Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Survey or poll on Internet dislikes

0 views
Skip to first unread message

arbpen

unread,
May 1, 2006, 4:31:49 PM5/1/06
to
I am getting ready to make a new interface for the company's web site,
<http://atlas.nextblock.com/files/>. It's a mess, markup and server
side. I know that, hence, getting ready to make a new template.

My boss likes pop-ups because, for her, it's simple to click the little
x and you're back on the page you were on - no back button broken. My
boss also likes animated ads. In making the new template, I want to
keep away from that.

The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some
kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion pop-up blocker
programs" does not work. Please understand, I am not asking this group
to post likes and dislikes - I need opinions from Joe Average Internet
User. Short of setting up a focus group, does anyone have links to
such information?

Sorry to be posting from Google Groups, but I'm at work and have no
nntp access.

TIA

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Jose

unread,
May 1, 2006, 4:54:17 PM5/1/06
to
> My boss likes pop-ups because

Does she know that she can get a popup any time she wants by doing a
trick-click? (shift-click for IE, Ctrl-click for Netscape, etc)

> My boss also likes animated ads. [...] I would like to give


> my boss some kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups

Put animated ads in all your Emails to her.

Alas, I have no links to focus group results, but you can probably
generate your own by asking around the office.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Disco Octopus

unread,
May 1, 2006, 5:24:51 PM5/1/06
to
arbpen wrote:

I dont know of any actual surveys of this type of thing, but you could
probably work towards the simple fact that there *are* popup blockers...
this would indicate that there is a market out there for popup blockers,
and therefore there are users out there that have specifically requests
*not* to have popups. You could pose that same argument regarding the
animated ads, as there are browser options that inhibit animations on
animated gifs ... not sure about flash ads though.

--
jog with a friend.

Alan J. Flavell

unread,
May 1, 2006, 6:22:44 PM5/1/06
to
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Disco Octopus wrote:

> I dont know of any actual surveys of this type of thing,

You could try
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html

I'd quote specifically:

* In particular, don't open pages in new windows

and

* Pop-ups are a mistake in their own right.

See also his earlier page on the same general theme
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html

> but you could
> probably work towards the simple fact that there *are* popup blockers...
> this would indicate that there is a market out there for popup blockers,
> and therefore there are users out there that have specifically requests
> *not* to have popups. You could pose that same argument regarding the
> animated ads, as there are browser options that inhibit animations on
> animated gifs ... not sure about flash ads though.

FlashBlock (moz/firefox extension). Works for me ;-)

See also the cited designmistakes.

There are times when one would *like* to pay attention to an animated
presentation, voluntarily and at one's own convenience. But when it's
fed-in unsolicited, it's nothing better than a distracting nuisance,
preventing the user from concentrating on the information that they
are looking for (and without which, they're unlikely to buy the
product...). Strange how many companies seem determined to shoot
themselves in the foot in this way (and kind-of preverse, really, that
we users go to such trouble to save them from themselves, instead of
just leaving their site and resolving never to return.)

regards

Toby Inkster

unread,
May 1, 2006, 6:02:01 PM5/1/06
to
arbpen wrote:

> The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some
> kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
> from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion pop-up blocker
> programs" does not work.

When she's away from her desk, install a pop-up blocker and switch it to
its most agressive setting.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Neredbojias

unread,
May 1, 2006, 11:27:05 PM5/1/06
to
To further the education of mankind, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fla...@physics.gla.ac.uk> vouchsafed:

> There are times when one would *like* to pay attention to an animated
> presentation, voluntarily and at one's own convenience. But when it's
> fed-in unsolicited, it's nothing better than a distracting nuisance,
> preventing the user from concentrating on the information that they
> are looking for (and without which, they're unlikely to buy the
> product...). Strange how many companies seem determined to shoot
> themselves in the foot in this way (and kind-of preverse, really, that
> we users go to such trouble to save them from themselves, instead of
> just leaving their site and resolving never to return.)

I was at some movie image/poster site just last night (via Google.) Stuff
flashing and blinking and moving all over the place... Not only did this
make me _anxious_ to leave, but downloading the junk also greatly inhibited
the downloading of the content, which made me want to leave even more. I
guess I lasted about 30 seconds - maybe.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 1, 2006, 11:35:36 PM5/1/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Toby Inkster <usenet200604
@tobyinkster.co.uk> vouchsafed:

> arbpen wrote:
>
>> The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some
>> kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
>> from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion pop-up blocker
>> programs" does not work.
>
> When she's away from her desk, install a pop-up blocker and switch it to
> its most agressive setting.

Better yet, conceal an electric cattle prod in her seat cushion and connect
it to a port activated by js popups.

Adrienne Boswell

unread,
May 2, 2006, 12:55:02 AM5/2/06
to
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
<http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> writing in
news:Xns97B6D17C599A6ht...@208.49.80.251:

I'm not going to write what I'm tempted to write, Clark, suffice to say
that I'm laughing with you, not at you.

