level.

The next step after that is to learn how to correct for tilts
*forward* and *backwards* (which cause parallel vertical lines to
converge or diverge).

> We figure it's something to do with her eyes. (Probably why she can't hit a
> baseball, either...)

Could well be.

> > Lots of the photos really need brightness and contrast adjustment,
> > too. And I just noticed, looking at photos of the Red Baron suite,
> > that you seem to be somehow using 300k for a quality of image I can
> > generally provide with only 60k; that would make a *big* difference to
> > people on dial-up connections. (And those photos would really benefit
> > from being shot level, too.)
>
> Yeah, I've learned a lot about down-sizing photos since then. Take a gander
> at the Amelia Earhart Suite, and see if the photos aren't more properly
> sized?

If anything, they're a bit *larger* than the ones I complained about
earlier. (Not counting the one of the newspaper article; I haven't
played with it, to retain legibility that could need to be rather
large). 367KB to 600KB.

Wow. The one labeled "The bedroom in natural sunlight" (Queen bed in
suite.jpg) is 1.3MB, and still has the EXIF information in it (I see
you shot it at 1/20 second at f2.8 with a Canon S100 :-)). It's also
1600x1200 pixels, not resized to a reasonable screen size; I'd suspect
it of being the camera original file, except that the EXIF info says
Photoshop 7 has been at it.

Maybe the files on the web site (for the Emelia Earhart suite) are not
the ones you think are there?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because of
> YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

It's *your* problem if your site is one of the invisible ones and you're trying
to attract customers. Which your site is, and which you are.

So I'll stay at hotels that use standard HTML for their web sites, rent from car
agencies that use standard HTML, etc.

So, ok, I know you and your hotel, Jay. But when I'm shopping for a place to
stay for vacation in (say) Cosby, TN, and the site comes up blank (as one of
your pages did), I don't hit "reload", I go on to the next site in the Yahoo
list. And I'll never come back.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's *your* problem if your site is one of the invisible ones and you're
trying
> to attract customers. Which your site is, and which you are.
>
> So I'll stay at hotels that use standard HTML for their web sites, rent
from car
> agencies that use standard HTML, etc.

George, please see http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp ,
which show browser use statistics.

As you can see, Microsoft browsers are used by 97% of all internet users.

IMHO, for better or worse, that's what's called "game, set, and match" for
Microsoft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
>
> So, ok, I know you and your hotel, Jay. But when I'm shopping for a place
to
> stay for vacation in (say) Cosby, TN, and the site comes up blank (as one
of
> your pages did), I don't hit "reload", I go on to the next site in the
Yahoo
> list. And I'll never come back.
>
> George Patterson
> The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a
gay
> bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful
that
> the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon,
and his
> wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
Cleves,
> and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no
longer
> here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian
marriages.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> As you can see, Microsoft browsers are used by 97% of all internet users.

Jay, I don't give a damn. And I DON'T shop at places that use this sort of
argument. *I* use the browser I damn well want to, and I don't care if the whole
****ing world uses something else. YOUR job is to cater to ME, not the other
way around.

And, yes, this is one of my hot buttons. You can have your hat back if you want
it.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Jay Honeck]

> And, yes, this is one of my hot buttons.

I guess!

>You can have your hat back if you want
> it.

No, but I may want you to wear it backwards, if you keep dishonoring the
colors like this...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Rowley]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:23:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because of
>YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?
>
>Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
>illogical.

There are a few reasons why it is a good thing to observe HTML
standards, even if non-standard stuff displays OK on the majority of
browsers (Microsoft).

HTML is designed to be platform independent, and flexible in how it is
displayed. Some examples of people who don't use Internet Explorer
exactly the same way you do might be blind people who use software
that reads the page, people with slow connections who turn off auto
loading of images or people with older computers. Good HTML will
provide usable web pages to all these groups, bad HTML often will not.

Another point is that the search engines you are targeting probably do
not use Microsoft, and I'm sure don't use Internet Explorer to do the
indexing. If you say non-microsoft platforms are unimportant, that
includes the search engines that you were trying to target.

