General discussion


Fill in the blank: The web "Feature" I can live without is__

By Jaqui ·
to start it off I'll say Multimedia Content.

What website "features" really do nothing to improve your internet activities?

edited for typo

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

70 total posts (Page 5 of 7)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ok, let me clarify

by RknRlKid In reply to I agree with multimedia c ...

This is what I don't like about such things as I posted originally.

1. Embedded music. I am not meaning showing music because you are a musician or a record company or the such. I am talking about having a midi as an endless background noise. Most sound horrid, and it gets annoying. Now, even with the case of musicians/bands/labels, the music should be only on demand by a click, not automatically playing in a javascript or flash media player.

2. Animated cursors. The "Comet cursor" thing to me is neither cute nor wanted. It is an intrusion onto my system, because it INSTALLS TO THE OS WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!

3. Flash animation. Nothing against what people do in flash/shockwave/etc. But must it be the first thing I see? When I go to a company's web page and the first thing I see is "Loading....." and nothing else, I close the page. This is one thing I think Microsoft has RIGHT ::laffs:: Look at their homepage. Its cluttered and difficult, but for the most part the flash content is something you go to, not something inflicted upon you. If I go to or (both being cartoons) then I will put up with it. But not a corporation. Heck, even Cartoon Network doesn't do it! Give me a menu and I will click what content *I* want to see. My thinking is this: I don't need a commercial, I came to you!

Collapse -


by Cactus Pete In reply to Fill in the blank: The we ...

Since most of us have simply listed what we don't like about broswing or particular sites...

I hate a website that won't load unless I load Java. Especially when the added "feature" is nothing more than a menu system, or something else just as trivial.

Collapse -

that was

by Jaqui In reply to Well

the idea.
to let people sound off on what features they don't like about websites.

I agree, and if java or javascript is required I leave the site and don't go back.

Collapse -

I see

by Cactus Pete In reply to that was

The first time I read the original post I differentiated between "web" and "websites". But I am corrected now...

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to I see

where to we really see web feature? in websites. :)
The base functonality of the http protocol can be ripped apart as well, most of the obnoxious website features are tools designed to add a stateful status to the stateless http protocol.

FTP has been improved re security, some clients and servers now support sftp, which is effectively ssh enabled ftp.

Could we improve the http protocol by making it a stateful protocol, like ftp is, and making it more secure than a plain text tcp/ip packet?
[ as apotheon has suggested, get ssh capability into webservers and browsers, improved security and a stateful connection in one shot ]

Collapse -

Like a trivial animation?

by Absolutely In reply to Well

I can't see your avatar since I switched to Linux, and didn't install the extra Windows-emulation cr@p.


Collapse -

It's not you, it's me

by Cactus Pete In reply to Like a trivial animation?

But I fixed it now. New firewall... forgot a server in there...

Anyway, the animation is a gif, nothing windowsy there.

At least the image I use doesn't take 5 seconds to load

Collapse -

Oh, buy more bandwidth! (eom)

by Absolutely In reply to It's not you, it's me
Collapse -

I don't think it's bandwidth!

by Cactus Pete In reply to Oh, buy more bandwidth! ( ...

Of course, if all the mm stuff everyone complained about didn't exist, bandwidth wouldn't be a problem... Nice tie-in

Collapse -

Everybody's dissing advertising

by DC Guy In reply to Fill in the blank: The we ...

Who do you think pays for the internet? Who pays for the resources to host all those websites?

I think it's sad that the internet was modeled after television, that as soon as it reached critical mass the advertising industry just moved in and took it over. Why can't we all just pay a fair fee?

Not that it would work that way, if TV is a precedent. Back in the 1960s we all dreamed of subscription TV delivered by cable or some other high technology. There'd be an all-Shakespeare channel, one that ran live symphonies 24/7, rock concerts, a cornucopia of culture. PBS times twenty plus plenty of middlebrow fare for the rest of us.

And all without commercials! We'd pay for what we wanted and by golly we'd get it.

Well here it is. I pay $600 a year for TV. That's more than I spend on movies, concerts, and art exhibits. And what am I getting?

Something like ten thousand channels of sports. Men chasing around balls of various sizes, sometimes hitting each other in the process. Assuming they count golf and fishing as sports, I wouldn't know.

They've even resuscitated an activity that by some perverse loophole gets to call itself professional "wrestling," which we were sure would fade into oblivion as Americans became better educated and more able to recognize a rigged game. (To their credit most of them do but they just don't care.)

There are several channels that show nothing but news. That's a good way to give yourself a heart attack since today "news" is synonymous with "bad news." But worse, there apparently isn't enough bad news to go around because the announcers are often caught standing there saying something like, "We have no information on this."

Occasionally something great comes along. When MTV debuted we watched it all night every night for three weeks. But apparently our tastes are not representative because they no longer show music but present an endless array of the worst possible role models for the children who make up their target audience. "Farscape" was one of the best shows ever on TV, but it couldn't get enough ratings to stay on the air.

But it's worse than that: Even though I'm paying for these channels, they all have COMMERCIALS! I thought this was supposed to be subscription TV?

Why aren't the million of us who want to see "Farscape" simply billed two dollars a week? That's all it costs to produce a show that has lots of digital effects and no big-ego stars. It would still be running if the universe worked that way.

But it gets still "worser". Cable TV is infested with channels that not only don't charge the viewer to subscribe, but actually pay the local cable companies to carry them. The reason is that they get the viewers to send them money directly. They're called "shopping" and "televangelism." I don't remember ordering those channels but there are two or three of each on every cable system I've ever seen.

So: be careful what you wish for. If you want the internet without ads, you could end up with an internet wasteland modeled after cable TV.

Somebody has to pay for all this.

Back to Desktop Forum
70 total posts (Page 5 of 7)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums