last updated:12 Feb 2003 06: 54 Webword time, or 12 Feb 2003 11:54 UK time
|
 |
|
(Comments added for week ending Sun 09 Feb 2003) | View Other Weeks
|
|
| Tablet PC: A solution searching for a problem | Sun 09 Feb |
| Heres the biggest problem with tablet PCs: People drop things. Everyone has dropped their PDAs or mobile phones at least once, and have survived to tell about it. But current tablet PC design seems to assume that dropping precious things is not a human thing to do. (Comments: Thank you Daniel Szuc.) |
| Sun 09 Feb 12:40 | Anonymous | I want a tablet PC that does three things: e-mail, web browsing, and viewing of common file attachments. I don't care about speed or the latest hardware or what OS it runs. Give me a freak'n basic computer with basic feature set, and give it to me for $300.
I will buy one for my mother, my father, my grandparents and every other offline person I know. For $600 give me the same tablet PC running a voice synthesizer and magnification software for visually impaired users. Save those people months of learning archaic Windows navigation and commands when all they want to do is to use e-mail and access the web.
How long does it take the private sector to figure out why offline people are still offline? Instead we endure WebTV, handheld e-mail devices and a load of other gizmos that don't meet our needs. Yeeeeeeeeeeesh! |
|
| Bleeding Edge Usability | Fri 07 Feb |
| (v-2.org) Adding to the usability woes afflicting Liquid Bandage, you have to be able to put eyes on the wound to apply it properly, in a way that is not true of traditional bandages. |
| Fri 07 Feb 22:18 | Lydia | I could not read this whole article, but I can say that the liquid bandage is not designed to be used when you have freshly cut your finger. The instructions specifically warn away from such a use (at least, they did on the package I used).
What liquid bandage is terrific for is helping you heal really fast with minimal or no scarring.
I fell against a concrete wall last month (there was a groove that my foot got trapped and twisted in), and as I reached for purchase, the back of my hand scraped along the wall as I fell. It tore the first couple of layers off of an area about 3 inches in diameter. Very, very nasty. It started bleeding right away in a disturbing droplet pattern. The first thing I thought when I looked at it (besides 'AAAAAAAAAAAUGGGHRRGHGH!' was 'oh, that'll scar something awful')
After dressing it to stop bleeding and messing around for a few days with traditional bandages (I am very squemish about what happens when you heal scrapes), I tried the liquid bandage and it was awesome - it formed a seal and started healing immediately. In about five days, everything was healed over. I've only got a faint scar that is fading every day. In a few months, it won't even be there. Five days. |
| Sat 08 Feb 02:14 | Adam Greenfield | Lydia, Band-Aid Liquid Bandage explicitly includes the wording 'First Aid Product' on the packaging, and there were no such disclaimers on this packaging. (I'm wondering whose product you used.)
This is the package copy, stet:
'USES: Covers and Protects minor cuts and scrapes. Also great for friction blisters, bothersome finegrnails, finger cracks and paper cuts.'
There is the usual boilerplate warning FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCIES, SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP on the side of the package, mostly as CYA in case someone tries to sue after they are unable to plug a GSW with Liquid Bandage. But there's nothing else that suggests or implies in any way that the product is unsuitable for first aid use - just the opposite, as I've pointed out.
I do agree that, under the right circumstances, it does everything you'd want it to, and more. It's just not very easy to use properly under the actual conditions in which use would be attempted. |
| Sat 08 Feb 22:19 | Anonymous | Steps 1 through 4 attributed to the 'full minute or more to get Liquid Bandage on' only apply to your first use, unless you're the type of person who stores a medical bottle in its full original packaging. Me? I put the bottle in my medicine cabinet and recycle the packaging. The bottle's label contains instructions in case I need them in the future.
Lest this be lost in the discussion, liquid bandages are not bad. I just started using a product called New-Skin. Who makes it? I didn't know. When I saw the box in the store it looked like a generic alternative to the name brand offerings, and it was less expensive, so I bought it.
Here are my steps to apply New-Skin:
1. Uncap bottle
2. Apply liquid with brush.
3. Wait for fluid to seal wound.
Here are the instructions on the box:
1. Clean affected area
2. Apply a small amount on the area 1-3 times daily
3. Let dry
4. A second coating may be applied for extra protection.
Well, dang, the product is so simple the manufacturer doesn't need to explain in detail how to apply the product. If you've ever seen a paint brush used, you'll be OK. It apparently also comes in spray form for large areas. |
| Sat 08 Feb 22:29 | Anonymous | er, upon further reading, perhaps you couldn't skip all four first steps. I guess you need the packaging or tray or ? to store your applicator and/or other supplies. Sounds convoluted. I'll stick with the paint brush method. |
| Sat 08 Feb 23:27 | Doctor Kelly Brackett | How about you actually read the article before commenting? |
| Sun 09 Feb 00:03 | Anonymous | How about you not be rude? |
| Sun 09 Feb 00:29 | Adam Greenfield | Calm down, kids.
'Doctor Kelly,' thank you, I too would like it if everyone read every word before posting (especially when the piece in question is one of mine!), but that's simply not the way of the world. 'Marcus' is entitled to his POV.
'Marcus,' is New-Skin acetone-based, by any chance? |
| Sun 09 Feb 00:49 | Anonymous | Active ingredient: 8-hydroxyquinoline 1%
Inactive ingredients: alcohol 6.7%, oil of cloves, pyroxylin solution.
If I correctly infer where you're going with your question, I have not experienced a sting applying it, and the smell of the liquid doesn't bother me. I regularly toss alcohol or hydrogenperoxide on cuts when cleaning them anyway -- and those liquids do sting, but I accept that as normal. The smell of cough syrup is 10 times worse. I personally would describe the odor as 'extreme bubble gum.' |
| Sun 09 Feb 01:36 | Adam Greenfield | 'Marcus,' you have indeed inferred correctly.
W/R/T sting & stink, or perceived sting & stink, all I can say is: to each their own. |
| Sun 09 Feb 11:08 | Anonymous | Oooh! Oooh! Could this be the situation?
Company A listens to its focus group that says the liquid stinks and stings. White Coats devise a workaround that eliminates user complaints, but severely complicates use of the product.
Company B listens to its focus group, but figures people will accept a brief occasional sting during application and will look past the odor as the liquid dries. Users find using the product easy.
Could this be a case of Company A's White Coats bending over backwards to please the customer and ending up producing a product the customers don't like? |
|
| Breadcrumb Navigation: An Exploratory Study of Usage | Wed 05 Feb |
| This exploratory study was conducted to determine whether participants used the breadcrumb trail as a navigational tool within a site. We found the overall usage of the breadcrumb in site navigation to be low. Breadcrumb users were not found to be more efficient than non breadcrumb users. (Comments: Do not miss the February 2003 SURL Usability News. It is full of excellent research. Thanks Ron Zeno!) |
| Thu 06 Feb 07:55 | Boyink | Findings based on studying two sites, one of which is Google?
Sorry, not impressed. |
| Thu 06 Feb 08:41 | John S. Rhodes | Boyink,
I still think that this research is valuable. Even with the limited scope, it is better than most research I have seen on this topic. Do you know of better data on this exact topic? By the way, the title clearly includes the word 'exploratory', which is a good flag to take the results with a dose of skepticism. |
| Thu 06 Feb 11:11 | Ron Zeno | It's an exploratory study, so take it for what it's worth:
This exploratory study was conducted to determine whether participants used the breadcrumb trail as a navigational tool within a site. We found the overall usage of the breadcrumb in site navigation to be low. Breadcrumb users were not found to be more efficient than users who did not use the breadcrumb. Participants used a variety of navigational means, such as the Back button, left and top navigation bars, and searching to find the information instead of or in addition to the breadcrumb tool.' |
| Thu 06 Feb 11:12 | Boyink | Better data, no. Would love to see it as I'm a fan of breadcrumbs but would like to know more about how valuable they are to 'most people'.
But please, don't include search sites - most of us aren't building those. Include more eCommerce sites and marketing sites, with a healthy dose of B2B-focused ones since that's where most of us, I think, earn our income. |
| Sun 09 Feb 02:11 | Ryan | Also, breadcrumbs lose their value as soon as they are either less consistent, or not the primary means of navigation, anyone else agree/disagree? This didn’t measure whether or not the used them for site placement either did it? |
|
| I am extraordinarily angry. | Mon 03 Feb |
| I think your site libelous. I certainly think your behaviour is grossly unprofessional. You have been reckless and may even have jeopardised the safety of my family as well as myself. |
| Mon 03 Feb 04:21 | Mac | Here is the mail (edited to protect the innocent) that I received this morning :
---------------------------
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: chris@firstcircle.co.uk
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 05:53
Subject : WAR!!!! You have a 24 hour warning
Mr. McEvoy,
I was horrified to be told by ****************** that I had 'Come out
against a war in Iraq.' I have a deliberate policy of not expressing
political views in public and I hate the idea of others doing so on my
behalf.
You have placed your anti-war banner above more than 100 HCI professionals'
photographs on your web site.
If ********** thought I therefore supported your political campaign, then
no doubt many other viewers of your web site will think likewise.
I am extraordinarily angry. I think your site libelous. I certainly think
your behaviour is grossly unprofessional. You have been reckless and may
even have jeopardised the safety of my family as well as myself.
If you do not remove your anti-war banner from above the photographs of
every person whose permission you do not have to support your political
campaign, then I will be forced to make public what you have done. You have
24 hours.
P.S. If you just remove your banner from above my photograph, or you just
remove all reference to me on your web site, then I will not consider this
satisfactory.
-----------------------
What would you do? |
| Mon 03 Feb 04:51 | Anil | Eh, it's pretty easy to just put up a message that says 'above is a banner that is placed by the site's host and may not represent the opinions of people mentioned or referenced below.' Plus, it's a polite thing to do. |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:05 | MadMan | Simple. Remove his photograph. Then he has no case whatsoever. Once that's done, you're only presenting your own views.
If you remove references to him, what's left? |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:44 | Martin Sutherland | There is a certain logical flaw in thinking that if your name and picture appears on the same page as a banner, then you agree with or endorse that banner. If the Times runs a banner ad for Microsoft on its home page, and at the same time runs an article on Saddam Hussein, does that imply that Saddam Hussein is heartily in favour of Microsoft products?
However, just because a line of reasoning is logically flawed, doesn't mean that people won't follow it. (Insert obvious example of your choice here.) And just because someone is wrong doesn't mean they will be any less upset by whatever incorrect conclusions they arrive at. So you have to deal with this person's anger.
If you want to antagonize him (I'll stick with the male pronoun for the moment), that's easy to do. Either do nothing, or point out that he's wrong. (Sometimes it's fun to piss people off. It gives you an outlet for your own aggression.)
If you respect this person, or even if you don't, but think he can damage your reputation with people you do respect, then you ought to apologize, and find out what he would like done. It may be something as simple as putting a disclaimer above the page of people's photos (is this the usability connections page?). You could explain how you derived your statistics, and therefore why the people are listed. You could even write that if someone doesn't want to be listed, they can email you to have their name removed.
Another aspect to consider is that you have shown this person's photo on your page. Speaking from recent personal experience, people can get very upset when their photos or likenesses are used in ways they are not happy with. Really, quite disproportionately upset. In my case, someone used a photograph of my son on their own web page, and claimed that this was a picture of their son.
