In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Well, one of course wonders why nobody tested it with Firefox in the
first place..

TBH as someone who has written many webpages and created a number of
sites, I've mostly wondered why people haven't simply followed the basic
W3C recommened approach.

This is to use the simplest possible W3C compliant HTML for any task so
that you don't *need* to have to keep wondering if it will render with all
the browsers you've never heard of, let alone tried. The basic point of
HTML is that it indicates the logical status of the content items and the
relationship between them as structured content. It is then up to the
browser and its user to decide what to do with it.

The problem, I guess, is that many companies and website builders are
obsessed with 'eye candy' and fancy presentation rather than conveying
useful content. And tend to assume that their main aim is a site that looks
impressive on the machine their boss will use to view it. Who cares if the
customers can't make head or tail of it if the person who paid for it was
impressed. :-)

And others keep trying to force webpages to behave like printed text where
the producer has rigid control over layout and appearance. When the
strength of HTML is that each user should be able to set what layout, etc,
suits them.

Hence all the sites which come out with tiny dark blue text on a black
background, 'require' javascript, flash, etc, etc. In effect, putting as
many barriers as possible in the way of getting at the content in a form
that each user could otherwise tailor to their personal preferences/
situation.

Parallel here with the way TV programmes are presented. e.g. Horizon
documentaries with flashing lights and wobbly camerawork, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:02:08 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Well, one of course wonders why nobody tested it with Firefox in the
first place..

TBH as someone who has written many webpages and created a number of
sites, I've mostly wondered why people haven't simply followed the basic
W3C recommened approach.

This is to use the simplest possible W3C compliant HTML for any task so
that you don't *need* to have to keep wondering if it will render with all
the browsers you've never heard of, let alone tried. The basic point of
HTML is that it indicates the logical status of the content items and the
relationship between them as structured content. It is then up to the
browser and its user to decide what to do with it.

The problem, I guess, is that many companies and website builders are
obsessed with 'eye candy' and fancy presentation rather than conveying
useful content. And tend to assume that their main aim is a site that looks
impressive on the machine their boss will use to view it. Who cares if the
customers can't make head or tail of it if the person who paid for it was
impressed. :-)

And others keep trying to force webpages to behave like printed text where
the producer has rigid control over layout and appearance. When the
strength of HTML is that each user should be able to set what layout, etc,
suits them.

Hence all the sites which come out with tiny dark blue text on a black
background, 'require' javascript, flash, etc, etc. In effect, putting as
many barriers as possible in the way of getting at the content in a form
that each user could otherwise tailor to their personal preferences/
situation.

Parallel here with the way TV programmes are presented. e.g. Horizon
documentaries with flashing lights and wobbly camerawork, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

When all you have to present by way of content is a list of radio
programmes, you have to dress it up somewhat. Obviously they make
their revenue from the ads, so these need to be prominent and eye
catching; a little too much so in this case.

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver
more or less the straight goods.

d

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver more
or less the straight goods.

For me, one advantage of the iPlayer is that it has made it easier to
listen to the science programmes on BBC radio. These are often far better
than the ones on TV. More diverse and often willing to treat listeners
seriously and assume they aren't all utterly illiterate when it comes to
science and technology.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:01:51 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:02:08 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
Well, one of course wonders why nobody tested it with Firefox in the
first place..

TBH as someone who has written many webpages and created a number of
sites, I've mostly wondered why people haven't simply followed the basic
W3C recommened approach.

This is to use the simplest possible W3C compliant HTML for any task so
that you don't *need* to have to keep wondering if it will render with all
the browsers you've never heard of, let alone tried. The basic point of
HTML is that it indicates the logical status of the content items and the
relationship between them as structured content. It is then up to the
browser and its user to decide what to do with it.