What's even scarier is I did a little survey with the interns who are
working for us, and they were saying how much they like the popups. They
are in their teens, so anything that moves is kewl.

--
Adrienne Boswell


Please respond to the group so others can share

http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info

Travis Newbury

unread,
May 2, 2006, 6:12:11 AM5/2/06
to
arbpen wrote:
> I am getting ready to make a new interface...
> ...The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some

> kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
> from a survey or poll.

Interesting, not a singe bit of hard proof... Just 3 personal
anecdotes, and an embarrassingly bland website...

Personally, I find a popup calendar, or popup form to be very
convenient. That is because I am requesting them. I find the popup
ads on porn sites very annoying because I did not request them. (And
you have the added annoyance of dealing with them with a single hand.)

Just an opinion based on talking to those around me, but I do not
believe people find popups to be bad. I think they find "unrequested"
popups bad. There is a HUGE difference.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 2, 2006, 7:03:14 AM5/2/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com>
vouchsafed:

>>>> The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss
>>>> some kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard
>>>> numbers from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion
>>>> pop-up blocker programs" does not work.
>>>
>>> When she's away from her desk, install a pop-up blocker and switch
>>> it to its most agressive setting.
>>
>> Better yet, conceal an electric cattle prod in her seat cushion and
>> connect it to a port activated by js popups.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not going to write what I'm tempted to write, Clark, suffice to
> say that I'm laughing with you, not at you.

:)

> What's even scarier is I did a little survey with the interns who are
> working for us, and they were saying how much they like the popups.
> They are in their teens, so anything that moves is kewl.

I remember starting out the same way, and I was well past my teens. But
after using (-or trying to) my pages and others having the "bells and
whistles" that just seemed so great at first, I learned they got old real
quick. The best page is one which looks attractive but primarily presents
the content in as facile a manner as possible. Bells and whistles not only
detract from this but make such elegance impossible.

JDS

unread,
May 2, 2006, 9:22:57 AM5/2/06
to
On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:31:49 -0700, arbpen wrote:

> My boss likes pop-ups because, for her, it's simple to click the little
> x and you're back on the page you were on - no back button broken. My
> boss also likes animated ads. In making the new template, I want to
> keep away from that.

What are the popups being used for?

If they are part of an interface for a web application, that is one thing.
If they just contain unrequested ads and spam, that is quite another.

--
JDS | jef...@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

Jose

unread,
May 2, 2006, 9:38:23 AM5/2/06
to
> Just an opinion based on talking to those around me, but I do not
> believe people find popups to be bad. I think they find "unrequested"
> popups bad. There is a HUGE difference.

Yes, that is the crux of it. However, since you can trick-click to make
any link open in a new window, and it's usually hard to tell whether a
regular click will generate a popup or replace the existing window, the
use of popups makes the user experience less predictable. That is a Bad
Thing.

I too find some popups to be convenient, but I find myself wondering, as
I over expectantly over a link, whether I will get a well designed
little calendar popup, a new browser window with all the bells, a reuse
of the existing window (meaning I have to go back), or some other web trick.

I recently got burned by one on a help desk. Firstly, they all seem to
use postage stamp sized chat boxes inside an acre of window, and then
the support person sends a link, which when clicked could use the acre
of window above the chat area, a popup, a new window, a download, or any
number of things, and somehow these links disable trick-clicking. So I
got one which was a popup without any controls, menus, or handles (so no
back button). I forgot why but the next problem was that the chat
window was closed (it might have been my mistake) but since the popup
was open, the browser was still active. However I couldn't go back or
forward, and I couldn't reconnect with the chat person, and to get back
in the tech support queue was another half hour.

Have that happen a few times and you will see the evil of uncoontrolled
popups. And all popups are uncontrolled unless commanded by a trick-click.

Adrienne Boswell

unread,
May 2, 2006, 10:47:45 AM5/2/06
to
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed JDS <jef...@example.invalid>
writing in news:pan.2006.05.02....@example.invalid:

> On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:31:49 -0700, arbpen wrote:
>
>> My boss likes pop-ups because, for her, it's simple to click the
>> little x and you're back on the page you were on - no back button
>> broken. My boss also likes animated ads. In making the new
>> template, I want to keep away from that.
>
> What are the popups being used for?
>
> If they are part of an interface for a web application, that is one
> thing. If they just contain unrequested ads and spam, that is quite
> another.
>

http://atlas.nextblock.com is a directory of stores, restarants and
services. The store descriptions open in little pop-up windows, and a
lot of hrefs use the target attribute, or BASE element. External links
always open in new windows.

I agree with what others have said about calendar widgets, and I would
not want to get rid of those. It's the ones that are unnecessary, the
external links, etc, that drive me nuts.