I think your correspondent is wrong in his conclusions, but he probably deserves consideration for his feelings. |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:52 | Martin Sutherland | Addendum: I just re-read the email, and of course the correspondent has already said what he wants you to do: take down the banner. Don't do that. By asking you to remove your banner, he is effectively trying to force you to accept his political opinion. There are other ways to address his grievances without compromising either of your positions. |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:59 | Adam Greenfield | Caught in a slight bind, here.
On the one hand, he sounds like a self-righteous ween. On the other, I can certainly see myself writing *the selfsame letter* if Chris' banner had, for just one example, expressed support for war in Iraq.
In this instance, I think commonsense and good faith - qualities with which Chris is abundantly endowed - counsel the addition of a fairly prominent disclaimer.
Regarding the stated desire of the letter-writer. Though it is his wish to not express political views in public, and such wishes should always be respected, I myself find that silence is the voice of complicity. And where politeness and the discourse of soi-disant 'professionalism' compel silence, they should be discarded, immediately and with no compunction. |
| Mon 03 Feb 06:46 | Anonymous | Bomb him |
| Mon 03 Feb 07:45 | Matt Round | I think the way the banner's presented may be the problem, it looks like it may be the page/section title, rather than some kind of site-wide banner. If there was a clear Usability Views strip across the top of the page with the Don't Attack Iraq stuff held within a clearly defined areas then there'd be less potential for confusion.
Basically the anti-war banner needs to be visually associated with the site, or the site's owner, rather than the page and its content. |
| Mon 03 Feb 07:55 | glasshaus Bruce | I've got ten pounds ready to start a 'Free The Web Word One' campaign, should Mac get the 3am knock on the door. |
| Mon 03 Feb 08:57 | Frank Lynch | OK, I'll be honest with you: coming to the page the way I did, I had a usability problem, because I didn't know what I was looking at.
Perhaps it's more obvious to someone who gets to the page 'organically,' that is, by following a link within your site, and what's there confirms their expectations. But for someone who comes to the page not knowing what to expect, it's not clear what the page is. This could well be how your offended party got there, and could be part of the issue. At any rate, if this link were shared with one person who got there 'non-organically', it could well happen again to others, through an email or by seeing the page come up in a search engine, any number of paths.
My recommendations:
Make the dimensions of the banner conform more to standard advertising banner dimensions, so it looks like an ad and not a title for the page
Put a small 'Advertisement' label above the image
Change/Increase the font for the label 'userati - connections' so it becomes more apparent that this is the point of your page (and also consider something which communicates the intent of the page better? Userati prominence or something?)
Change the photos which say 'userati - views', because 'views' could be construed as being their political views
But I do not suggest removing your banner: your views are valuable. You just need to break the connection between the banner and the page content. |
| Mon 03 Feb 09:14 | Frank Lynch | Just to add one more thing about the connection between the banner and the page:
If you were to look for a 'home' button on the page, where would you look? Right where the banner is, I think — which makes it seem as if the site is about protesting against war in Iraq, and says something about the content on the page.
I'm afraid it is about usability. (But you can take my views with a grain of salt: I'm not a usability practitioner, only someone who used to pay a lot for it and got well-read in the process.) |
| Mon 03 Feb 09:23 | Frank Lynch | Martin: Actually, the correspondent did not say removing his picture and references was what he/she wanted. It was indicated this would not be sufficient: 'If you just remove your banner from above my photograph, or you just remove all reference to me on your web site, then I will not consider this satisfactory.' More is desired. |
| Mon 03 Feb 09:29 | daniel szuc | Sir Mac,
Remove reference to the person, but do not change your views or perspective. As it is your own.
Also quite like the idea of making the division clearer between the 'userati' and 'the banner' itself (as has been mentioned above) |
| Mon 03 Feb 09:30 | Cindy | Agree with Frank. It does look like the image is connected to the content. I honestly would remove it and put it somewhere in context to your own opinions not the images and names of others. |
| Mon 03 Feb 09:36 | Flaming Drag Queen | Simple. If anything, it should be an honor to be listed on the page. Remove all mention of the gentleman from the page. |
| Mon 03 Feb 09:41 | daniel szuc | Good call Flaming Drag Queen but the person posting could also be a 'woman' ... ('two possibilities Mr. Smart' - Harry Hoo from Get Smart) |
| Mon 03 Feb 10:20 | Flaming Drag Queen | Oh no honey, I don't think so. I was being ladylike in referring to this person as a gentleman. My original wording conveyed my view that the author is a testosterone-filled brute. |
| Mon 03 Feb 10:27 | daniel szuc | ;) |
| Mon 03 Feb 12:27 | Anonymous | It's a dumb page. The banner is dumb, the cryptic listing is dumb, combining the two together is even dumber.
Posting a complaint to a list in order to get moral support, instead of thinking and fixing your design, is pretty dumb too.
The banner has a typo, it should be 'Don't attack, Iraq'. The ceasefire from Hussein's invasion of Kuwait has been broken repeatedly, and the question now is how to stop his warring. Get it right.
It would also be better if you changed the caption to 'Resistance to tyranny is not futile.' Or maybe even 'Question Their Authority, Not Mine', that's a little more descriptive of the left these days.
But your page? Fix it, it's dumb. |
| Mon 03 Feb 14:29 | Mac | Thank you all for the comments (public and private). Especially the person who offered advice and support, even though they don't agree with my views.
These sort of things cause me a lot of worry and upset as I hate to know that other people are thinking badly of me. I am not as confident in my views and actions as I may possibly appear, and very much appreciate the support from the webworders. I know that I could avoid any upset to myself by keeping my mouth shut, but I have spent too much of my life doing this and that is no longer an option for me.
Here is the reply I have just sent off.
---------------------------
From: chris@firstcircle.co.uk
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:17
Subject : RE: WAR!!!! You have a 24 hour warning
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I would like to apologise for any upset caused to you because of my personal views on the war against Iraq that appear on my website.
I have now changed the format of the pages concerned so that it is no longer possible for people to mis-understand whose views are represented.
As well as changing the format of my anti-war banner, I have also added a link to a page which explains my actions.
I have not removed any references to you from the userati list as you have not specificially requested this. If you would like to be removed from the list, please let me know and I will remove you as soon as I can. (Please note, that this may take two or three days.)
Yours Sincerely,
Chris McEvoy
--------------------------- |
| Mon 03 Feb 16:31 | Anonymous | I wonder if that was Jakob.. really... sounds like him.. 'if you dont....' :oppppp |
| Mon 03 Feb 16:47 | Ron Zeno | You should have posted both names in the email, though I agree that you shouldn't post the return email address.
As for your solution: 'May not represent' is a stock phrase, but it's rather misleading. Better to take sole responsibility for the banner and clearly state that it is not related to anything else on the page - the opinions of people listed on the page are irrelevant.
What's the purpose of the page? How are visitors supposed to infer your intent? Placing that banner on a page with an extremely unclear purpose was a mistake. Too bad the author of the email (and the person who referred it) wasn't able to figure this out. |
| Mon 03 Feb 17:06 | Dennis G. Jerz | I think this thread IS about usability. The link, banner, and disclaimer push the content of the site down pretty far, adding additional visual noise. Now that I know what the site is for, I can ignore this visual noise, but putting the political information in its own box to the right of the main content would preserve usability and also continue to give Chris a platform that makes him feel rewarded for offering this free service. And the apologetic tone of the dislcaimer makes it more than clear that Chris is responding to a specific concern by hacking, rather than re-designing. |
| Mon 03 Feb 18:04 | Lyle Kantrovich | Chris,
I'll echo what others have said here, but maybe I can summarize it a bit better.
1. Your site is damn amazing (in a good way) - I've often been fascinated by the neat data you've been able to highlight and wonder how you do it.
2. I intend to use the data to achieve world domination by the end of 2003.
3. Your site design needs some work.
3a. It needs better navigation. Start with 'home' and 'about this site.'
3b. Pages need explanations. (e.g. on http://www.usabilityviews.com/userati_lyle_kantrovich.html, I've no idea what all the numbers mean exactly. I don't know how you gather this data or where it comes from. I don't know what I can infer from it or how it might be useful. I don't know what a grunt like me did to be included in such a neat list of cool people. I don't know how to send you a photo of myself (or a better looking underwear model with a 'six pack' in his midsection instead of a keg) to update my info. I don't know what distinguishes articles worthy of indexing from others - why aren't webword posts included in the indes or various blog posts (hint, hint)? Explaining what's on each page would go a long way toward distinguishing the names IN the content from the AUTHOR/GENERATOR OF the content.
4. The anti-war ad is kinda big, and placement is poor. Research shows it'll get more attention if you move it further down into the content. :) Right now, it doesn't really look like an ad - appears more like content at first look.
5. It's hard to tell WHAT site I'm on - it needs more 'branding' - 'usability views' images look like ads too - or info-photos. On http://www.usabilityviews.com/index.html it looks like the site is called 'The A to Z of Usability', but I think that's really the tagline. Keep it simple, just stick with good old styled text.
6. I'm sure there are a number of us who'd be happy to help.
7. While I don't necessarily agree with the anti-war message (it's not that simple in my book), I only wish there were enough people who cared about usability enough to generate enough traffic on your small rather new site, and that those people somehow cared enough about me and my views on politics to create any personal issues for me. I can see where someone more well known and more dependent on the usability community for their livelihood would care more though. (e.g. If I were Jakob or Jared or Don)
8. One of the first two points above are false. Visit my site to find out which one. (Yeah, that's a shameless plug, I know, so bomb me. :)
Okay, maybe I can't summarize it better.
Anyway, keep up the good work. And kudos for using this community and opening your site up for critique. |
| Mon 03 Feb 21:24 | Anonymous | Mac, why does the anti-war graphic feature a zeppelin in a death spiral? |
| Tue 04 Feb 02:56 | Mac | It isn't Jakob, and I think it would be unfair to name names unless the other party makes some kind of public statement.
Damn it, I am going to have to move that re-design and explanation pages up my priority list.
I hope that the somewhat hurried changes I made yesterday make a confused situation a bit clearer, but I can see that there is still plenty of room for improvement.
I think that the people who have said that this IS about usability are right on the money.
I would love to be able to take the banner down as I never intended to have a message/ad banner anywhere on the site. I will take it down when I think that it no longer serves a purpose.
I don't actually want the anti-war message to look like an ad, and I am happy for it to take up my most expensive screen real-estate.
On a matter of principle, I would prefer to take my site down for the duration and replace it with one anti-war page, rather than remove the banner.
I WILL remove the banner when the Iraq issue is resolved (one way or another). I am sincerely hoping that the host of large demonstrations around the world on Feb 15th will lead to a cancellation of plans for an invasion of Iraq, but I fear that Bush and Blair will go ahead with their plans no matter what.
I do not like to force my political views onto other people, but this is the first time in my living memory that an anti-war movement has an opportunity to stop a war before it starts.