[Brian Burger]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:42:41 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >> ... and produces another one producing more or less crap - and he is proud
> >> of it.
> >
> >Well, Martin -- I speak with hundreds of hotel guests, most (like, 99.9999%)
> >of whom know nothing about HTML, or any of the so-called HTML "standards" to
> >which you (and others) refer.
> >
>
> millions of flies can't be wrong! folks! eat ****!

For Dog's sake, Martin, lighten up. I happen to agree with most of what
you've said about HTML standards being a good thing, but random verbal
abuse isn't going to win any converts.

However inelegant the HTML, Jay's site follows Rule One: Content &
Information before Appearance & Elegance. There's even stuff on his
website that's interesting to those of us who aren't going to visit his
Inn!

Oh, and my "credentials": I'm a totally self-taught HTML handcoder; my
personal website is all hand-rolled & 3.2 compliant (except the inserted
ads, which I can't control). No aviation content, but check all 80+ pages
at http://wind.prohosting.com/~warbard/index.html for my HTML efforts. One
of these days I'm going to teach myself CSS2 & upgrade the site to HTML
4.x standards...

Planes are more fun, though.

And hey, if you really want to fling abuse at Jay, call him a sissy low
winger...

Brian.

[Bob Noel]

In article <mCgub.31924$Dw6.157267@attbi_s02>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> George, please see http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp ,
> which show browser use statistics.
>
> As you can see, Microsoft browsers are used by 97% of all internet users.

Do you realize that non-ms browsers can be configured to tell
the website that they are ms explorer? One reason this is necessary
is because there are braindead "webmasters" that *require* explorer
(e.g., check for explorer and won't service other browsers).

Note that the site states "Also be aware that many stats may
have an incomplete or faulty browser detection. It is quite common
by many web stats report programs, not to detect new browsers like
Opera and Netscape 6 or 7 from the web log." Thus, the statistics
are bogus.

--
Bob Noel

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, John Godwin
wrote:
>> How about the other people here? Is it compatiable with your browser?
>
> (1) Opera 7.20
> (2) No.
>
> (1) Netscape 7.1
> (2) No.
>
> (1) MSIE 6.0.2800.1106
> (2) Yes. (Surprise)

Appears to work fine in Konqueror 3.1.0 on OpenBSD.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article e.com>, Andrew
Gideon wrote:
>> The score is 98 to 2, and you still think Microsoft hasn't won the OS war?
>
> And all attempts at manned heavier-than-air manned flight failed. Until one
> didn't.

The main point is that it's the World Wide Web, not the Microsoft web.

As time goes on, the %age of websites viewed on a PC is going to
decrease - no, not to do with Linux or the open source alternatives, but
because of mobile phones. 3G and GPRS capable mobile phones running
Symbian are becoming increasingly popular at a very rapid rate. Symbian
does not use Microsoft Internet Explorer. Microsoft are NOT doing well
in the mobile market compared to the alternatives - companies like Nokia
etc. have seen what Microsoft have done to the PC manufacturers, and
don't want it to happen to them - hence the big names in the mobile
market (Nokia, Sony Erricsen, Psion etc.) settled on Symbian rather than
anything from Redmond. It's a new front in the 'OS War', potentially a
much bigger market than the PC market, and it's one that Microsoft is
doing very poorly in. Microsoft might have won the 'PC battle', but they
have by no means won the war.

It's not 'anti-MS' zealots who are buying Symbian and other non-MS
mobile phones. It's the general populace. Just like the cell phone is
replacing the fixed line, it wouldn't surprise me if most non-geeks do
their websurfing on a mobile device within 10 years, instead of a large,
expensive PC. Ignore mobile users at your peril - they may make up a
very large proportion of your page views within the next few years. It's
certainly the case here where using mobile phones for non-voice
applications is more popular than using them for voice applications!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <d7aub.226068$Tr4.669834@attbi_s03>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because of
> YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?

If the problem is that a *world wide web* site isn't really following
W3C standards, it is NOT the fault of the browser: it's the fault of the
software used to create the website, or if coded by hand, the person who
created the website. It is perfectly possible (and not that hard!) to
make a website that renders correctly on everything from a Sony-Erricsen
Symbian phone to Konqueror running on a 4-processor Solaris system.