Maybe this is because I use mouse gestures, and therefore rarely look up
to see if the back button in available. It just gesture until I realize
something is wrong, look up, and realize I've been gesturing for no
reason.

--
Adrienne Boswell


Please respond to the group so others can share

http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info

Gernot Frisch

unread,
May 2, 2006, 10:52:46 AM5/2/06
to

>> My boss likes pop-ups because, for her, it's simple to click the
>> little
>> x and you're back on the page you were on - no back button broken.
>> My
>> boss also likes animated ads. In making the new template, I want
>> to
>> keep away from that.
>
> What are the popups being used for?
>
> If they are part of an interface for a web application, that is one
> thing.
> If they just contain unrequested ads and spam, that is quite
> another.

a popup with ads and spam? A female boss? What site might that be?


arbpen

unread,
May 2, 2006, 12:23:07 PM5/2/06
to

Gernot Frisch wote:

There are ads (small but they move), and there is no spam. Yes, a
female boss, one of the most empowered, smart, successful women I know.
The site is <http://atlas.nextblock.com/files/>. I am in the process
of designing a new interface (CSS, no tables,HTML Strict), to get rid
of the bloat that makes the current site soooo slooooww to load.

Brian Cryer

unread,
May 3, 2006, 9:15:55 AM5/3/06
to
"arbpen" <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146515509.4...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>I am getting ready to make a new interface for the company's web site,
> <http://atlas.nextblock.com/files/>. It's a mess, markup and server
> side. I know that, hence, getting ready to make a new template.
>
> My boss likes pop-ups because, for her, it's simple to click the little
> x and you're back on the page you were on - no back button broken. My
> boss also likes animated ads. In making the new template, I want to
> keep away from that.
>
> The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some
> kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
> from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion pop-up blocker
> programs" does not work. Please understand, I am not asking this group
> to post likes and dislikes - I need opinions from Joe Average Internet
> User. Short of setting up a focus group, does anyone have links to
> such information?

If you need your website to be accessible (alka W3C website Accessibility)
then pop-ups are a definite no-no:

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/, checkpoint 10.1 "Until user
agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or
other windows to appear and do not change the current window without
informing the user. [Priority 2] "

Hope it helps.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian


dorayme

unread,
May 4, 2006, 4:00:52 AM5/4/06
to
In article <Xns97B6D17C599A6ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> Better yet, conceal an electric cattle prod in her seat cushion and connect
> it to a port activated by js popups.

There you go again, that preoccupation with the lower half...
Don't worry now, won't be long before you are cured. Officer
White is soon to come. He has been busy and, naturally enough,
has had to deal with the worse cases first.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
May 4, 2006, 4:10:22 AM5/4/06
to
In article <Xns97B6DEF3BDF7...@69.28.186.121>,
Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What's even scarier is I did a little survey with the interns who are
> working for us, and they were saying how much they like the popups. They
> are in their teens, so anything that moves is kewl.

Indeed. But not just teenagers.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
May 4, 2006, 4:19:51 AM5/4/06
to
In article
<1146564731.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Travis Newbury" <Travis...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Personally, I find a popup calendar, or popup form to be very
> convenient. That is because I am requesting them. I find the popup
> ads on porn sites very annoying because I did not request them.

> There is a HUGE difference...

I agree a lot. I have spent the better part of a day ridding a
section of a website of some ("requested") js pop ups in favour
of normal links. Advantages, no js, easier to maintain in future
(they are trickier beasts in the file system and require extra
code and fiddlesome ' and " and ... you know...). But I am now
thinking that it does not look or feel as nice as it did! The
information was extra stuff, visual details of individual
products, also the pop up window was a cleaner and simpler "fit"
and helped the viewers not to lose their place... I might forget
about it now and throw away half a day's work and restore the old
pop ups. Damn! Decisions, decisions...

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 4, 2006, 5:19:35 AM5/4/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

Well, it's a relief to know I'm not among the worst, anyway. Um, actually,
it's sort of a disappointment, too, though. I always try to excel, and
attaining to the best of the worst would at least be an achievement of some
kind.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 4, 2006, 5:33:45 AM5/4/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article

Why don't you make it elective? I've done it, and it's easy. Put a little
link somewhere with something like "target: same | new?" Doc-write the
link and have it set a variable to open (or not) a new window. Here's a
page I did long ago and just kept for nostalgic reasons with an example (-
You hafta let the page load fully):

http://www.neredbojias.com/delta/strozzi.html

Jose

unread,
May 4, 2006, 10:10:50 AM5/4/06
to
> Why don't you make it elective? I've done it, and it's easy. Put a little
> link somewhere with something like "target: same | new?" Doc-write the
> link and have it set a variable to open (or not) a new window. Here's a
> page I did long ago and just kept for nostalgic reasons with an example (-
> You hafta let the page load fully):
>
> http://www.neredbojias.com/delta/strozzi.html

I looked at it, but there was no link. Just (selectable) text that said:
target: same–new–full
and didn't do anything.