Lyle, send me a photo and I will publish it on your page. As to including references to blog-posts on UV, I am definitely looking at that. Currently I am thinking about taking some RSS feeds from a careful selection of blogs (hint, hint) to produce a 'latest blog items' view. But as I only update the site twice or so a week, it would not always be up to date. It would probably be better if I produced some kind of combined index for some blogs, perhaps along the same lines as my WebWord one? |
| Tue 04 Feb 03:36 | Adam Greenfield | I'd be innarested in seeing that, actually. |
| Tue 04 Feb 09:48 | Anonymous | Adam, this is no time to be mocking the president. |
| Tue 04 Feb 12:35 | JB | When is the right time to mock him? |
| Tue 04 Feb 12:49 | Ron Zeno | I am going to have to move that re-design and explanation pages up my priority list.
Don't make a big deal of it short-term. There are many, simple solutions that will give you most of the improvement you're looking for, such as placing a subtitle under the current title, 'Userati - Connections', that explains what the page is. (I'm not going to take a guess as to what your purpose of the page is. If you'll explain it here in the commentary, then I'm sure you'll get many good suggestions on how to easily improve the page.) |
| Tue 04 Feb 13:54 | MadMan | When is the right time to mock him?
Maybe when the situation is more peacefulable.
(hey, you folks voted for him. ;) |
| Tue 04 Feb 15:30 | Lydia | Hey, Mac, I didn't read all the comments on this, so I might be repeating what you have already heard, but my feeling is that you should probably take the banner down to be safe.
The problem here is that the Userati site may be considered a participatory site by the people who visit. In other words, they might assume that the people on the list asked to be there. This could cause some confusion if an anti-war banner is posted.
Keep your banner on your pages, the ones that have your views and commentary, but take it off of 'community' pages.
That said, I do like the line you put about views not being shared by those listed below, but if it were me I would take it off altogether just to be safe. |
| Wed 05 Feb 00:55 | Lyle Kantrovich | Mac,
I respect your desire to promote your opinions on the topic of war, and also your receptiveness to a site critique (as you know, this is a tough crowd). I say, it's a personal site, so you should express your views as you wish - it adds color and personality to the site. When we talk about 'usability', we talk in terms of particular site goals (or our assumptions of site goals in this case). War political content and usability community content are strange bedfellows. But hey, who says you have to color inside the lines?
Warning - taking this off a usability topic....
You said you 'fear that Bush and Blair will go ahead with their plans no matter what.' Will you also maintain an anti-war stance (we should never attack anyone), no matter what? When it comes to global politics, is being a pacifist better than being a war-hawk? I definitely understand why people have questions about how we could justify attacking Iraq. I think there's already enough justification, but maybe I trust the government more than others. My opinion is that we likely don't know all the rationale for a war, and that some information should be kept secret in the interest of our nations' security as well as for the safety of our armed forces and intelligence operations.
In my opinion war is a necessary evil - unfortunately, there are times when it must exist in the world. 'True Peace' - like 'Perfect Design' doesn't really exist in this world. 'Times of peace' and 'designs' are usually negotiated, full of trade-offs, and therefore no one's ever totally satisfied with the results. Wars and battles are things you have to suffer through to get either peace or a final design.
(Ok, how blatant was that attempt to swerve back on topic?)
Peace, y'all! Maybe it'll take war to get there... |
| Wed 05 Feb 04:00 | Adam Greenfield | I dunno, man. I was in the US Army for five years, four of 'em in special operations. I don't think war is much of an answer to anything.
Preempt, prevent, isolate, undermine, marginalize, contain: yes. But by the time you're talking about major combined-arms operations, IMO you have failed and failed badly. |
| Wed 05 Feb 04:12 | daniel szuc | Good call Adam.
On a recent BBC panel discussing the current situation and possible war -
'war is the result of politics not working and should not be used as a tool for politicians ...' something like that anyway. |
| Wed 05 Feb 04:17 | Mac | I received this mail this morning.
--------------------------------
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: Chris McEvoy
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 06:43:35 -0000
Subject: Thank you
Thank you. I was glad to see that this has caused Google to change its listings as well.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Ph.D
--------------------------------
Onto the 'war'. I am by no means a wooly liberal pacifist (no offence intended), but I do believe that there is absolutely no justification for war against Iraq. |
| Wed 05 Feb 07:05 | Mac | In case of any confusion. The 'Thank You' mail did come from the same person as the 'I think your site libelous' person.
I am glad that my attempt to respond reasonably (I know I'm a bit of a woos) recieved such a positive response, and I am glad that it didn't erupt into a big conflict kind of thing. Maybe we should send a copy of this thread to Bush and Blair?
I would like to say 'Thank You' again, to everyone who has helped me out with comments and advice. It has made a big difference to how I dealt with this situation. |
| Wed 05 Feb 08:56 | daniel szuc | Well done Mac attack! |
| Wed 05 Feb 09:25 | Adam Greenfield | Hooah.
; . ) |
| Wed 05 Feb 12:58 | Anonymous | '...but I do believe that there is absolutely no justification for war against Iraq.'
Belief in war, or not, is nonsensical. Either there is evidence of evil, or there is not evidence of evil. If and only if there is evidence of evil, as defined by the powers-that-be, then action should be taken. The action might be nothing or the action might be war.
There should be no belief in war, just as there should be no 'belief' in evidence or evil. You have evidence or not, and if you do you act based on evidence. Then again, people could decide to be worthless fucks and kill without evidence of evil. |
| Wed 05 Feb 13:21 | glasshaus Bruce | So I get to keep my ten pounds then. I'll save it for some beer on
february 15th |
| Wed 05 Feb 13:31 | Dennis G. Jerz | Re: there should be no 'belief' in evidence or evil. You have evidence or not, and if you do you act based on evidence.
What counts as evidence -- testimony from a psychic? Eyewitness reports from political refugees? Satellite data that could very well have been photoshopped, captioned, or even cropped to emphasize the validity of a particular claim for or against war? Agreeing to assent to whatever the 'powers that be' decide is vague -- do you mean a unversal divine moral constant, or do you mean the political powers that happen to be in charge at the moment? What if the powers that be tell you take their word for evidence? And what if they told you that at gunpoint and killed you if you dissented?
We might be able to find evidence that Iraq has a certain cache of weapons; if so, it's perfectly fair to say that such a cache 'violates a UN treaty' or 'poses a serious threat to the stability of the reason' or even 'will drive the cost of oil too high'. While I'm far from a moral relativist, I think it's not too much of a stretch to recognize that what one person sees as a good, another person can see as an evil.
If you reply to my questions with an item-by-item refutation, you're missing the point. All evidence has to be weighed by reasonable people -- it's not evidence unless it's perceived by an observer, who can then choose how to intepret it and whether to act on it.
Mac has seen some of the evidence -- enough to make a judgment that, based on his understanding of the situation, he does not believe that war is necessary.
So, 'Kill When Necessary,' I find your I'm waiting to hear what Mac has to say about Lyle's questions regarding whether any peace is automatically a good peace, or whether Mac might possibly admit that there would be a situation that might justify war. If Mac is a pacifist in principle, that's different from his claim that this particular war is unjust.
Meanwhile, I shall laugh merrily at KWN's implicit claim that evidence merely drops down from heaven, absolving the perciever from resonding to it with credence or skepticism, as the situation warrants. Belief is an important part of human psychology; we are subjective creatures and we are fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. |
| Wed 05 Feb 14:15 | Anonymous | What if the powers that be tell you take their word for evidence? And what if they told you that at gunpoint and killed you if you dissented?
I totally, completely agree with this statement... but I do have to ask, do we have evidence that they don't already do this? In my opinion, we have evidence that they DO! What is it supposed to mean 'I don't care what the whole wide world has to say, if Saddam doesnt do exactly as I say, when I say it, the way I want it then I will give that as evidence that this man has nuclear weapons and I will attack!..' And I can't believe that people buy this *@#$&$#@%...
To me there is nothing that can justify war. Absolutely nothing can fully justify war... Because Saddam is a piece of crap, does it mean that we should kill all the innocent people over there, even those who want to get rid of him? Please, I don't want to hear: 'In war the innocent die.. nothing we can do about it..' That's absolutely ridiculous. Let's change the scale, drive by shootings, in the eyes of the gangs involved, can be viewed as war. They are trying to mark their territory and have their way, just as our 'leader' is doing at the moment. When innocent people get killed during a drive by shooting, it's the gang's fault, and everybody looks at it and says 'ridiculous, stupid, idiotic, an innocent life lost because of some suckers'...
Then look at war from an environmentalist perspective... you think all those chemicals they use makes the world a better place to live in? Do you actually think that it won't have a negative effect on the environment?
Then, do you actually think that by attacking Iraq and getting rid of Saddam along with thousands of innocent people is going to make the United States a friend of the Arabs and that they will stop bugging us? Or are you ignoring the fact that the problem does not just lie under Saddam? You think that just getting rid of Saddam or Bin Laden is going to be the best solution to our threats?
If you really do, I beg of you to please 'enlighten' me of this situation and give me the logic. Because I am not following that I can't even see how this can be any kind of reasoning.
Plus, why aren't they using one of those 'super weapons' they've created where Bush can push the button while in the bathroom in D.C and chop Saddam's head off within minutes through GPS? Why not do that if our intention is seriously not to harm innocent people but save them? If there are nuclear weapons, why doesnt the possibility of Saddam launching it once we attack ever come up? Since it's at such a top secret location and we have no idea where it is how can we be so sure?
It doesnt add up.. and it definitely does NOT justify war, if anything it unjustifies it. |
| Wed 05 Feb 15:16 | Mac | In my opinion war is a necessary evil - Lyle
I believe that this is the view of the vast majority of people towards the general concept of war. This is why I do not describe myself as a pacifist, as I can imagine situations where I would possibly 'join up' and take part in a war. But I hope that I would have done everything possible to help prevent a war in the first place.
However, I think that 'War' has become a political acceptable tool to use in to project power around the world, and I don;t just mean the United States. Russia is using the 'war against terror' to pacify the Chechens.
In my opinion, war should only ever be considered at all, when all possible alternatives have been exhausted and the reasons for war being waged are compelling.
In the UK 84% of people are opposed to war with Iraq without UN approval and 44% opposed to war in any circumstances.
At some point in history it was acceptable for us to see other races as inferior, women as property and working class people as sub-human. (Please Note: I am not trying to imply that I am in any way more 'enlightened' than anyone else because of my anti-war stance).
During the last Gulf War I went on demonstrations carrying placards that read 'Victory To The Iraqi People'. In recent years I have been involved in supporting asylum seekers in the UK, including many from Iraq. I have talked to veterans of the last war, whose stories should turn anyone against war.
This time around, many more people around the world are against this war, and they are taking action to try and prevent this one.
I will be marching on the 15th Feb, and I would be more than happy carrying a banner stating 'Justice For The Iraqi People'. |
| Thu 06 Feb 02:41 | Lyle Kantrovich | Good discussion.
I wonder though, when can we say 'we've done everything possible to avoid war?' What does that mean, really?
Who do we trust? Powell was surprisingly pretty anti-war not that long ago - he was a big advocate of sending inpectors in and trying additional ways of working things out. Saddam has a history of using chemical and biological weapons against his own people, not to mention neighboring countries and enemy troops. I'll trust Powell when he tells me Saddam has WoMD rather than Saddam when he says he doesn't. Come on, they can't even prove what they've done with weapons they admitted to having in the past...they're hiding everything and not disclosing anything. Sure, they play hide and seek with the UN inspectors each day, but that doesn't mean these are honest people we're dealing with.