Also note that mobile phone based web-browsers are going to become
increasingly prevalent. For a business in the hotel industry, mobile
devices will be VERY important to you, as people will probably use their
GPRS or 3G phone to look up a hotel when they show up to Iowa City
airport on a cold and rainy night. Most of these phones don't run MSIE -
they run the Symbian browser. Write Microsoft-only web pages at your
peril!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <mCgub.31924$Dw6.157267@attbi_s02>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> As you can see, Microsoft browsers are used by 97% of all internet users.

That's just *past* statistics. What about the Symbian cell phones that
are selling like hot cakes (at least over here) which DO NOT run
Microsoft software?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> That's just *past* statistics. What about the Symbian cell phones that
> are selling like hot cakes (at least over here) which DO NOT run
> Microsoft software?

Well, they were the most recent stats that I could find.

What's a Symbian cell phone?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Also note that mobile phone based web-browsers are going to become
> increasingly prevalent. For a business in the hotel industry, mobile
> devices will be VERY important to you, as people will probably use their
> GPRS or 3G phone to look up a hotel when they show up to Iowa City
> airport on a cold and rainy night. Most of these phones don't run MSIE -
> they run the Symbian browser. Write Microsoft-only web pages at your
> peril!

At last, a real REASON to write something that is "standardized".

Okay, here's a question for you: Can I make "standardized" web pages using
FrontPage?

I've looked at Dreamweaver, and -- after a couple of hours -- realized that
it would be like learning Paradox all over again. I just don't have time
for that anymore. I'm very comfortable working with FrontPage

In my world the only question that matters is this: Can it be done with
tools at hand?

Can it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I've looked at Dreamweaver, and -- after a couple of hours -- realized that
> it would be like learning Paradox all over again.

Check out "Hot Dog". We used it in a course on HTML that my former employer
allowed me to take. I remember it as being pretty easy to use.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Jay Honeck]

> > What's a Symbian cell phone?
>
> That's techology already in use here in Europe. Regarding cellphones and
mobile
> technology we are generally at least one generation in advance to the US.

Yeah, I've heard that. The reasons for this remains mysterious to me,
although the explanation always given here is that it's because European
(and Asian) land-line phone systems were so awful that the new (and better)
cellular technology just exploded as a result.

In other words, since the vastly superior US phone system was engineered (by
law) to the "Five Nines" standard (I.E.: 99.999% reliability), there wasn't
as urgent a need for a viable alternative.

What a double-edged sword THAT has turned out to be, eh? Because we did
such a good job with land-lines, we find ourselves in the dark ages of
cellular technology. (Although I'll bet SOMEWHERE in this story it will
come to light that our Gubmint tried to regulate it, and screwed it up.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:13sub.38831$Dw6.179091@attbi_s02
>
> Yeah, I've heard that. The reasons for this remains mysterious to me,
> although the explanation always given here is that it's because
> European (and Asian) land-line phone systems were so awful that the
> new (and better) cellular technology just exploded as a result.

Maybe. It probably has more to do with the geographic concentration of
population centers than phone system quality. Population centers in Europe
are more densely concentrated, in general, than in the US. That makes it
easier and less expensive to have a radio network reach a comparable number
of people.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Jay Honeck]

> Wow. The one labeled "The bedroom in natural sunlight" (Queen bed in
> suite.jpg) is 1.3MB, and still has the EXIF information in it (I see
> you shot it at 1/20 second at f2.8 with a Canon S100 :-)). It's also
> 1600x1200 pixels, not resized to a reasonable screen size; I'd suspect
> it of being the camera original file, except that the EXIF info says
> Photoshop 7 has been at it.

Yikes -- how did THAT slip through? I always re-size them, and rename them.
This one I used the original photo size! (Good thing it was with the old
2.1 megapixel camera, eh? :)

Time to re-size! (How did you find out all that info on the picture?
When I click on "properties" while viewing it on the webpage, it doesn't
show me all that info...)

On the brighter side, it IS one of the nicer pictures... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Ousterhout]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:45:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Okay, NOW we're on to some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism here. What, exactly do
>you mean by that?

My sweetie and I enjoyed our stay at Alexis Park Inn. The an Am
Clipper suite was great and you and Mary treated us extremely well.
However it was really immature of you to enter the suite just to sink
our floatplanes while we were frolicking in the Jacuzzi.

The aviation photos and collectables were great and I covet the
Blackbird pitot.