Netscape 7.2

Stewart Gordon

unread,
May 4, 2006, 10:26:58 AM5/4/06
to
arbpen wrote:
<snip>

> The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some
> kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
> from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion pop-up blocker
> programs" does not work. Please understand, I am not asking this group
> to post likes and dislikes - I need opinions from Joe Average Internet
> User. Short of setting up a focus group, does anyone have links to
> such information?
<snip>

You can't meaningfully just ask someone, "Do you like popups?" It's
bound to depend on a number of factors, for example:

- Are you talking about adverts, parts of the website's user interface
or something else?

- Do they appear automatically on page load, when the user follows a
link or in some other circumstance?

- Does the website still work if a popup blocker is installed?

- Do the links still work if JavaScript is disabled?

- Do the links still work if the user selects the Open in New Window/Tab
command?

Stewart.

--
-----BEGIN META GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 1
gc
------END META GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 4, 2006, 2:23:31 PM5/4/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Jose <teac...@aol.nojunk.com>
vouchsafed:

>> Why don't you make it elective? I've done it, and it's easy. Put a
>> little link somewhere with something like "target: same | new?"
>> Doc-write the link and have it set a variable to open (or not) a new
>> window. Here's a page I did long ago and just kept for nostalgic
>> reasons with an example (- You hafta let the page load fully):
>>
>> http://www.neredbojias.com/delta/strozzi.html
>
> I looked at it, but there was no link. Just (selectable) text that
> said: target: same–new–full
> and didn't do anything.
>
> Netscape 7.2

Yes, well it works in IE6, Firefox 1.5.0.2, SeaMonkey 1.0.1, and Opera 8.54
(-although in Opera it opens a new tab instead of window.) It also works
in all prior flavors of IE and Gecko at least as far as 2 years back.

Btw, the link itself does nothing overt, but when you click a thumbnail,
the proper window-housing will occur.

Now, so-saying, I've never tested it on Linux systems or other non-windows
OSs. Perhaps the ability of such systems to open new windows isn't quite
as robust as mama's.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 4, 2006, 2:25:09 PM5/4/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Stewart Gordon <smjg...@yahoo.com>
vouchsafed:

> arbpen wrote:
> <snip>
>> The reason I am posting is because I would like to give my boss some
>> kind of hard proof that people really don't like pop-ups, hard numbers
>> from a survey or poll. My saying "but the are x-trillion pop-up blocker
>> programs" does not work. Please understand, I am not asking this group
>> to post likes and dislikes - I need opinions from Joe Average Internet
>> User. Short of setting up a focus group, does anyone have links to
>> such information?
> <snip>
>
> You can't meaningfully just ask someone, "Do you like popups?" It's
> bound to depend on a number of factors, for example:
>
> - Are you talking about adverts, parts of the website's user interface
> or something else?
>
> - Do they appear automatically on page load, when the user follows a
> link or in some other circumstance?
>
> - Does the website still work if a popup blocker is installed?
>
> - Do the links still work if JavaScript is disabled?
>
> - Do the links still work if the user selects the Open in New Window/Tab
> command?

Do you like women?

dorayme

unread,
May 4, 2006, 10:54:41 PM5/4/06
to
In article <Xns97B917A9CEA08ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> To further the education of mankind, dorayme

> > There you go again, that preoccupation with the lower half...

> > Don't worry now, won't be long before you are cured. Officer
> > White is soon to come. He has been busy and, naturally enough,
> > has had to deal with the worse cases first.
>
> Well, it's a relief to know I'm not among the worst, anyway. Um, actually,
> it's sort of a disappointment, too, though. I always try to excel, and
> attaining to the best of the worst would at least be an achievement of some
> kind.

You are just a damned lucky guy to have me around to mother you
and send er.. er... film star officers to beat the crap out of
you for your own good...

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
May 4, 2006, 10:58:30 PM5/4/06
to
In article <Xns97B91A103C9F8ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> Damn! Decisions, decisions...


>
> Why don't you make it elective?

Yes, I have done this... in the sense of providing a different
route to those who have difficulty. But it is not always good to
just give folk equal choices, where they have to make some
heavier decision than to click in an intuitive way. Luigi is
actually wrong to extol freedom so much.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
May 4, 2006, 11:08:32 PM5/4/06
to
In article <Xns97B973E15A7DAht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> > I looked at it, but there was no link. Just (selectable) text that


> > said: target: same–new–full
> > and didn't do anything.
> >
> > Netscape 7.2
>
> Yes, well it works in IE6, Firefox 1.5.0.2, SeaMonkey 1.0.1, and Opera 8.54
> (-although in Opera it opens a new tab instead of window.) It also works
> in all prior flavors of IE and Gecko at least as far as 2 years back.