Is Iraq the biggest threat in the world (to the U.S. or UK) - I don't think so. But should we take on the biggest bully right away or make an example of a potentially dangerous aspiring one?
I trust that our leaders (and the thousands of experts supporting their decisions) are making VERY informed decisions. They have the 'best and brightest' at their disposal, and God knows geo-political issues aren't simple. Call me naive for trusting them to do the right thing.
I also appreciate those people who push our leaders and question their decisions. Criticism is a good force in politics and in many other arenas -- it helps keep people honest, and keeps power in check -- watchdogs are our friends too. Saddam and Bin Laden are clearly not my friends - they would love to obliterate the United States from the face of the earth - resting on our laurels won't make people like them go away or leave us alone, they'd only get bolder and more dangerous. |
| Thu 06 Feb 09:33 | Frank Lynch | The last post reminds me of something that's bugging me: why are we always on a first name basis with Saddam Hussein? If we talked about Jacques and Tony and Vladimir all the time, would that be respectful? (I don't think we were on a similar first-name basis with Manuel Noriega -- Tito, perhaps, but he's pretty much dropped the Josef Broz gig).
It can't be just to differentiate him from the Jordanians, can it? |
| Thu 06 Feb 10:17 | Adam Greenfield | A friend asked the selfsame question of me the other day, Frank. My answer was that Saddam Hussein is known simply as 'Saddam' throughout the Arab world, and has been since his Baathist insurrectionary days.
It's not merely a flippant, disrespectful familiarity. Tho' as to pronouncing it 'Sodom,' well...I can't speak to that. You'd have to ask Colon. ; . ) |
| Thu 06 Feb 11:01 | Just say No -- to War | I hope it's disrespectful to him, when we call him by first name.. I wouldnt want to show any respect to that a@#$%*e... |
| Thu 06 Feb 11:53 | jan | War should be a last resort. I have a basic distrust of the government, but if it's a choice between trusting the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein, it's pretty easy for me to choose the U.S. government.
Everything in Hussein's character indicates evil. He is a thug in the clothes of an emperor. And, like Hitler before him, if you are not of his clan, you are less than nothing, certainly not human. Ask yourself this question: Would you want him to be your leader?
Did the United States not go to war in Kosovo and Bosnia for even lesser reasons than this war with Iraq? Will someone please explain to me why it's more critical to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Eurpoeon nation and then build a new government than it is to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Mideast nation who also happens to possess chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons?
I have been trying for a long time to make sense out of this whole situation with Iraq.
Some people suggest that the United States wants Iraqi oil & would go to war for that reason. I doubt that is true. It would be a short-term solution in any case. And while we're on the subject, why does everyone assume that only the United States has self-interest? What about the other nations involved in this mess? Are they all acting altruistically?
Will war with Iraq resolve the issue of terrorism? No. It is only a starting point:
Take a dictatorship with vast military might behind it. Pull down that dictatorship and build up a country where people have the freedom to learn and find fulfillment in lives they choose for themselves, where they can begin to have a chance at a better life, a choice in their futures, hope for tomorrow. That nation becomes strong with a strength that comes not from military might but from wisdom from the people themselves.
The people in countries around this 'new' nation see the improvement in the Iraqis' way of life. They, too, desire this new freedom. It spreads to these other nations. It will not happen overnight, but when it does, that is when your cure for terrorism occurs. Iraq is not the end. It is the means.
I do not like war. But short of removing the entire Iraqi government (just removing Hussein will not be enough) and then helping the Iraqi people improve their standards of living, I can't see the situation in Iraq changing.
I have heard a great deal on No War With Iraq. I would like to hear some suggestions on improving the situation in Iraq--disarming, using the money that is currently going to support Iraq arms for improving the lives of its people, and an overall plan for dealing with terrorism. We are creative people. Instead of leveling criticism, why not offer suggestions? |
| Thu 06 Feb 14:04 | Anonymous | 1 - Did the United States not go to war in Kosovo and Bosnia for even lesser reasons than this war with Iraq? Will someone please explain to me why it's more critical to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Eurpoeon nation and then build a new government than it is to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Mideast nation who also happens to possess chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons?
ummm... When was US really interested in the wellbeing of the Bosnians during that war? Wasn't everybody saying that the reason we really weren't doing anything, except for saying 'it's wrong, they shouldnt do that to Bosnians' for years and years, was that there was no oil in Bosnia? And that the country was mainly made up of muslims?
but to really answer your question: to start killing innocent people just to get one guy and test out your brand spankin new weapons is just no way in the interest of a Mideast nation... how can it be? You first kill'em off, then you say 'ok sorry for those who died, but at least the new generation will live under my command, thus a better life'... A better life in who's eyes? We're forgetting the cultural differences here... People over there do NOT want the American way of life like we all do. They're not interested in it, just as we're not interested in their way of life... How would you feel if they attacked the US, took Bush off and put Bin Laden or Saddam in his place and said 'here now you have a better way of life..'?
2 - Some people suggest that the United States wants Iraqi oil & would go to war for that reason. I doubt that is true.
You have gotta be kidding right? I mean... I don't even know what to say to that... 'I doubt that is true...' !!@#^#$^@!@$@$#% I'm totally and utterly speechless... So the United States has no interest in oil? huh? What? Have you even looked at Alaska... how we've managed to screw up the environment even over there, our own land, after the huge spill? How can you 'doubt' that the US has interest in oil.. oil on every inch of the planet... Look at the current events, do you hear US getting involved with any country that has no oil? C'mon... please... |
| Thu 06 Feb 14:55 | Anonymous | Noth Korea |
| Fri 07 Feb 03:49 | Mac | Who do we trust? - Lyle
We trust people whose objectives and motivations we understand. You do not have to agree with someone to be able to trust them. I do not trust Mr Bush. I do not believe that the interests of the ordinary Iraqi people are uppermost in his mind. What would the US gain from a victory against Iraq? I wouldn't feel any safer in my bed, in fact I would feel more at risk because it would then be clear to everyone around the world that you either buckle under and accept US 'influence' or start building up your arsenal for a big fight.
*The USA spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined.
'All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. We must expose this as much as possible.' - Nelson Mandela
'Our Government has not made a case for a pre-emptive militsary strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.' - Jimmy Carter (Former US president) |
| Fri 07 Feb 05:15 | Alan Fisher | I read a quote from George Orwell yesterday which seems to me to be very appropriate here. In 1941, he said 'The choice before human beings is not, as a rule, between good and evil, but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands.'
In other words, any contributor to the debate on Iraq must accept that their chosen option will have evil consequences. I believe that there are too many people, particularly on the pro-war side, who cannot see this. George Bush and his supporters see this as good-guys-in-white-hats-riding-to-the-rescue scenario. It isn't. You'll kill people, both within Iraq and outside. Is it a price worth paying?
On the other hand, the anti-war lobby (which I lean towards) must accept that not going to war has evil consequences, for Iraq especially. In fact, I think the anti-war lobby does acknowledge this, by and large, but judges that the alternative is worse. |
| Fri 07 Feb 08:18 | Tom - Attack Hussein | It is immoral to oppose this war (like it would have been to oppose the way against Germany and Japan in WW II). Yes, it may make things dicey for US citizens and other westerners for awhile and yes, it may hurt our economy for a time. But if we don't do it now, it will only get more dangerous.
Hussein is a murderer, a tyrant and power-hungry. For those of you who pretend to not see a difference between Bush and Hussein, you are either hopelessly demented or cowards.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edp-brown07020703feb07,0,450740.column?coll=orl%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/54078.htm |
| Fri 07 Feb 09:39 | Just say No -- to War | You touch a very good point there Tom. If Bush is going after this guy to prove he's more powerful and that Saddam can't do whatever he wants, and kills thousands of Iraqis in the meantime, not to mention even allies, 'oops, it was an honest mistake I dropped a bomb on your men..'... Their attitudes are different. Saddam is known to like to kill and torture people he does it practically out in the open, without finding lame excuses... Bush on the other hand 'awww my people, I am SO sorry, the army has made a mistake, but it IS war, a war that I want to prove my point is right, and innocent people will get killed so you better get used to it and even be ready to die...'
so tell me, what is the difference? |
| Fri 07 Feb 11:12 | John S. Rhodes | Hussein is a murderer, a tyrant and power-hungry. For those of you who pretend to not see a difference between Bush and Hussein, you are either hopelessly demented or cowards.
1. There are many evil people in this world. Specifically, there are many evil leaders in the world. Should the U.S. kill them too? Really? All of them? Where do we draw the line?
2. There are many power hungry people in the world. Bush is power hungry. Should we try to get rid of Bush because of this? The language used to describe people is not trivial here, and how it applies to various parties is not trivial. Being power hungry isn't always bad. It is like saying that ambition is nasty. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
3. Bush and Hussein are different. I'm different than every other person on this planet. Because I am different, should I be killed? I'm not just playing word games here. If we attack and kill because people are different, then perhaps we are evil. We must be careful about how we apply this argument.
DISCLAIMER: My discussion here is not meant as a statement for, or against any action against Iraq. I'm arguing about argumentation, use of logic, and application of ideas to debates. Don't read into this too much. Thanks. |
| Fri 07 Feb 12:24 | Mac | Do all Americans understand that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily want them to act as a global policeman?
I would like to hear some suggestions on improving the situation in Iraq
End the sanctions. These sanctions are killing thousands of innocent Iraqis every week. Saddam is using the effects of the sanctions to bolster his popularity.
Stop supporting dictators around the world.
Guinea is run by a right wing dictatorial government, similar to that of Saddam Hussein's, headed by Lansana Conte. Western governments hand over $200 million a year to his regime (this is around half of the country's national budget).
Saddam was supported for years by the USA. One of the reasons that they know Iraq has weapons is because the USA sold them to Iraq and have still got the invioces to prove it.
Stop bullying smaller countries.
In the previous gulf war Yemen voted against a UN resolution supporting the war. The USA then stopped £70 million in aid going to Yemen.
Talk to people who have fled Iraq, and give them as much support as you can.
Take some responsibility for the actions of our leaders. Just because we vote for someone does not mean that we abdicate our responsibility for their actions.
Make Feb 15th the biggest anti-war demonstation the world has ever seen. |
| Fri 07 Feb 15:53 | Mac | RE Site Suggestions : I have made a few more changes and started an About This Site Page |
| Fri 07 Feb 16:46 | Just say No -- to War | Mac: Where is the antiwar demonstration on Feb.15? |
| Fri 07 Feb 16:55 | Tom | MAC: Do all Americans understand that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily want them to act as a global policeman?
>>> Americans don't want to be the worlds policeman either. However, when some country has a WMD and threatens to kill Americans or other innocent civilians, it is our right to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate that threat. The difference between America acting as it is and other countries not acting in the same way is that the other countries simply aren't powerful enough by themselves to be effectual.
MAC: Stop bullying smaller countries.
In the previous gulf war Yemen voted against a UN resolution supporting the war. The USA then stopped £70 million in aid going to Yemen.
>>> Is not giving a country aid the same thing as bullying them? PLEEEEEZZZZEEE. Did Yemen think it was entitled to 70 million in aid? Personally I think the US should do that more often. We are interested in surviving and promoting freedom and independence to peace-loving nations (go ahead, and be cynical, now) - why should we give aid to countries that don't agree to that?
JR: Bush and Hussein are different. I'm different than every other person on this planet. Because I am different, should I be killed? I'm not just playing word games here. If we attack and kill because people are different, then perhaps we are evil. We must be careful about how we apply this argument.
>>> I think you've missed my point or did you want to miss my point. Of course, they are different. But that's not why we are after Hussein. The reason is, is that he is a murderer, a thug, someone whose poisoned and killed thousands of his own citizens, invaded other countries (FOR THE OIL), threatened other nations (Israel and Kuwait) and apparently is consorting with Al Queda.
JR: There are many power hungry people in the world. Bush is power hungry.
>>> Bush did not go looking for the war. 9/11 happened. We had to act to defend ourselves. The work is not done. There is evidence that attacks are being planned against the US and other nations by Hussein and Al Queda. Desiring power alone is not wrong. Violating the rights of free people are.
JUST SAY NO: If Bush is going after this guy to prove he's more powerful...
>>>> Bush is not going after this guy to prove he's more powerful. Surely you don't believe that. Bush is going after this guy because we were attacked and continue to be threatened. He is one of the biggest terrorists around and by evidently is continuing to create WMDs and consorting with terrorists. We didn't start this. |
| Fri 07 Feb 21:32 | John S. Rhodes | Tom,
I really appreciate your comments. What I like the most is that you are making a sincere effort to make your points without being a hostile jackass. Yes, I'm making a comment about the style, not the substance. The substance is fine; interesting.
One thing that has generally bothered me about the hawk point of view is that the language used is abrasive. Not because I disgree with the point of view, but because the literal words, phrases and sentences are hostile. How do you feel about this? Do you think it is more difficult to take an aggressive point of view than a less aggressive one AND still remain calm? |
| Sat 08 Feb 05:23 | daniel szuc | I will always support any method that will help people have a chance at a *better life*
Is war a path to help the *real people of Iraq* live better lives in the long run? I dont know.
Is Democracy some of us live in, true freedom or perceived freedom?
Is everything we see on the news, reality or a filtered reality?
Has anyone posting here travelled to Iraq? Or seen the way people live first hand? |
| Sat 08 Feb 05:31 | daniel szuc | Good read as quoted above by 'Tom - Attack Hussein':
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edp-brown07020703feb07,0,450740.column?coll=orl%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines
This part is particularly scary:
['Saddam then took the podium and named 54 additional co-conspirators -- all of them sitting in the room. As each one's name was read out, armed guards walked down to him and led him out of the auditorium to meet his fate. Many broke down in tears and had to be dragged out by the guards. Many of those who remained began to sob uncontrollably as Saddam read the list of names.
'The same day Saddam convened a kangaroo court of high-level officials to try and sentence the guilty. In the coup de grace of this macabre production, Saddam then ordered all of the other high-level party officials whose names had not been called to participate in the firing squads that dispatched the victims.] |
| Sat 08 Feb 07:25 | Mac | Just Say NO: Here is a page of links to international sites, as I don't know where you are located.
For information about 15 Feb specificially, there will be demonstrations all around the world in such places as Adelaide, Barcelona, Calgary, Dublin, Istanbul, Mexico City, New York, Reykjavik, Rome, Tokyo, and McMurdo Station (in Antartica) just to name a few.
I will be going to the demonstration in London. |
| Sat 08 Feb 07:42 | Mac | Tom : Your words send chills down my spine.
Many people believe that the USA with all of it's WMD (or doomsday weapons as they used to be callled) is the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
The plans and recommendations outlined in the current NPR are truly dangerous for U.S. and global security. The U.S. plans for developing battle-ready nuclear weapons, resumption of nuclear testing, and war planning to use nuclear weapons in conventional warfare can only lead to other nations ultimately following a similar path. This, most certainly, will lead us into a world ever more dangerous than that witnessed during the Cold War. Such plans will reduce, not enhance, U.S. security and could bring nuclear war out of the theoretical realm into reality.
From - 'Dr. Strangelove' Meets the Pentagon: The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review published by Physicians for Social Responsibility. |
| Sat 08 Feb 19:11 | Tom - Attack Hussein | MAC: Your words send chills down my spine.
Let me tell you what chills my spine...
The idea that a murderous thug such as Hussein can kill his own people and yet supposedly intelligent folks in the west have the audacity to compare George Bush to him unfavorably.
The idea that the US shouldn't take up arms against Hussein who is very likely to possess WMDs and quite likely has cavorted with terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us and others in the west. What? We should just lay down and say, maybe Hussein will be a nice guy. Or we should continue with this keystone-cop-type inspection?
The fact that supposedly intelligent people on this forum believe (or want to pretend they believe - I don't believe they actually think this) that Bush and the US just want to do all this for Oil or personal aggrandizement after terrorists killed 3000 of us in a horrific act - they didn't kill soldiers, they killed civilians (children on planes and they plan to do so again). I actually believe this is political calculation on the part of many who opposed Bush in 2000 and simply want their party to regain power. Of course, I think it is miscalculation, but that's another matter.
The thought that somehow the US shouldn't defend itself, the thought that we are the world's policeman, the thought that we don't have the right to take up arms against those that kill us. We should be clear about this (and I am not sure that Bush's administration always is) - we have the right to defend ourselves for our own sake, not for the sake of other countries, or even for the sake of innocent individuals at the mercy of Hussein. If this is what sends chills down your spine, then so be it.
This however is what chills my spine.
No one wants to have a war. (Apparently some of you believe Bush really does want to have a war for his own benefit. I think this is complete hogwash and he is pursuing this path only because nothing else will seem to end Saddam's rule and his proclivity to kill innocent people and bring terror to the world.)
JR: I really appreciate your comments. What I like the most is that you are making a sincere effort to make your points without being a hostile jackass.
Tom>>> I appreciate your comment (as I truly do appreciate all your work on Webword). I do get emotional but I try hard not to let it get the best of me.
I hate to see our world coming to this, but the fact is that it has. It is simply required to deal with the facts at hand, as ugly as they are. In some cases, you must meet fire with fire. I respect many of the people on this forum as professionals in my field (so I try to remain calm).
In my experience many people in the HF/Usability field are liberals (as I once was, believe it or not), having graduated from liberal arts programs which are a haven of liberal professors, many of whom are essentially socialists. So, I've gotten lots of experience having these arguments over a wide variety of issues. |
| Sat 08 Feb 19:21 | Anonymous | Tom: You say that 'Bush is going after this guy because we were attacked and continue to be threatened...' Were we attacked by Saddam? Or Iraq? Or Iraqis even? Are we threatened by Iraq or Saddam right now?
Yes we were attacked, but it was Bin Laden not Saddam. There is no REAL proof that they're even related. Do I believe that they might be? Sure I do, but I wouldnt go killing all the innocent people and possibly ruin the environment just because I have a gut feeling that there might be something going on between Saddam and Bin Laden...
Iraq is not doing anything to us right now, but I doubt we'd be able to say the opposite is also true. I hope you follow. But once we attack Iraq, IF they have the weapons they are being accused of having, what is Bush's guarantee to his own people, you and me, that one of those weapons will not explode in the middle of an American city? What is his guarantee that Iraq will not use those weapons on a third country? And most important of all, what is Bush's guarantee that if we do attack Iraq, that we wont ever be threatened by the Middle East again? I don't know about the others, but the last one I can tell you. He can only guarantee that this kind of unnecessary war will only elevate and spread the hatred felt towards America today in the Middle East.
Bush IS attacking Iraq to show he's more powerful. He IS attacking Saddam to show that Saddam has to do as BUSH wants him to do, regardless of the rest of the world. Bush wants to SCARE people, kill people, test new weapons new tactics etc...
In the meantime, what is he doing about Bin Laden right now? I dont hear his name in all of this anymore. |
| Sat 08 Feb 19:22 | Just say No -- to War | Sorry, that last post is mine. |
| Sat 08 Feb 19:34 | Just say No -- to War | The fact that supposedly intelligent people on this forum believe (or want to pretend they believe - I don't believe they actually think this) that Bush and the US just want to do all this for Oil or personal aggrandizement after terrorists killed 3000 of us in a horrific act - they didn't kill soldiers, they killed civilians (children on planes and they plan to do so again).
And they're going to stop planning to do so, after we go there and kill more of their innocent children and civilians? As we did 13 years ago? I think I missed the love shipment over to the west from the east after the first Gulf War. Can you please enlighten Tom?
About your oil remark... I know it's tought to believe. I know it's hard on you... I know you would rather deny this than to accept it, but it's a fact of life. AMERICA IS AFTER OIL... I really don't mean to sound mean or sarcastic or anything, and I apologize, but please just look around. Tell me Tom, how many oil-less countries did we care about for so long and about the quality of life in those countries? oh pleaseee... Why aren't we doing anything about all the wars going on in Africa? |
| Sat 08 Feb 23:21 | Anonymous | they *want you* to believe it's a war for oil. take a careful look at the ultra-right-wing ultra-conservative-christians bush has assembled around him as his advisors. what do wacky people who read the bible as the literal word of god want if they are granted control of the most powerful country on earth? could it be to bring about global annihilation and the prophesized second coming of christ?
sound crazy? look at north korea. it's a country with nuclear weapons that is run like a cult -- a communist leader followed as if he is the son of god. is it so crazy that a handful of fanatics in the u.s. could slowly maneuver the world into an escalation that brings about global war? |
|
| Speed Up Your Site: Web Site Optimization | Wed 05 Feb |
| (visit the companion web site). For reasons not worth explaining, I have exactly two (2) copies of the book. Rather than keeping two books, or selling one on eBay, or trading one one on Trodo, I decided to set up a lottery. Entering is simple. For every good interview question you ask, I will give you one chance to win the book. (If your name is pulled, Ill ship it to you for free!) Why am I doing this? Im going to take the best questions and send them to Andy. I strongly advise you to ask really hard questions about web site optimization. Andys a smart cookie and Id like to challenge him. Thats it. Post your questions! (You have two days. Im going to pull the winner on Saturday.) |
| Thu 06 Feb 00:10 | anode | Why does a book focused on improving page size down to the white space advocate using the meta keyword and description tags for search engines(no major search engines use them, not have they for years)? |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:37 | Lyle Kantrovich | Take your average business (if there is such a thing)...who should handle WSO internally? When should WSO be outsourced? |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:42 | Lyle Kantrovich | When I search for 'Web Site Optimization' (not a phrase) on Google, I notice your book's companion site is around 40th in the results. How much time have you spent doing WSO for your book's site? What activities did you focus on for that site, and why? |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:43 | Lyle Kantrovich | If you only had an hour (in one shot) to spend on WSO for a given site each year, what would you do for that hour, and why? |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:44 | Lyle Kantrovich | If you only had an hour (in one shot) to spend on WSO for a given site each year, what would you do for that hour, and why? |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:46 | Lyle Kantrovich | Have new web technologies like XHTML, CSS, Flash, and XML changed the WSO game or the ways search engines work? |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:49 | Lyle Kantrovich | What's the ROI for WSO activities? Can you give any examples? Another related question might be 'How do you build a business case for doing WSO?' |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:55 | Lyle Kantrovich | Oops - would help if I read the book's TOC first - I thought the book was about Search Engine Optimization (i.e. search marketing). Funny how most of the questions still work though...