The problem, I guess, is that many companies and website builders are
obsessed with 'eye candy' and fancy presentation rather than conveying
useful content. And tend to assume that their main aim is a site that looks
impressive on the machine their boss will use to view it. Who cares if the
customers can't make head or tail of it if the person who paid for it was
impressed. :-)

And others keep trying to force webpages to behave like printed text where
the producer has rigid control over layout and appearance. When the
strength of HTML is that each user should be able to set what layout, etc,
suits them.

Hence all the sites which come out with tiny dark blue text on a black
background, 'require' javascript, flash, etc, etc. In effect, putting as
many barriers as possible in the way of getting at the content in a form
that each user could otherwise tailor to their personal preferences/
situation.

Parallel here with the way TV programmes are presented. e.g. Horizon
documentaries with flashing lights and wobbly camerawork, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

When all you have to present by way of content is a list of radio
programmes, you have to dress it up somewhat. Obviously they make
their revenue from the ads, so these need to be prominent and eye
catching; a little too much so in this case.

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver
more or less the straight goods.


No, it's almost any programme with content that's slightly
intelligent. Recently watched the first of a series about Venice,
complete with steadicam swoops around the presenter and pointless
mocked up historical re-enactments done in slow motion blurry wobbly
vision. Likewise a series on the Victorians had a new (to me)
variation on rostrum camerawork. Point the camera at a picture at an
angle then move and zoom at the same time to produce a rather
disturbing effect which adds nothing to the programme or the picture.

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:55:56 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

When all you have to present by way of content is a list of radio
programmes, you have to dress it up somewhat. Obviously they make
their revenue from the ads, so these need to be prominent and eye
catching; a little too much so in this case.

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver
more or less the straight goods.


No, it's almost any programme with content that's slightly
intelligent. Recently watched the first of a series about Venice,
complete with steadicam swoops around the presenter and pointless
mocked up historical re-enactments done in slow motion blurry wobbly
vision. Likewise a series on the Victorians had a new (to me)
variation on rostrum camerawork. Point the camera at a picture at an
angle then move and zoom at the same time to produce a rather
disturbing effect which adds nothing to the programme or the picture.

You're dead right. And have you watched any of Andrew Marr's mega
embarrassing historical efforts (BBC last night, 9pm for instance).

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:55:56 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

When all you have to present by way of content is a list of radio
programmes, you have to dress it up somewhat. Obviously they make
their revenue from the ads, so these need to be prominent and eye
catching; a little too much so in this case.

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver
more or less the straight goods.


No, it's almost any programme with content that's slightly
intelligent. Recently watched the first of a series about Venice,
complete with steadicam swoops around the presenter and pointless
mocked up historical re-enactments done in slow motion blurry wobbly
vision. Likewise a series on the Victorians had a new (to me)
variation on rostrum camerawork. Point the camera at a picture at an
angle then move and zoom at the same time to produce a rather
disturbing effect which adds nothing to the programme or the picture.

You're dead right. And have you watched any of Andrew Marr's mega
embarrassing historical efforts (BBC last night, 9pm for instance).


Oh, good oh - factor in the Jehova's Witnesses weirdness and the Mithering
Old Lady's whining about computers (or whatever it was) I saw over Desperate
Don's shoulder and I think we can safely say all this screaming about
*non-audio OT* horse**** has been shot up the arse!

Rock on! :-)

(Bothered to hear about the Andrew Marr progs though - I've got at least 3
recordings stacked ready to go!! Maybe it's not as bad as they make out? ;-)

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:54:47 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

As to the TV programmes, have you noticed that it is only scientific
subjects that are treated this way? Anything else they can deliver more
or less the straight goods.

For me, one advantage of the iPlayer is that it has made it easier to
listen to the science programmes on BBC radio. These are often far better
than the ones on TV. More diverse and often willing to treat listeners
seriously and assume they aren't all utterly illiterate when it comes to
science and technology.


Radio is better, but not perfect. The Material World for example.
Every moderately serious piece is more or less obliged to finished
with an extremely weak joke from Quentin Cooper.

d

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:54:47 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Radio is better, but not perfect. The Material World for example. Every
moderately serious piece is more or less obliged to finished with an
extremely weak joke from Quentin Cooper.

As someone who is used to teaching undergrads I'm happy enough with the
idea of including occasional jokes, etc, as a way to keep an audience. :-)

And I was pleasantly surprised by the 'monkey cage' programme. I thought
I'd find it annoying, but actually enjoyed it overall.

I just wished someone had pointed out to the Minister that being able after
the event to decide that some 'social and economic impact' had stemmed from
some scientific research did not mean you could reliably predict this in
advance as a way to 'choose winners' to optimise the benefits of those
kinds. All too often the work with the largest long-term benefits showed no
sign that would be so *before* the work was done. So attempts to force
scientists to say in advance what 'impact' their results would have is a
recipy for work that has minimal new value. The point of 'research' in
science is that you *don't* already know what the outcome will be. If you
do, you don't need to do the research!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote

Don. This is wildly OT!
Gird your loins with sack-cloth and ashes immediately:-))


Iain, that would be reet funny if it weren't so tragic! What we have in
this group atm is a pair of serious whiners throwing a megastrop because
they can't have it all their own way in here!

Which, in turn, would also be reet funny if it wasn't so symptomatic of
the increasing Nazism and daily erosion of civil liberties we seem to be
experiencing everywhere in the 'West' these days - I know you have the
same thing in Finland, having just read an account of the extraordinarily
diligent policing of the HD (Harley Davidson this time :-) European
Federation '09 Super Rally' which recently took place in Seinäjoki....

Finland is much more of a police state than perhaps it should be, but
the normal citizen is unaffected.

There have been "scuffles" in past years at motorcylce gatherings, with
riders carrying firearms, and the police were determined it had to stop.
It has. When the motorcyclists show that they can behaive themselves,
they will be accorded different treatment.

But this is not the first time that the police here have over-reacted.
Personally, I am very much against the police, or anyone else for
that matter, carryting guns, but I do approve of law and order taking
a firm hand.

The splendid old-fashion concept of "softly softly" policing, is unique to
Britain, and probably changing there too.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote

Don. This is wildly OT!
Gird your loins with sack-cloth and ashes immediately:-))


Iain, that would be reet funny if it weren't so tragic! What we have in
this group atm is a pair of serious whiners throwing a megastrop because
they can't have it all their own way in here!

Which, in turn, would also be reet funny if it wasn't so symptomatic of
the increasing Nazism and daily erosion of civil liberties we seem to be
experiencing everywhere in the 'West' these days - I know you have the
same thing in Finland, having just read an account of the extraordinarily
diligent policing of the HD (Harley Davidson this time :-) European
Federation '09 Super Rally' which recently took place in Seinäjoki....

Finland is much more of a police state than perhaps it should be, but
the normal citizen is unaffected.

There have been "scuffles" in past years at motorcylce gatherings, with
riders carrying firearms, and the police were determined it had to stop.
It has. When the motorcyclists show that they can behaive themselves,
they will be accorded different treatment.

But this is not the first time that the police here have over-reacted.
Personally, I am very much against the police, or anyone else for
that matter, carryting guns, but I do approve of law and order taking
a firm hand.

The splendid old-fashion concept of "softly softly" policing, is unique to
Britain, and probably changing there too.


No, make that 'soft ****' policing and it's worse than ever - the simplest
encounter with the police seems to involve them calling everybody 'mate' and
exacerbating every situation, however trivial, into an ultimately inevitable
flare up! Absolute *******!

Swim Bo (Moira to you) has bought me another maggie* (she reads them on the
train) and there's yet again more stuff about Finland and Finnish
bike-builders in it! I make that three in a row now!!

(Finland must be hoaching with Harrrleees!! :-)


*All tits and bikes - oh, and pix of scantily-clad girls here and there!!
:-)