Works fine in Safari. Very tiny difference in immediate
appearence of the text links. I did not notice it for a while!

When you described your pics as thumbnails, you must have been
thinking of Gulliver.

(Nice pics, btw)

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 5, 2006, 1:12:40 AM5/5/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

>> > There you go again, that preoccupation with the lower half...
>> > Don't worry now, won't be long before you are cured. Officer
>> > White is soon to come. He has been busy and, naturally enough,
>> > has had to deal with the worse cases first.
>>
>> Well, it's a relief to know I'm not among the worst, anyway. Um,
>> actually, it's sort of a disappointment, too, though. I always try
>> to excel, and attaining to the best of the worst would at least be an
>> achievement of some kind.
>
> You are just a damned lucky guy to have me around to mother you
> and send er.. er... film star officers to beat the crap out of
> you for your own good...

Is that it? Yes, I feel so appreciative. And here I thought it was
indigestion. Silly me!

Neredbojias

unread,
May 5, 2006, 1:18:37 AM5/5/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97B973E15A7DAht...@208.49.80.251>,
> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> > I looked at it, but there was no link. Just (selectable) text that
>> > said: target: same–new–full
>> > and didn't do anything.
>> >
>> > Netscape 7.2
>>
>> Yes, well it works in IE6, Firefox 1.5.0.2, SeaMonkey 1.0.1, and
>> Opera 8.54 (-although in Opera it opens a new tab instead of window.)
>> It also works in all prior flavors of IE and Gecko at least as far
>> as 2 years back.
>
> Works fine in Safari. Very tiny difference in immediate
> appearence of the text links. I did not notice it for a while!

Uh huh, I should have made a bigger color variance.

> When you described your pics as thumbnails, you must have been
> thinking of Gulliver.

That's nothing. Some thumbs on the site are 400px high.

>
> (Nice pics, btw)
>

Danke schön.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 5, 2006, 1:22:15 AM5/5/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97B91A103C9F8ht...@208.49.80.251>,

I'm a great believer in freedom, though. The problems that arise from lack
of it are much worse than those which develop in its sphere.

dorayme

unread,
May 5, 2006, 6:33:46 AM5/5/06
to
In article <Xns97B9E2F2D67D4ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> Uh huh, I should have made a bigger color variance.


>
> > When you described your pics as thumbnails, you must have been
> > thinking of Gulliver.
>
> That's nothing. Some thumbs on the site are 400px high.

I like your robust view of the thumbnail, real thumbnails are
almost completely useless.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
May 5, 2006, 6:36:16 AM5/5/06
to
In article <Xns97B9E3901B45Eht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> I'm a great believer in freedom, though. The problems that arise from lack

> of it are much worse than those which develop in its sphere.

Actually, this is an open question. Or, put it this way, it is
not crazy to think so.

--
dorayme

Stewart Gordon

unread,
May 5, 2006, 11:43:05 AM5/5/06
to
Neredbojias wrote:
<snip>
> Do you like women?

What's that to do with the price of turkey?

Neredbojias

unread,
May 5, 2006, 4:58:26 PM5/5/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97B9E2F2D67D4ht...@208.49.80.251>,

Thanks. The inspiration behind it, though, is that in general each page
of my site is designed to be a gallery in-and-of itself, not just a
graphically-indexed list of images.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 5, 2006, 5:04:15 PM5/5/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Stewart Gordon <smjg...@yahoo.com>
vouchsafed:

> Neredbojias wrote:


> <snip>
>> Do you like women?
>
> What's that to do with the price of turkey?

I simply admired the manner in which you listed several caveats of popups
and wondered if you were up to the challenge of responding similarly when
the subject was a bit more perverse.

dorayme

unread,
May 6, 2006, 12:06:39 AM5/6/06
to
In article <Xns97BA8E2539DDBht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> To further the education of mankind, dorayme
> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:
>
> > In article <Xns97B9E2F2D67D4ht...@208.49.80.251>,
> > Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Uh huh, I should have made a bigger color variance.
> >>
> >> > When you described your pics as thumbnails, you must have been
> >> > thinking of Gulliver.
> >>
> >> That's nothing. Some thumbs on the site are 400px high.
> >
> > I like your robust view of the thumbnail, real thumbnails are
> > almost completely useless.
>
> Thanks. The inspiration behind it, though, is that in general each page
> of my site is designed to be a gallery in-and-of itself, not just a
> graphically-indexed list of images.


In other words they are not really thumbnails!

[So I am still a lonely voice advocating bigger thumbnails or the
use of text links...]

--
dorayme

Leonard Blaisdell

unread,
May 6, 2006, 12:30:56 AM5/6/06
to
In article
<doraymeRidThis-E77...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> [So I am still a lonely voice advocating bigger thumbnails or the
> use of text links...]