How about:
'I struggle getting developers (or site business owners) to care about usability or even basic code validation - how do you convince people to care about optimization/performance given all the other challenges they're dealing with? Where should this fit on their priority list?' |
| Thu 06 Feb 01:57 | Lyle Kantrovich | Have you seen UIE's research on users' perceptions of download speed? Doesn't that really debunk the notion that code/graphic optimization improves usability? Isn't it really all about 'scent of information' and users 'feeling' like they are consistently making progress? |
| Thu 06 Feb 02:08 | Lyle Kantrovich | 528 pages!!?? How much 'optimization' did you do on the manuscript of this book? :-)
Or...WebReference has been a great resource for web developers since the early days of the web. What's the next big thing (after WSO) that developers should be thinking/learning about? |
| Thu 06 Feb 02:35 | Mac | Load in under 20 to 30 seconds (incremental display) with useful content within 2 seconds. - Response Time
Why not just display the 'useful content', which would bring the time down to 2 seconds total?
Can a page load 'too quickly' ? |
| Thu 06 Feb 02:37 | Mac | Sorry, forgot to close my em tag.
[Editor: Corrected!] |
| Thu 06 Feb 07:44 | Boyink | Is it just me, or has anyone else reached the point of losing interest as soon as the credits include Jakob? |
| Thu 06 Feb 09:19 | Andy King | Hi all,
Great questions, keep 'em coming. My book shows readers why we need speed, and how to get it, mainly from a client-side perspective. And no, it is not about search engine optimization (although this topic is covered in two chapters), but speeding up web sites. Fed up with how slow web sites have become, I decided to do something about it and wrote this book.
Meta keywords/description tags: although they are used less by search engines, they are still important, and are used in search results pages. I also show how to conditionally include them for extreme HTML optimization.
WSO Outsourcing: WSO should be practiced by web designers and developers, or can be outsourced for larger more complex projects. One goal of the book is to enable web designers, authors, graphic artists, and developers to optimize and compress their own content. I can't possibly do it all ;)
Ranking: I spent a couple months putting the site together, and an entire chapter on optimizing the keywords etc. High rankings on Google require inbound links, which I'm gradually acquiring. Hey, give me a break, the book just came out a couple weeks ago! This will improve over time.
more to come...
- andy |
| Thu 06 Feb 09:29 | dave | I am about to hire a web developer to build a site for my new e-business. Here's my question: Other important selection parameters aside, how can non-subject matter experts evaluate the effort and care in site optimization a developer will take when building a site? If, as your book contends, that back-end attention is critical, how do I pick a firm that will do the right things, and how will I know they've done them, if I am not a developer myself?
Every company I contact waxes on about how they pay attention to optimization, in an effort to get it 'covered off' in the client's mind. How do I separate the lip service from someone who will dedicate time and resources to this important endeavour?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts to this perplexing issue for small business owners that know enough to know that optimization is critical, but not enough to how to do it (otherwise we'd likely do it ourselves). |
| Thu 06 Feb 09:39 | Joshua Kaufman | 1. What is the most common problem to be solved when optimizing web sites?
2. What major web sites do the best job of optimization?
3. There is software that assists and, in some cases, automates the accessibility process. Is there any software that does the same for web site optimization?
4. To what degree can we attribute web site speed to the browser?
5. What type of web sites can benefit most from optimization? |
| Thu 06 Feb 09:51 | Rotwang | I could create a stunningly beautiful entirely graphical page, or a simple page with no graphics, or something in between.
How do I determine the safe point; the point where a page is acceptably attractive, authoritative and/or creates the right impression, and yet loads fast enough to serve my customers?
I know graphics aren't all there is to optimization, but assuming I've optimized everything else, where do I draw the line with graphics? Are there any *general* guidelines you can share?
Or perhaps to ask it another way, how important are eye candy/garnish graphics to a web page? WebWord does well without a lot of graphics because content is king. I could do without many of Amazon's graphics because I mostly care about product photos, but maybe a slimmer site would seem unprofessional. How do we go about determining appropriate use of graphics/images? |
| Thu 06 Feb 10:54 | Andy King | More answers:
One hour on WSO: I'd pick the low-hanging fruit. Eliminate excess (graphics, multimedia), cut your prose in half, and optimize the rest. (you could install mod_gzip etc. in less than an hour also). The main thing is to make sure that your home page loads quickly.
New technologies: Yes, CSS has made it possible to tranform table-based layouts into CSS-based layouts. Typically this reduces page size by 25 to 50%. The ratio of content to markup improves dramatically.
ROI for WSO: (don't you love those abbrevs) This is akin to asking what is the ROI for usability. Speed is a key component of usability. Small improvements in speed can take critical pages below typical attention thresholds, and dramatically lower bail-out rates and abandoned shopping carts. I talk about this in the book, but compression alone can save 30-50% in size and bandwidth costs. Webmasters who have employed compression and optimization typically save 30 to 50% off their bandwidth costs, and retain more customers, and have improved conversion rates.
Care about Optimization/Performance - WSO is an integral part of usability, utility, and likability. No-one likes to use a slow web site. If you care about usability, speed is a key part of that equation.
UIE's Article: Yes, I've read that. That is poorly supported elsewhere, I spend the first chapter showing why response times are important, summarizing key research into HCI and response times. However, there are factors that can affect how we perceive delays, like feedback and task complexity. Attunability is another interesting area of research, with users adjusting 'subjective time bases' based on the pace of particular systems. If Domino's usually delivers in under 30 minutes, and then one day took an hour, you'd certainly notice it.
528 pages: Yeah, my editor kidded me over that. We did trim and condense a fair amount, but there is a lot to cover, and I wanted a font size that everyone could easily read. There is also a sample chapter from another book in the end. Next big thing? I'd say delta compression and wireless optimization.
Can a page load too quickly? As far as I'm concerned, no. But according to the response time research that I read, and mention briefly in the book, you can have response times that are too fast, and this increases errors. But on the web, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. |
| Thu 06 Feb 13:54 | Jim Clark | I have some long prose pages, and I wonder at what point should they be broken into separate pages. I hate the scroll....but I hate the little chunks per page.
These will not be shortened; they are the length they are. So, what is the optimal number of words per separate html document? |
| Thu 06 Feb 14:44 | Laurel | Do you feel that information architecture (in this case I mean the categorisation of web pages for findability) can have an effect on site optimisation? I suppose I'm asking if things like intuitive URLs and labels can reduce the need for extra context on a page.
How would you separate site optimisation and usability/IA? Is it something between those disciplines and design/dev? Who should have the final say?
(please excuse limey spelling) |
| Thu 06 Feb 18:06 | ry rivard | I know one of the big load time eaters are long streams of formatted text and most every weblog out there uses this method to display their content.
On one hand this is good because it shows that the blogger is actually blogging enough content for you to check back, on the other hand it is an annoyance because long columns of text often have to load before other elements (especially includes and stylesheets) even become apparent in the design.
How can the weblog be optimized to load better but also show first-timers that work is being done? |
| Fri 07 Feb 01:20 | David | What is the best overall way to optimize a webpage? |
| Fri 07 Feb 01:21 | David | What is your take on the issue of web images being a max of 72 dpi? |
| Fri 07 Feb 01:22 | David | What is the worst thing one could do to try and optimize a website? |
| Fri 07 Feb 13:07 | Mike C | Does precompilation of loop limits in Web programming languages like ColdFusion, Java, and JavaScript help? For example:
for(i=1;i
|
| Fri 07 Feb 13:09 | Mike C | What are the downsides of stripping out every non-printable space, tab, and line break from an HTML document, so the entire code essentially resides on a single line? I thought Netscape 4 had trouble with very long HTML lines. |
| Fri 07 Feb 13:11 | Mike C | Is there a way to prevent caching of text in a page, using the typical META tags and HTTP header mods, but still cache the images, included js files, and included css files? It is my understanding that the usual cache prevention code forces a redownload of everything included on the page. |
| Fri 07 Feb 19:03 | Andy King | More answers:
Weblog optimization/long text? - Many of the weblogs I view source have lots of embedded formatting, like font tags and complex CSS classes. Many weblogs are also by their very nature verbose :) I'd advocate using higher-level type selectors in CSS, contectual selectors, and to be brief in decks and point to longer stories for those who want to read more. Writing succinct headlines is also important.
In general, cut your prose as much as possible, especially on high-traffic pages. Users don't read as fast on the screen. On the web, users are information foraging, trying to maximize the value of their time. They flit about like hummingbirds, looking for nuggets that interest them. One study I read showed that on average, users spend about 1 second per page, and rarely stay more than 10 seconds. Once they find an article they want, they'll stay longer.
Precompilation of loops faster? Yes, this is also called coding motion out of loops, and is one of Bentley's 27 rules for code tuning. Also, using local variables is much faster. Many of these refactorings are covered in Chapter 10, 'Optimizing JavaScript for Execution Speed.'
Whitespace removal downsides? - I don't advocate making your entire HTML page into one single line. Some editors can choke on long lines, older versions of the Oracle info server can choke on long lines, and if you email your pages (as we do at webref), some email programs can flag a virus in longer lines. So I advocate a max of 255 character lines to be safe, or a max of 2000 character lines to avoid problems with Oracle. Also, removing whitespace can break some JavaScript code, and make your code hard to read. You can avoid these problems by keeping unoptimized versions for any edits, and punctuating your JavaScript statements with semicolons. |
| Sat 08 Feb 10:42 | Andy King | Some more answers:
Most common WSO problem? Too many HTTP requests. This is due to the overuse of images and external files. We're also seeing a trend of too many external JavaScript and CSS files in the HEAD. This delays the display of your content as they must load first.
Major web sites best at WSO? Yahoo.com has the most highly optimized home page I've seen. They use URL abbreviation to save nearly 30% off their home page HTML. View source to see what I mean. But even Yahoo has bloated up, they have nearly 300 links on their front page. WebReference.com of course :) I like most anything from Zeldman and company, very clean and CSS-based. Though there's always room for improvement.
Automated optimization software? Yes, there are a number of products, mainly for optimizing HTML and JavaScript. SpaceAgent from Insider Software, VSE Web Site Turbo from VSE Online, and of course automated graphical tools. I test and demonstrate many of these products in the book. To convert to CSS-based layouts, and to do it right, you've got to do it manually.
Graphics to text ratio? It depends on the type of site. For informational sites like WebWord.com or news-related sites, the graphics should be kept to a minimum. With the advent of widespread support of CSS, you can now create many pleasing effects without graphics. I cite a study in the book on this ratio. For shorter delays users prefer documents that include graphics, for longer delays users prefer text-only documents.
Tradeoff between Information Architecture (IA) and Web Site Optimization (WSO)? - Great question. Yes, there is a tradeoff for some techniques between IA and WSO, and with Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Good IA has a logical hierarchy and clear, unambiguous labels. Some WSO techniques uses short abbreviated names and URLs to achieve savings, which can preclude descriptive terms. SEO also can conflict with IA and WSO, with some sites sacrificing logical hierarchy to create keyword-filled directory and file names. Balancing these three disciplines is an art in itself. For high traffic pages like home pages, I favor speed over IA and SEO. In the book, I discuss mapping techniques that you can use to have the best of both worlds. The book gives you the tools you can use to optimize your content. How far you go is up to you.
Optimum page length? - Great question. I haven't seen any studies specific to this, although I have some observations. I assume you mean for readability and usability, and not for SEO. For a multipage article, we found at WebReference.com that page views dropped off dramatically after 4 or 5 pages. When we made an article longer, fewer people read pages 6 or higher. Also, page length is related to page size, and without feedback you need to make sure your pages load in at most 8 to 10 seconds. That is about 30 to 34K total. With a 10K banner and a logo say, that is a maximum of 20K.
Optimal line length is another story. There are a number of guidelines on this, dating back to the 1800's. Max optimal line length for print is 1.5 x the length of the lower case alphabet. Jakob would trim this by 25% for onscreen reading. This article from Human Factors International on optimal line length found that people prefer moderate line lengths, but read faster at longer lengths. Of course, when you make your line lengths shorter, your page length increases, and people will have to scroll more.
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/nov02.asp |
|
| Role-playing fits the bill | Fri 07 Feb |
| (guardian.co.uk) I got into gaming because it was the only way I could get my husband to spend time with me, offers Kim Gonzales, the founder of Asherons Calls all-female guild. Players develop characters, work towards goals, solve puzzles and engage in social fluttery. Theyre the visual marriage of text-based adventures and chat rooms, and women are flocking. |
| Fri 07 Feb 08:41 | daniel szuc | When you start getting addicted to : 1)Online news 2)Email and 3)Webword :) |
| Fri 07 Feb 10:11 | Flaming Drag Queen | When you purchase WebWord panties from Cafe Press. |
| Fri 07 Feb 16:54 | Joshua Kaufman | Please don't give John any ideas, Flaming Drag Queen. |
| Fri 07 Feb 22:04 | Lydia | Mac, that's a good question. Everyone has a different threshhold. For me, it's pretty shallow - I start feeling addicted if I spend more than one hour a day on non-work-related activity other than e-mail. I have one friend who thinks nothing of parking his ass in front of the computer for an entire weekend, or staying up until 3 or 4 am when he has to be to work at 8 the next day.
But, I'm a better communicator in person than online, and I think that puts me off of most stuff right away. Some people work better with the written word and see the Internet as their haven. Me, I'm too afraid of the permenance of what I write! |
| Sat 08 Feb 00:24 | daniel szuc | Agree with Lydia.
There are many aspects of *social interaction* i.e. meeting people offline, that cannot (at this stage anyway) be replicated online. Some of this relates to other *senses* that are not being satisfied in an 'online experience' |
|
| Segways in Atlanta | Fri 07 Feb |
| (bricklin.com) People certainly get used to them. Hopefully having well trained, courteous riders like these set an example that others will follow for what makes civilized use of the Segways. |
| Fri 07 Feb 06:14 | Mac | Can anyone explain what the 'Central Atlanta Progress Ambassador Force' actually are?
Is it anthing like the 'Justice League' ?
Here is a report about a little accident they had. |
| Fri 07 Feb 09:05 | James Tuddenham | Looks like being a 'warmer', more officially sanctioned version of the Guardian Angels. I think every geek in Britain was shocked when 'project ginger' was unveiled and it turned out to be a scooter handle attached to half a C5. And just like Sinclair, it looks like the company is running in to problems with public acceptance.
Hope to see you and 500,000 others in London on the 15th Mac! |
|
| WebWord Comment | Wed 05 Feb |
| Good Advice: Dont buy a Dell SmartStep. |
| Fri 07 Feb 05:37 | Mac | Thanks for the warning. |
|
| Optical Camouflage | Wed 05 Feb |
| The demonstration conducted by Faculty of Engineering Prof. Susumu Tachi is an early stage of his research that will eventually enable camouflaged objects virtually transparent by wearing an optical device. (Comments: Some people were incredulous that James Bond drove an invisible car in Die Another Day. It seemed so stupid. Does it seem so stupid now? Pow!) |
| Thu 06 Feb 15:47 | Matt | That is very cool. The primary thing I found unbelievable about the car in the Bond film, though, was not that other people couldn't see the car, but that Bond, inside the car, could see out. This technology wouldn't address that problem at all. |
| Thu 06 Feb 23:17 | Eric Scheid | The stupid thing is that two people looking at the car from different angles should see through to a different scene, and the Bond technology doesn't answer that. Each point on the surface would need to represent an infinite number of possible values simultaneously. |
|
| Success or Failure: Human Factors in Implementing New Systems | Wed 05 Feb |
| Some key factors in the success of any implementation project have little to do with technology. It is important to have the right individuals and to have clear processes in place for decision making and project management. Obtaining buy-in from all of the stakeholders, clearly defining players roles, knowing how decisions will be reached, and having a clear understanding of the expected outcomes are all critical to success. (Comments: This is a PDF.) |
| Wed 05 Feb 22:30 | John S. Rhodes | Forgot again...
Thanks Gabriel White! |
|
| More Sex For Mastodons | Mon 03 Feb |
| (Issue 0003) Company name. |
| Mon 03 Feb 23:03 | Anonymous | stupid |
| Tue 04 Feb 00:27 | Anonymous | I feel like we're living in a dorm with the guy down the hall donning a new hideous haircut and everyone smiling and saying it's cool. Then they close their doors and laugh their asses off. Please, make it stop. This is cruel. |
| Tue 04 Feb 00:36 | Anonymous | You all misunderstand. Gather a few stooges together to say, 'It's great!' and watch the innocent sheep together to say, 'Yes, it is great!' in a fit of geek peer pressure. Or so they thought. |
| Tue 04 Feb 02:58 | Mac | I'm not sure what I am finding more entertaining, the strip, or the comments.
John, I think you need a HTML wrapper for each strip that links to the comments for the strip. Alterntatively, you could include the strip in the weblog posting. |
| Tue 04 Feb 03:35 | Adam Greenfield | This one isn't working as well for me.
Is that our friend 'Derek R.' posting as 'Bah'? LOL |
| Tue 04 Feb 05:34 | daniel szuc | Which monkey is the VP of Marketing? |
| Tue 04 Feb 09:53 | bbrown | Have you thought about possibly learning to use tools better? Your 'illustrations' are nothing more than pictures and text cobbled together. Even the most amateur of comic strips has an illustrator behind it that can actually draw. For example, you've got the label '10 tons' on the weight in the complete wrong perspective. Next, you've got the weight larger in the second frame while keeping the size of everything else the same. In the last frame, you can still see the weight's lower left corner through the layer of bananas.
Even if this were superbly illustrated--and it's absolutely not--it's got conceptual nightmare written all over it. Why is a 10-ton weight falling at all? And why is there a pile of super-sized bananas right beneath it? And what's with the monkeys in the first frame? It's not clear what they're even supposed to be until the third frame. Why are the super-sized bananas thinking 'Ouch'? What is the point of this comic? Are you saying that people come up with company names for insipid reasons? Or are you making a larger point about the malevolent universe in which super-sized bananas exist serving only to get crushed? Either way, your point is so banal that it illuminates the lack of ideas you possess: from the universe of possible topics yet to be plumbed, you chose to tackle the naming of businesses.
Get out while you still have some credibility. Also, remove those posts and pretend you know nothing about any cached images that people might accost you with. |
| Tue 04 Feb 10:23 | Anonymous | The poor illustration in not an issue. The earliest Simpsons cartoons were funny even though they were crudely drawn. Sexy Mastodons simply has a funny deficit.
I assume the 10-ton weight is a reference to Monty Python, but the comic got it wrong because it should be a 16-ton weight.
Perhaps this is a spoof of 'Attack of the Clones.' The chimps are obviously cloned. The bananas look similar. Maybe the chimps wanted soft bananas so they dropped a 10-ton weight on the bananas. Your guess is as good as mine.
I especially enjoy the change in perspective. You know, how the weight moves between the foreground and background as the comic progresses. |
| Tue 04 Feb 12:28 | Anonymous | The phrase 'too clever by half' comes to mind...and I love the 'I find them funny, so your sense of humor must be under-developed' mindset of other posters here. Really speaks to a user-centered mentality, that. |
| Tue 04 Feb 13:44 | Anonymous | Adam, who's Derek R.?
Is he one of the monkeys in the strip? Or is he the banana? |
| Wed 05 Feb 00:14 | Lyle Kantrovich | I give it a 35 - it has a good beat and you can dance to it. This installation crashed though - must be running on Windoze. :) |
|
| Redefining The Browser's Back Button | Tue 04 Feb |
| (Nooface) The research team modified web browsers so that their Back button, which accounts for 40% of all clicks online, was based on the order of pages visited instead of their hierarchy. |
| Tue 04 Feb 23:59 | Anonymous | NOOOOOOOOoooooo!!!
The last thing we need is for web designers to figure a way to specify where our BACK buttons send us on a page-by-page basis. Then we'll have to install yet another browser utility to overwrite the dumb preferences and 'features' that designers try to force on us. |
|
| New York Times' Web Site Plans Print-Like Ad Format | Tue 04 Feb |
| In April, readers of NYTimes.com, owned by New York Times Co. will start seeing half-page ads running down the right side of the page as they read online articles. The navigational links that typically appear on the far left side of the page will move to the top of the screen, making room for the text of the article to the left of the ad. (MadMan comments: Will we get to a stage when well see content on the side while we view ads? ;) Thanks Kiruba) |
| Tue 04 Feb 19:54 | Chad Lundgren | I have customized Phoenix 0.5 to squash all Flash and most ad images. Combined with the builtin pop-up killer, and the run animation only once option it lowers the irritation factor enormously.I use Internet Explorer as needed for Flash stuff and Movable Type posts (because of the URL button and iespell). When these new ads show up, I'll just add a few more rules.
I just wish the usability of the Phoenix site was a better. It's easier to find nightly builds than it is to find the stable releases. |
| Tue 04 Feb 19:58 | Frank Lynch | Just about a year ago, I attended a publishing party for Randy Cohen (the New York Times writer of the 'The Ethicist' column, available in their Sunday magazine section) — I was invited because his book drew heavily on Samuel Johnson quotations he'd taken from my 'did I say 'excellent'?' Samuel Johnson web site, and I was mentioned in the acknowledgements. (Did I also mention that I happen to be a very good, personal friend of the Great Cham? No? Good. It'd be a lie.)
Anyway, at that time there had been an article on the NY Times' view of the Internet site and the corporate philosophy about whether or not it needed to generate a profit on its own. I had some conversations with a couple people there about the economics of the internet. The idea at that point for the NY Times was that it didn't need to show its own profit, its activites were seen to support the profit line of the print edition and other enterprises. (Anyone know how to close the 'namedrop' tag in html? Is it less than-sign-slash-namedrop-greater-than-sign?)
Well, lookee here, I guess that idea isn't panning out. I have two things to say about this:
One, I told them a number of times, I'd gladly send them a check for $100 a year, because as a NYC resident it was worth that much to me easily. I will make the same offer again if I don't have to see all the ads.