IMO your website conveys the necessary information just fine.
Resizing some of the photos would improve the speed. Don't worry
about having perfect html, if there are no browser errors it's good
enough. You can spend a *LOT* of time making the site a just little
better. I design web pages and pride myself in writing terse html
manually. But I don't criticize those who don't do it the same way as
I do. You're not a professional web page designer and "Good enough is
good enough". Pay attention to the content and not those irrelevant
details that won't distract 99% of the viewers.

- J.O.-

P.S. I lied. Jay didn't sink our floatplanes... he just capsized
them.

[Frank]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I find it fascinating that you say:
>
>> On more of a philosophical note, the internet works because users and
>> providers _cooperate_ on protocols. Tolerance of non-conforming sites
> hurts
>> us all.
>
> Yet admit:
>
>> I use Mozilla (or Konquerer) on Linux. As a result I encounter many sites
>> that do not conform and are therefore unavailable to me.
>
> I don't mean to sound rude, but if the sites are invisible to you because
> of YOUR choice of browser, how is this anyone's problem but yours?
>
> Blaming the website, when it is clearly a limitation of your browser, is
> illogical.

No offense taken. And FTR I can see your site just fine, I just can't view
the videos because they are in proprietary formats. (There is no viewer for
Linux for .wmv's as of now.)

My browsers are compliant, it's the HTML they are pointed at that isn't. I
doubt that you are suggesting that you only want guests that use MS.

I use Linux for a number of reasons, one of them being that I am unwilling
to have systems running MS-Windows facing the internet. I think you'll
agree that this practice is becoming more and more popular.

Even if I used MS as an OS, I still would use Mozilla just because I like
the features it provides. If it came to pass that Mozilla was found to not
work correctly because of non-compliance I would look for a new browser
too. (Assuming it wasn't just a bug that would be fixed after being
reported).

There are very real benefits to consumers in having the web be platform
independent. It is incumbent on all users (providers and consumers) to make
sure that happens. Right now content providers don't take a very big hit
when they don't adhere to standards so people like me often sound like a
voice in the wilderness. But that is changing.....


--
Frank....H

[Jay Honeck]

> and we have cell phone tarrifs of about 1 cent per minute to other cell
phones
> (on the same provider) or 1 cent from cellphone to fixed (land based)
phones.

What does this get you in terms of better service?

And if the answer is "nothing", why did you bring their existence up at this
juncture?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> My sweetie and I enjoyed our stay at Alexis Park Inn. The Pan Am
> Clipper suite was great and you and Mary treated us extremely well.

Hi John! It was great to have you and Stella stay with us, and the
Blackwatch Porter (that's "beer" for you "Bud Light" fans) you gave us is
truly outstanding. I'm not a big fan of REALLY dark beers, but this one is
just superb. Thanks!

> However it was really immature of you to enter the suite just to sink
> our floatplanes while we were frolicking in the Jacuzzi.

I was just thankful to see that you were wearing life-preservers. (Those
WERE life-preservers, right? ;-)

> The aviation photos and collectables were great and I covet the
> Blackbird pitot.

The Blackbird suite is going to be just awesome. I may move in permanently
when we get it done, just to bask in the "Area 51" ambience...

> You're not a professional web page designer and "Good enough is
> good enough". Pay attention to the content and not those irrelevant
> details that won't distract 99% of the viewers.

Thanks. As I slowly get better at this HTML stuff, I'll try to incorporate
what everyone has been trying to bludgeon me with. If nothing else, I've
learned I've got a long way to go before my website is where I want it to
be...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > It's *your* problem if your site is one of the invisible ones and you're
> trying
> > to attract customers. Which your site is, and which you are.
> >
> > So I'll stay at hotels that use standard HTML for their web sites, rent
> from car
> > agencies that use standard HTML, etc.
>
> George, please see http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp ,
> which show browser use statistics.
>
> As you can see, Microsoft browsers are used by 97% of all internet users.

That's true this week, but next week Microsoft will release a
differently incompatible browser (or maybe next month). You're better
off sticking to standards.

And on the sites *I'm* hosting, while IE is over 50%, it's by no means
dominating. I get hits from a *lot* of different browsers (based on
133,000 page views a day, or over 900,000 "hits" a day).