How big? I advocate relatively small thumbs at a marginal visually lossy
compression with a decent title for a large number of thumbs on a single
page. I'm still on 56k.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

dorayme

unread,
May 6, 2006, 2:10:38 AM5/6/06
to
In article
<leo-34BE31.2...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Leonard Blaisdell <l...@greatbasin.com> wrote:

OK. for a landscape, I would say not smaller than 150px across.
But it depends on the contents. There is much to be gained and
not that much to lose with a very great number of pics in
question, to just have text links.

I favour this: no thumbnails at all, all text descriptions in a
list and the first text "link" exhibited right there big enough
(like 400px) to make it all look nice. This achieves much: the
user sees what he is to get by way of size and quality. The show
begins right there and then! The caption to the 400 on display is
be a link to even bigger and so on to each and every page.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 6, 2006, 5:35:15 AM5/6/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

>> > I like your robust view of the thumbnail, real thumbnails are

>> > almost completely useless.
>>
>> Thanks. The inspiration behind it, though, is that in general each page
>> of my site is designed to be a gallery in-and-of itself, not just a
>> graphically-indexed list of images.
>
>
> In other words they are not really thumbnails!

Yes, they are! They link to bigger images. Just because they also serve
an aesthetic purpose in their own right does not negate their utility.



> [So I am still a lonely voice advocating bigger thumbnails or the
> use of text links...]

No no, I ululate with you harmoniously, and if I were a mountain man, I
might even try yodeling.

dorayme

unread,
May 6, 2006, 10:01:27 PM5/6/06
to
In article <Xns97BB1A527C850ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> Yes, they are! They link to bigger images. Just because they also serve

> an aesthetic purpose in their own right does not negate their utility.

A thumbnail is roughly the size of a thumb. One can stretch this
a bit maybe. But not so that all meaning is lost.

If you were right, any pic, even say a 800x700 one that linked to
an even larger one (a not so rare technique used to give folk
bigger without unnecessarily using up bandwidth from the start)
would be a thumbnail.

This is sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum and will be
further explained to you by Officer "Bud' White before he gives
you his usual special treatment that is very far from the Roman
mind. What you will get is especially Californian.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 7, 2006, 5:00:15 AM5/7/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97BB1A527C850ht...@208.49.80.251>,


> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, they are! They link to bigger images. Just because they also
>> serve an aesthetic purpose in their own right does not negate their
>> utility.
>
> A thumbnail is roughly the size of a thumb. One can stretch this
> a bit maybe. But not so that all meaning is lost.

Okay, so call it a toenail.

> If you were right, any pic, even say a 800x700 one that linked to
> an even larger one (a not so rare technique used to give folk
> bigger without unnecessarily using up bandwidth from the start)
> would be a thumbnail.

I am and it is.

> This is sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum and will be
> further explained to you by Officer "Bud' White before he gives
> you his usual special treatment that is very far from the Roman
> mind. What you will get is especially Californian.

I call it noodleo meus activo maximo est. (This is idiogrammatic Latin for
"using your head.")

dorayme

unread,
May 8, 2006, 2:11:05 AM5/8/06
to
In article <Xns97BC1462AE29Eht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> > If you were right, any pic, even say a 800x700 one that linked to

> > an even larger one (a not so rare technique used to give folk
> > bigger without unnecessarily using up bandwidth from the start)
> > would be a thumbnail.
>
> I am and it is.

You are not right and it isn't. It is a ridiculous, careless and
clumsy way of thinking and using words. It is bad enough that we
all do it in the heat of writing, especially to ngs. But you
choose to make it a practice, even when you have time to think
about it.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 8, 2006, 4:36:07 AM5/8/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97BC1462AE29Eht...@208.49.80.251>,


> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> > If you were right, any pic, even say a 800x700 one that linked to
>> > an even larger one (a not so rare technique used to give folk
>> > bigger without unnecessarily using up bandwidth from the start)
>> > would be a thumbnail.
>>
>> I am and it is.
>
> You are not right and it isn't.

I am right and it is.

> It is a ridiculous, careless and
> clumsy way of thinking and using words.

Stating the facts succinctly? I don't think so.

> It is bad enough that we
> all do it in the heat of writing, especially to ngs.

I don't get hot writing.

> But you
> choose to make it a practice, even when you have time to think
> about it.

Practice makes perfect. Opinions will inevitably vary so there is little
reason to vacillate in the support of one's own. Notice that the method,
however, does not imply that I or anyone is always right.

dorayme

unread,
May 9, 2006, 3:32:22 AM5/9/06
to
In article <Xns97BD104A82E6Eht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> > It is a ridiculous, careless and

> > clumsy way of thinking and using words.
>
> Stating the facts succinctly? I don't think so.