Two, with Opera, you can turn off all images easily with a toggle in the toolbar. And with other software you can screen out ads.
I'm glad the Times has learned more about the economics of the Internet. Just don't make me see ads! |
| Tue 04 Feb 23:31 | Sean | Print-like would not be so bad IF that also means the ads are static.
Better yet is a lighter mix of text, links, forms, and small graphics.
I regularly notice and sometimes even read print advertisements, which are generally more informative and useful than online advertisements.
Yet I do not hold my newspaper next to the television while trying to read, especially if the television is blinking full of obnoxious colors. ;-) |
|
| WebWord Comment | Sat 01 Feb |
| I like Kottkes online resume. The horizontal scrolling is effective. |
| Mon 03 Feb 01:57 | The Great Pumpkin | As long as he's going to be gimmicky, why didn't he at least do something slick? You know, like a book you could turn the pages of. |
| Mon 03 Feb 07:09 | daniel szuc | http://www.iht.com/articles/85358.html
Horizontal reading without the scrolling ... some other nice interface elements being used on this site. |
| Mon 03 Feb 12:05 | Matt | daniel, that example was wasted on me. My browser window is set in the neighborhood of a comfortable 700 pixel width. So when you mentioned horizontal scrolling I thought there was Flash or javascript gizmo that would let me scroll right to see the full third column of text. You know, the page would move as my mouse neared the right side of the screen or something. No dice. I had to grab the scroll bar.
Now that the 'Next Page' button is on my screen, the 'Prev Page' button is off-screen. I have to grab the scroll bar to move left again.
So, let me get this straight... I have to use two interface elements each time I want to scroll? Why not let me just use my mouse wheel? Or my arrow keys?
...Or I have to set my browser window to the same width as that of the web designer. I have to give up my preference and usability for the personal whims of the web designer. Uh huh. That's user-centered design for you! |
| Tue 04 Feb 13:58 | Anonymous | So webword promotes what it's owner finds 'effective' on a given day? Maybe I'm at the wrong site...'cool site of the day' stuff has kind of lost it's attraction to me... |
| Tue 04 Feb 21:07 | Lydia | I liked this online resume. Most people I know (and most of the people he would probably design for) have resolutions at or above 800 x 600 and wouldn't mind the horizontal scrolling. Not effective for people with smaller resolutions, but works for those above. You can't please all of the people all of the time, just some of the people.
He does also offer a print version, so it's not like he is completely ignoring people with different types of browsers and resolutions.
That HP site with the page turning thing was hilarious! It reminds me of an SNL skit I saw with Michael McKean as the narrator where the guy was wearing VR goggles to read a book. It had about 4-5 words on each page, and you could simulate turning the pages. Too funny - I never thought I would see that in real life. |
|
| Does usability matter? | Sat 01 Feb |
| I place a high value on usability. But I have used some very successful products (and websites) which have very poor usability. And, in thinking over the various processes and criteria which Ive seen used in making buying decisions, usability has been of little or no importance. It appears that usability has only a small effect on the success or failure of a product. |
| Tue 04 Feb 05:31 | Anonymous | Except for the occasional nod to ease of use, nobody does much with usability. Developers don't often match productivity against other packages -- they match feature sets. Usability doesn't matter because many developers find it too abstract a notion for users to grasp. This includes many marketing types.
Not all, to be sure. You still find an occational 'You'll be finishing your first X with our product before you get through all the Read Me files of the competition.' But mostly that smacks of base commerce, an attitude with even commercial ventures. One developer of a software package flat out told me his product was aimed at taking away users from an entrenched, big name, package. The pitch was his product was more productive. No matter he had not tested this assumption against any criterion but his own judgement. This is not just about usability, but basic business benchmarking and testing.
Strangely enough, the user become at once a genius able to figure out any convoluted interface scheme the developer dreams up. Or a dunce who doesn't know what's good for himself. And all depending on one thing -- leaving the code base unchanged. This has less to do with usability than developers views. And in that, usability has done a poor job.
As for bug logging software, why sell what developers already use now. It's called the customer base. (I would guess the software does not have -- for all the lip service about usability -- a section for usability problems) |
|
| More Sex for Mastodons | Sun 02 Feb |
| (Issue 0001) This is my first issue of More Sex for Mastodons. If you like it, Ill do more. If you dont like it, Ill quit or try again. Vote now! |
| Mon 03 Feb 00:30 | Anonymous | Guatemalan. Insanity. Peppers. |
| Mon 03 Feb 01:03 | Lydia | Is this a comment on usability, because no one understands what is going on with the cartoon? Like, improving the usability of this cartoon is as simple as changing what they say? |
| Mon 03 Feb 01:31 | Rebus | I'm trying to figure out why those molecules are talking to each other. |
| Mon 03 Feb 08:43 | Joshua Kaufman | Warning: the 'Vote Now!' link in this entry points to a poll that tries to install the Xupiter toolbar. This is the same toolbar that John warned about in a post a few days ago. |
| Mon 03 Feb 08:57 | John S. Rhodes | Joshua, thanks for posting a note about the poll. I guess I need to find a new, free poll service. I don't mind banner ads, but I can't stand the other crap.
Any suggestions for a good, free (ad supported) poll service? |
| Mon 03 Feb 18:21 | Lyle Kantrovich | Keep up the good work John. Some of these comments above are clear evidence that many usability people need to further develop their sense of humor.
Suggestion: if you need someone to explain this comic to you, then you need to quit reading so many CHI proceedings. |
| Mon 03 Feb 19:17 | bbrown | Umm, I don't get it. And that tells me you should stop.
I don't read the CHI Proceedings, but I keep up on usability issues. I'm a web developer and work with several different languages. I also have a dry sense of humor that people generally find amusing
I honestly have no idea what this strip is talking about and I certainly don't see even a smidge of humor. I've pondered it from all of the angles I can think of and I'm still completely at a loss. |
| Mon 03 Feb 21:18 | Cliff Claven | It helps if you imagine me standing in front of an audience saying, 'Web site design. What's up with that?'
Kudos to anyone who anyone who remembers that episode. |
|
| More Sex for Mastodons | Mon 03 Feb |
| (Issue 0002) Representative sample? |
| Mon 03 Feb 01:53 | Koko | Why did that lady decapitate those three chimps? What's funny about that? |
| Mon 03 Feb 01:59 | Koko | Why are the skull's eyes bloodshot in the second frame, but normal in the first frame? What's funny about that? |
| Mon 03 Feb 03:21 | Adam Greenfield | Dude, this is hysterical. You're hysterical.
I never knew. |
| Mon 03 Feb 04:31 | Mac | John, I am wordshy: 'South Park meets Dilbert'
I may want to syndicate this strip on my usability sites. I could use it to replace my anti-war banner before my 24 hours run out.
How much would it cost me?
Would I have to link the strip to a page of your choice?
Could you publish a copy of the latest strip named 'latest.gif', as this would allow me to link to the latest strip without having to change my html.
I think you should delete each strip from your site after 24 hours. |
| Mon 03 Feb 04:58 | daniel szuc | In the next couple of episodes the monkeys take over the lab ... where will it all lead??? |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:02 | Mac | Ohhh Myyyy Gooooooddddd, now the ending to the new version of 'Planet Of The Apes' makes perfect sense to me!!!!!! |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:02 | MadMan | Um, I'm not finding this terribly funny. Sorry if I offended you.
What does the title mean? 'More sex for mastadons'? |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:16 | daniel szuc | Exactly Mac :) 10 points.
http://www.100monkeys.org/about.shtml
'If you left a hundred monkeys in front of a hundred typewriters for a hundred years eventually you'd manage to get a Shakespearean sonnet.'
Could the same be said about a 'heuristic evaluation'? |
| Mon 03 Feb 11:57 | Anonymous | Perhaps the joke is in the title... the word 'sex' being included so that everyone stops visiting WebWord out of fear that their employer's monitoring software will raise a red flag. Ha ha! Good one. |
| Mon 03 Feb 19:22 | bbrown | Okay, this new strip clears everything up. From the last strip, I thought you were trying to be funny and just not succeeding. Now I see that you aren't trying to be funny at all.
I mean in the first frame you speak in the future tense. In the second frame, you speak in the past. And the third is to showcase some chimps.
I'm kidding. I think you're trying to say that testing was done on the site using chimps and a guy sitting in a television control booth. Because web developers are always testing their sites on animals and TV producers. I get it. Keep the laughs coming! |
|
| WebWord Comment | Fri 31 Jan |
| Daniel Szuc says Gong Hei Fat Choi! |
| Mon 03 Feb 14:59 | JohnB | Okay, I'm confused. One site says I'm a sheep the other a goat. The description is pretty spooky, though.
John |
| Mon 03 Feb 15:24 | MadMan | John, either way, you'd make a tasty meal. ROFL. |
|
| WebWord Comment | Sat 01 Feb |
| The January 2003 server logs reveal that WebWord is still pulling in about 5,000 page views per day. Not too shabby. If you are looking for other WebWord statistics, check our Chris McEvoys WebWord Statistics page. Very useful! |
| Mon 03 Feb 14:53 | Anonymous | Mac - is there something you aren't telling us???
1 0.02% actual photos of penis enlargements |
|
| Putting A Bad Interface On Things | Sun 02 Feb |
| As for the Web, user interfaces are all over the map. You can never tell how to accomplish a task from one site to another. Worse, the rules sometimes change within sites. Search doesnt work the way you expect it to (if it works at all). Dropdown menus hold mysterious choices, and no one knows where links go. |
| Mon 03 Feb 11:21 | Anonymous | Won't even buy a Porsche? Let's get real here: people wouldn't even buy a mid-priced car from Ford, much less an expensive Porsche. |
|
| Prayer in Healing | Fri 31 Jan |
| (Robert Scoble) But, now, what about the role of prayer? Well, I was thinking about the studies. They seem to indicate that prayer makes a difference. But, what if prayer is actually not what does it? What if it actually is that people who get prayed for have more friends? (Comments: This is not a religious posting. Im not taking any sort of position, so please dont bother to determine how I feel. Instead, Im pointing to it because I like that Scoble has the balls to look at the research with a critical eye. Of course this is a touchy subject, but that is why I think Scoble is being brave. If only we had more courage with usability.) |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:37 | Trudy W. Schuett | In many of the studies,the prayers were conducted by prayer circles--groups of volunteers who answer requests for prayer, generally from strangers. Sometimes the recipient doesn't even know he or she is being prayed for! So it's not a situation of having more friends.
I volunteer as webmaster for a small prayer circle, and most of our requests come with little or no personal information beyond first names and general locations. We value the confidentiality of those requesting quite highly, so much so that even the identities of prayer circle members are confidential.
Hope this helps!
TW Schuett, Men in Crisis Prayer Circle
http://www.desertlightjournal.com/prayercircle.html |
|
| E-Commerce Usability | Sat 01 Feb |
| This website is for people who want to improve the usability of their e-commerce site. It accompanies my book E-commerce usability, but you dont need to own the book to get some value from the site. |
| Mon 03 Feb 05:11 | David Travis | I wrote this book as an antidote to the hundreds of articles on usability that imply you can design a usable site by hiring a guru or following an arbitrary set of 102 guidelines. My premise is that usability needs to be a 'built in' process, not a 'bolt-on' activity. |
|
|