Another important thing to remember is the search engine "bots"; if
your site doesn't work with them, you're totally hosed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:


> That's techology already in use here in Europe. Regarding cellphones and mobile
> technology we are generally at least one generation in advance to the US.
>
> there are coming up mobile phones with about up to 1 mbit/s IP-access, allowing
> video phone, data transmission, etc. (calles UMTS). there are GRPS mobiles with
> built in browsers (the browser technology is from Symbian), so you can go online
> and surf the web. you might search the web for WAP, GRPS, UMTS, G3

This is also a cultural thing. Without a standard keyboard and a decent
screen size web service on your cell phone will never takeoff here.
Right now the camera phones are a joke. The picture quality is
horrible. I realize better camera phones are coming but this too is a
fad. I had web service for a while but you are so limited in what you
can see that it renders it worthless for the masses. All digital phones
have text messaging but it is such a pain in the ass to type out a
message that this will not takeoff either until an easier method is
found. And since I will not carry around a larger phone than the LG
VX4400 that I have now I don't know how this can be overcome.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Martin Hotze > writes:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > > That's just *past* statistics. What about the Symbian cell phones that
> > > are selling like hot cakes (at least over here) which DO NOT run
> > > Microsoft software?
> >
> > Well, they were the most recent stats that I could find.
> >
> > What's a Symbian cell phone?
>
>
> That's techology already in use here in Europe. Regarding cellphones
> and mobile technology we are generally at least one generation in
> advance to the US.

Depends how you measure. I've had web browsing on my cell phone
available since 1999, myself.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Newps]

25 months ago I called Qwest and told them to shove their phone service
up their ass. I have been cell phone only since then. I refuse to pay
$14 a month in taxes and user fees. Take that Al Gore. Haven't missed
the landline and my total phone service bill has decreased. Also no
telemarketing at all.

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>What's a Symbian cell phone?
>>
>>That's techology already in use here in Europe. Regarding cellphones and
>
> mobile
>
>>technology we are generally at least one generation in advance to the US.
>
>
> Yeah, I've heard that. The reasons for this remains mysterious to me,
> although the explanation always given here is that it's because European
> (and Asian) land-line phone systems were so awful that the new (and better)
> cellular technology just exploded as a result.
>
> In other words, since the vastly superior US phone system was engineered (by
> law) to the "Five Nines" standard (I.E.: 99.999% reliability), there wasn't
> as urgent a need for a viable alternative.
>
> What a double-edged sword THAT has turned out to be, eh? Because we did
> such a good job with land-lines, we find ourselves in the dark ages of
> cellular technology. (Although I'll bet SOMEWHERE in this story it will
> come to light that our Gubmint tried to regulate it, and screwed it up.)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> In my world the only question that matters is this: Can it be done with
> tools at hand?

Of course it can. Use Wordpad.

Seriously. HTML editors are a snare and a delusion, they produce
lousy code, and they interfere with your ever learning what you're
doing.

I took a quick shot at running the Alexis Park Inn homepage through
the W3C validator, and it couldn't even get started, because there
wasn't a doctype specified. Frontpage appears to be producing total
trash.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > Wow. The one labeled "The bedroom in natural sunlight" (Queen bed in
> > suite.jpg) is 1.3MB, and still has the EXIF information in it (I see
> > you shot it at 1/20 second at f2.8 with a Canon S100 :-)). It's also
> > 1600x1200 pixels, not resized to a reasonable screen size; I'd suspect
> > it of being the camera original file, except that the EXIF info says
> > Photoshop 7 has been at it.
>
> Yikes -- how did THAT slip through? I always re-size them, and rename them.
> This one I used the original photo size! (Good thing it was with the old
> 2.1 megapixel camera, eh? :)

<grin> yep.

> Time to re-size! (How did you find out all that info on the picture?
> When I click on "properties" while viewing it on the webpage, it doesn't
> show me all that info...)

My browser doesn't show me the info either, but I saved the photo and
looked at it with Irfan View, which showed that there was EXIF
information present, and when I asked, what that information was.

> On the brighter side, it IS one of the nicer pictures... :-)

Yes, that's true.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Montblack]

Marty - Marty - Marty

I thought it was quite funny. I laughed.

If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?
Sure, must be something really good at the bottom.

--
Montblack


"Martin Hotze"
> > > millions of flies can't be wrong! folks! eat ****!
> >
> > For Dog's sake, Martin, lighten up. I happen to agree with most of what
> > you've said about HTML standards being a good thing, but random verbal
> > abuse isn't going to win any converts.
>
>
> sorry if this was insulting, it was not intended. My _WHOLE_ line (and
only read
> as one line; don't read each sentence alone) is a saying and often used,
at
> least in my area. So this was not an 'offer' to follow, it was a saying.
Once
> again _sorry_ if it was insulting. it was not intended.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > You're not a professional web page designer and "Good enough is
> > good enough". Pay attention to the content and not those irrelevant
> > details that won't distract 99% of the viewers.
>
> Thanks. As I slowly get better at this HTML stuff, I'll try to incorporate
> what everyone has been trying to bludgeon me with. If nothing else, I've
> learned I've got a long way to go before my website is where I want it to
> be...

While I'm one of the carpers (I've got opinions!), I should say for
the record that the current version of your site works fine for me in
Opera 7.21. And that the high level of *content* in the site is a
strong point in its favor, both about the hotel and some of the
regional aviation stuff.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[John T]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:UBtub.176854$mZ5.1249265@attbi_s54
>
> Also no telemarketing at all.

That'll change soon. Recent rulings will allow cell phone numbers to be
published.

The only beef I have will cellular is that *I* pay for all calls - inbound
or outbound. That means (with my provider) that I am charged one minute
just to answer a "wrong number" call. I had one problem with an old number
where somebody apparently confused my number with a fax number. Sure, I
eventually recognized the number and stopped answering, but I was constantly
getting calls until I switched the number (for a hefty service fee from the
non-empathizing phone company). I wouln't have been nearly as ****ed had
the caller been charged for the air time.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> and we have cell phone tarrifs of about 1 cent per minute to other cell
> phones
>> (on the same provider) or 1 cent from cellphone to fixed (land based)
> phones.
>
> What does this get you in terms of better service?
>
> And if the answer is "nothing", why did you bring their existence up at
> this juncture?

We're not discussing just service, but acceptance of service. With a lower
- and more predictable - price, acceptance will be quicker. Just imagine
what lower insurance rates would do for aviation.

I've also been told that European cell providers didn't go down the "charge
for received calls" route, but I don't know that this is accurate.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Newps wrote:


>> there are coming up mobile phones with about up to 1 mbit/s IP-access,
>> allowing video phone, data transmission, etc. (calles UMTS). there are
>> GRPS mobiles with built in browsers (the browser technology is from
>> Symbian), so you can go online and surf the web. you might search the web
>> for WAP, GRPS, UMTS, G3
>
> This is also a cultural thing. Without a standard keyboard and a decent
> screen size web service on your cell phone will never takeoff here.

Maybe. On the other hand, I'm seeing more and more people with what I'll
call "connected palmtops" around here (NJ/NY area). Whether these are PDAs
with modems or cell phones with Internetability makes little difference in
the scheme of things; they're coming.

> Right now the camera phones are a joke. The picture quality is
> horrible. I realize better camera phones are coming but this too is a
> fad. I had web service for a while but you are so limited in what you
> can see that it renders it worthless for the masses.

That's just a bootstrap problem. A number of our clients (I work at an
Internet software shop) are looking to have their content products (for
example, a "continuing education training system") made available on at
least some subset of these connected palmtops. So we should expect more
content to be available over time, which will bring more users, etc.

A couple of years ago, a client of ours that sells a type of financial
management product was giving away "connected palmtops" to their better
clients. This was to promote the immediate availability of the
information/management they were selling.

It worked, in the sense that a lot of their other users started using those
things too.

In the 4-plane club of which I'm a member, we've a website on which
scheduling is performed. Is it a coincidence that the person that consumes
the most hours has a web-capable palmtop of some sort? Nobody thinks so;
he can get immediate notification of cancellations, and leap.

There are other technologies happening which will likely also have an
impact. A client of ours with an unreasonable fear of wrist injury just
started sounding drunk in her email. It turns out she's started using some
voice "typing" package.

It's awful. Horrible. But *much* better than the recognition systems on
which my wife worked just a few years ago. Next year?