How can you think this? No matter what size a pic is, if it links
to an even bigger one, it is, according to you, a thumbnail. And
you persist in this opinion because of something else, not
because it is a fact (which it is not and this having nothing to
do with me whatever). What this thing is can only be found out in
one way and only by one man on this whole earth. You know the
way, and you know the man. Public decorum allows me only to
mention the latter, Officer "Bud" White.

(Now this, Mr Korpela, is babbling!)

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 9, 2006, 5:59:38 AM5/9/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97BD104A82E6Eht...@208.49.80.251>,


> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> > It is a ridiculous, careless and
>> > clumsy way of thinking and using words.
>>
>> Stating the facts succinctly? I don't think so.
>
> How can you think this? No matter what size a pic is, if it links
> to an even bigger one, it is, according to you, a thumbnail.

Well...yeah.

> And
> you persist in this opinion because of something else, not
> because it is a fact (which it is not and this having nothing to
> do with me whatever).

I persist because I believe it. Would you have me say, "Oh, no, right,
it's not a thumb because a thumb is much smaller than that unless we're
talking about King Kong or a giant, etc.," when I believed just the
opposite?

> What this thing is can only be found out in
> one way and only by one man on this whole earth.

A web page thumbnail, to me, is simply a representation of content, usually
more detailed content, to which it is linked. Size doesn't matter, it's
the quality of being a token or symbol that counts. Feel free to disagree,
but that is how _I_ interpret the term.

> You know the
> way, and you know the man. Public decorum allows me only to
> mention the latter, Officer "Bud" White.
>
> (Now this, Mr Korpela, is babbling!)

You don't seem as cranky as you did last night. Been talking to Luigi?

dorayme

unread,
May 9, 2006, 8:25:01 PM5/9/06
to
In article <Xns97BE1E7309955ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> A web page thumbnail, to me, is simply a representation of content, usually

> more detailed content, to which it is linked. Size doesn't matter, it's
> the quality of being a token or symbol that counts. Feel free to disagree,
> but that is how _I_ interpret the term.

Size and context matter. If you have just one pic on a page which
is quite big (say 800 x 400) and it links to an even bigger one
(for printing or really huge or high defn monitors), it is not a
thumbnail. Thumbnails are small pics about the size of thumbs
(and there is some leeway here, I have already admired your
robust implementation of this to some extent) on a page that link
to bigger ones that can be seen more clearly.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 9, 2006, 9:48:17 PM5/9/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

> In article <Xns97BE1E7309955ht...@208.49.80.251>,

I will concede that there could be scenarios (such as the one you
illustrated) wherein calling the linker image a "thumbnail" might be a
stretch, but other than that, shall we agree to disagree? In all honesty,
I don't care what they're called; "thumb/thumbnail" just seems to be a
convenient way to term such images.

Stewart Gordon

unread,
May 10, 2006, 9:28:05 AM5/10/06
to

You mean like this:

- Are the women you're talking about friendly?

- Do the women you're talking about keep their word?

Hmm....

dorayme

unread,
May 11, 2006, 12:38:01 AM5/11/06
to
In article <Xns97BEBF4951B6Dht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> I will concede that there could be scenarios (such as the one you

> illustrated) wherein calling the linker image a "thumbnail" might be a
> stretch, but other than that, shall we agree to disagree? In all honesty,
> I don't care what they're called; "thumb/thumbnail" just seems to be a
> convenient way to term such images.

It is not that I mind about what you call what. It is that the
nature of the object being called seems to be misunderstood. The
essential feature of a thumbnail is that it is but a slightly
informative link to 'the real thing' as it were. When you start
calling pics that are pretty adequate in themselves thumbnails
even though the website maker has provided further
'enhancements', imo, you are starting to lose site of the main
idea.

It is like calling someone's home or car, a "first" home or car
because there are just so much better ones that folk seem to
manage to get or want as they live on... even when it might be
some poor sod's 8th!

[yeah, ok, I am thinking of my car... :)]

--
dorayme

Steven Saunderson

unread,
May 11, 2006, 1:06:06 AM5/11/06
to
On Tue, 09 May 2006 21:48:17 -0400, Neredbojias
<http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

> I don't care what they're called; "thumb/thumbnail" just seems to be a
> convenient way to term such images.

I hit this naming problem with 'large' thumbnails recently. I now call
them previews.

