OT-Killing Pop-ups as a webmaster

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

"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
_______________

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

"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.

"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.

"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

"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.