- Andrew

[Robert Perkins]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:47:57 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>In other words, since the vastly superior US phone system was engineered (by
>law) to the "Five Nines" standard (I.E.: 99.999% reliability), there wasn't
>as urgent a need for a viable alternative.

I just want to point out that I know from experience that the Swiss,
Austrian, and German landline telephone systems are all at least as
good as the U.S. system.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > In my world the only question that matters is this: Can it be done with
> > tools at hand?
>
> Of course it can. Use Wordpad.
>
> Seriously. HTML editors are a snare and a delusion, they produce
> lousy code, and they interfere with your ever learning what you're
> doing.

I really, really like Arachnophilia (http://www.arachnoid.com/) and it's
FREE! It's basically a set up from Wordpad/Editpad, in that it
"spellchecks" your HTML, and colour codes various parts to make it all
more viewable at source. (Content text is black, tags are blue, open tags
are purple, if you make a gross error you'll get lots of red text...)
Lovely program.

Arachnophilia 4 is Windows only, and is great.

Arach. 5 is Java-based, so it's platform independant but fiddlier to use.

The program ha got a bunch of wizards & helpers, but you can ignore then
and handcode to your hearts content if you like.

I was also not too disappointed with Netscape 7 Composer when I tried it
at a friend's a few weeks ago. It'll let you handcode, and the generated
code isn't total trash, but it still tries to control too much of the
coding process for you...

Brian.

[Brian Burger]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Also note that mobile phone based web-browsers are going to become
> > increasingly prevalent. For a business in the hotel industry, mobile
> > devices will be VERY important to you, as people will probably use their
> > GPRS or 3G phone to look up a hotel when they show up to Iowa City
> > airport on a cold and rainy night. Most of these phones don't run MSIE -
> > they run the Symbian browser. Write Microsoft-only web pages at your
> > peril!
>
> At last, a real REASON to write something that is "standardized".

Um... Jay, that's been the reason for HTML standards for a lot longer than
web-capable phones have been around! Windows has never been the only
platform, and Internet Exploiter has (thankfully) never been the only
browser going. Writing code that only works properly on Windows IE has
never been a good idea.

> Okay, here's a question for you: Can I make "standardized" web pages using
> FrontPage?

I'm sure you can, but it might involve either manual editing after
FrontPage has finished, or tweaking FP's options & defaults.

> In my world the only question that matters is this: Can it be done with
> tools at hand?

Editpad is a highly underrated little utility.

Brian.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <kkqub.38033$Dw6.176065@attbi_s02>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Okay, here's a question for you: Can I make "standardized" web pages using
> FrontPage?

No idea, never used it.
The only GUI HTML editor I've used was GNNpress back in about 1996.

My real objection to Front Page is the extensions - they are a nasty
security risk server-side. I did have one user on my server who really
wanted to use them, so I put them on a virtual machine on their own!
(One of the nice things about having a non-Microsoft server is that you
can create complete, separate virtual machines without having to pay
through the nose for licensing and having to pay through the nose
CPU-time wise)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <13sub.38831$Dw6.179091@attbi_s02>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Yeah, I've heard that. The reasons for this remains mysterious to me,
> although the explanation always given here is that it's because European
> (and Asian) land-line phone systems were so awful that the new (and better)
> cellular technology just exploded as a result.

The explanation is wrong. Britain, at least, has had a digital-based
telephone system for years - System X and System Y (modular digital
telephone exchanges developed by Plessey (IIRC) and Ericssen
respectively were around when I was a teenager. The last
electromechanical Strowger exchanges disappeared even from the lowest
priority rural areas years ago.

> In other words, since the vastly superior US phone system was engineered (by
> law) to the "Five Nines" standard (I.E.: 99.999% reliability), there wasn't
> as urgent a need for a viable alternative.

The British phone system was engineered to a similar standard. (On a
completely unrelated note, it's interesting how calls from the Isle of
Man to the United States are 7p a minute (roughly US $0.10/min) but
calls from the IOM to France are about 30p a minute...). However, when
cellphones started really picking up in popularity in Britain, all
providers Europe-wide had standardized on GSM (so wherever you went,
your phone would work) wheras coverage in the US at the same time was
poor and fragmented, even at a state level. In Europe, you could go
to any country and the phone would just work. In the USA, even in 2002,
you'd often end up paying through the nose on 'analog roaming' where
most of the features of your phone would stop working! Understandably,
the take-up would be lower in that environment. Not to mention you have
to pay for incoming calls, which you generally don't in Europe (so
a GBP20 top-up on my prepaid cellphone can last three months).