--
Steven

Neredbojias

unread,
May 11, 2006, 1:16:07 AM5/11/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Steven Saunderson <Phe...@Syd.au>
vouchsafed:

Ah, that sounds good. I will try to remember the term without slipping
back into my old bad habits like I usually do.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 11, 2006, 1:22:26 AM5/11/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

>> I will concede that there could be scenarios (such as the one you

>> illustrated) wherein calling the linker image a "thumbnail" might be
>> a stretch, but other than that, shall we agree to disagree? In all
>> honesty, I don't care what they're called; "thumb/thumbnail" just
>> seems to be a convenient way to term such images.
>
> It is not that I mind about what you call what. It is that the
> nature of the object being called seems to be misunderstood. The
> essential feature of a thumbnail is that it is but a slightly
> informative link to 'the real thing' as it were. When you start
> calling pics that are pretty adequate in themselves thumbnails
> even though the website maker has provided further
> 'enhancements', imo, you are starting to lose site of the main
> idea.
>
> It is like calling someone's home or car, a "first" home or car
> because there are just so much better ones that folk seem to
> manage to get or want as they live on... even when it might be
> some poor sod's 8th!
>
> [yeah, ok, I am thinking of my car... :)]

I just got a great idea! How about if we call large thumbnails "previews"
to prevent any disharmonious associational confusion with the main image?
This would be a discrete term used to indicate the image you see is more
than a thumb but less than the full-fledged image/content it links to.

Don't know why I didn't think of this before...

Neredbojias

unread,
May 11, 2006, 1:31:12 AM5/11/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Stewart Gordon
<smjg...@yahoo.com> vouchsafed:

>>>> Do you like women?


>>> What's that to do with the price of turkey?
>>
>> I simply admired the manner in which you listed several caveats of
>> popups and wondered if you were up to the challenge of responding
>> similarly when the subject was a bit more perverse.
>
> You mean like this:
>
> - Are the women you're talking about friendly?
>
> - Do the women you're talking about keep their word?
>
> Hmm....

Sort of but I was looking for more descriptive warnings like "Marriage can
lead to the usage of earmuffs even in warm weather," or "When a woman says
'I do' it's just about the last time she does," etc.

dorayme

unread,
May 11, 2006, 1:37:29 AM5/11/06
to
In article <Xns97BFE3984ED9ht...@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> To further the education of mankind, dorayme

I am sorry, but no. This will simply not do. It is not as if
there is some big and defined problem about what to call pics
that link. It is a matter of understanding what is happening in
what context and so describing it. "Preview" would not capture it
if the image was perfectly adequate for looking at and enjoying
or learning or whatever (even though it links to some larger file
suitable for another purpose).

I just wanted to make the point that quite big pictures cannot be
sensibly called thumbnails in all contexts where they link to
even bigger ones. It would be just as big a mistake to call them
previews. If they do link to a very high quality file for
printing, the printing software might have something that
displays a preview of how it will sit on the page and so on, here
the meaning is clearer.

There is no general problem of naming to be solved. So please
don't be impressed too easily with any straw cast your way that
appears to solve "it".

--
dorayme

Neredbojias

unread,
May 11, 2006, 2:01:28 AM5/11/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Neredbojias
<http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> vouchsafed:

Update:

Sorry, old boy, but your idea was rejected and blatantly so. _Not by me, I
liked it, myself, but s o m e people are just adamantly persnickety.

Neredbojias

unread,
May 11, 2006, 2:04:36 AM5/11/06
to
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:

>> I just got a great idea! How about if we call large thumbnails


>> "previews" to prevent any disharmonious associational confusion with
>> the main image? This would be a discrete term used to indicate the
>> image you see is more than a thumb but less than the full-fledged
>> image/content it links to.
>>
>> Don't know why I didn't think of this before...
>
> I am sorry, but no. This will simply not do. It is not as if
> there is some big and defined problem about what to call pics
> that link. It is a matter of understanding what is happening in
> what context and so describing it. "Preview" would not capture it
> if the image was perfectly adequate for looking at and enjoying
> or learning or whatever (even though it links to some larger file
> suitable for another purpose).
>
> I just wanted to make the point that quite big pictures cannot be
> sensibly called thumbnails in all contexts where they link to
> even bigger ones. It would be just as big a mistake to call them
> previews. If they do link to a very high quality file for
> printing, the printing software might have something that
> displays a preview of how it will sit on the page and so on, here
> the meaning is clearer.
>
> There is no general problem of naming to be solved. So please
> don't be impressed too easily with any straw cast your way that
> appears to solve "it".

How 'bout if we term it "The image that cannot be named"?

Blessings and peace be upon you.

Steven Saunderson

unread,
May 11, 2006, 2:14:24 AM5/11/06
to
On Thu, 11 May 2006 02:01:28 -0400, Neredbojias
<http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

> Sorry, old boy, but your idea was rejected and blatantly so.

It's a cruel, cold world. Hopefully someone will suggest a better term
and then I can fix my pages.

--
Steven

Neredbojias

unread,
May 11, 2006, 4:28:40 AM5/11/06
to
To further the education of mankind, Steven Saunderson <Phe...@Syd.au>
vouchsafed:

>> Sorry, old boy, but your idea was rejected and blatantly so.


>
> It's a cruel, cold world. Hopefully someone will suggest a better term
> and then I can fix my pages.

:)

0 new messages