The standardization on GSM helped competition, too. The cellular market
in Britain at least is extremely competitive which helps drives prices
down. Because of this competition, the cell phone can free you from
your local phone monopoly. From the outset of GSM to today, this has
been really limited to voice, but with 3G emerging, mobile technologies
will also make the Internet service market more competitive and drive
down prices there, too.

It has little to do with the quality of US landlines, and a lot more
to do with the fragmented offerings of the cell companies, who are
trying desperately to behave like the fixed-line monopolies most of
them have come from. The cell companies in the US seem to be thinking
in landline terms, and trying to do the utmost to lock the customer
in rather than offering good value. That's why I never bought a cell
phone when I was living in the States - it just wasn't worthwhile.
You are stuck in long contracts, and more often than not your cell
phone is locked to a particular provider. With my phone, I just put
a different SIM card in to switch providers. Providers know this,
and know they have to provide a good service for me to not take the
thirty seconds or so it takes to pop the back off the phone and put
a different SIM card in.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Frank wrote:
> No offense taken. And FTR I can see your site just fine, I just can't view
> the videos because they are in proprietary formats. (There is no viewer for
> Linux for .wmv's as of now.)

Xine will show .wmv videos just fine. I watched the video using Xine.
The wmv format is just a slightly repackaged MPEG4 file that has been
"embraced and extended" by the Beast of Redmond.

> Even if I used MS as an OS, I still would use Mozilla just because I like
> the features it provides. If it came to pass that Mozilla was found to not
> work correctly because of non-compliance I would look for a new browser
> too. (Assuming it wasn't just a bug that would be fixed after being
> reported).

Mozilla has become much better than MSIE in recent years. So has
Konqueror. Windows users can run Mozilla too - if you run Windows, try
it and see how you like it compared to MSIE. I don't know what I'd do
without tabbed browsing now. I use Konqueror on Linux and *BSD, and
Mozilla on Windows.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Robert Perkins]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:42:15 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

>The standardization on GSM helped competition, too. The cellular market
>in Britain at least is extremely competitive which helps drives prices
>down. Because of this competition, the cell phone can free you from
>your local phone monopoly.

Cell phone competition in the U.S. is reasonably healthy, except in
low population-density areas. Even there, as for example in my
father-in-law's area in rural southern Utah, he's got two choices for
providers.

So the situation, while not terribly *standardized* on one kind of
technology, is also not as dire as people make it out to be. I'm on a
plan which permits the use of "daytime minutes" in an area reaching
from the southern border of the United States all the way to the
northern border, and 1000 miles inland or so from the west coast of
the country.

That particular plan is discontinued, but others like it exist which
cover the entire country in all the areas I can think of going. Many
of my neighbors simply don't bother with landline phones anymore.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Frank]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> In article >, Frank wrote:
>> No offense taken. And FTR I can see your site just fine, I just can't
>> view the videos because they are in proprietary formats. (There is no
>> viewer for Linux for .wmv's as of now.)
>
> Xine will show .wmv videos just fine. I watched the video using Xine.
> The wmv format is just a slightly repackaged MPEG4 file that has been
> "embraced and extended" by the Beast of Redmond.

Thanks for the tip. I thought I had installed just about every multimedia
app out there. It's getting harder to keep track of just what's available
for Linux lately.


>> Even if I used MS as an OS, I still would use Mozilla just because I like
>> the features it provides. If it came to pass that Mozilla was found to
>> not work correctly because of non-compliance I would look for a new
>> browser too. (Assuming it wasn't just a bug that would be fixed after
>> being reported).
>
> Mozilla has become much better than MSIE in recent years. So has
> Konqueror. Windows users can run Mozilla too - if you run Windows, try
> it and see how you like it compared to MSIE. I don't know what I'd do
> without tabbed browsing now. I use Konqueror on Linux and *BSD, and
> Mozilla on Windows.
>

Sing it brother, tabbed browsing has changed my life. The sky is bluer and I
can jump higher....

OK, maybe I exaggerate a little....But it really does make using the web
much nicer.
--
Frank....H