| |
As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
LEGO.com:
http://www.lego.com/build/
Since the Build section has some content that might be of interest to
Lugnetters and AFOLs in general -- and will hopefully have more in the
future -- I thought I'd post an announcement about what the Build section is
and what we're trying to do with it.
LEGO.com is split into many different areas -- there's Shop at Home online,
of course, and sites for all the different product lines. We also have
sections that cut across many product lines, like Play and Learn (for
parents of young kids), Cool Kids (profiles of amazing kids), or Games
(portal for all the games on the site). Build is the latest one of these,
and (oddly enough) it's all about building and related areas: construction
techniques, showing off MOCs, product development, and more.
We're starting off small, and will be adding to Build incrementally, so
don't expect the works just yet. Here's what we're offering in the first
"issue:"
* the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
evolved from
* a Q&A with Hans Madsen, one of our Master Builders and co-designer of
the Dark Side Developer Kit, the Technic turntable, and many other sets and
elements
* some profiles of people whose careers have been influenced by LEGO
building (you may have seen some of these in the Press section a few months
back)
* the Builders Gallery (where you can submit photos of MOCs for a monthly
contest), formerly in the Club section, now in a new home and open to public
viewing
* a collection of links to all the building instructions on LEGO.com
* the Time Capsule, a look at LEGO sets from the past -- this month, sets
from 25 years ago, including the gorgeous 395 Rolls Royce
* Ask Redini, where our resident LEGO guru, a floating minifig head who
calls himself The Amazing Redini, answers questions about all things LEGO.
(And before you ask, Redini doesn't know what bulk brick offerings are
planned, and won't engage in debate about issues like juniorization.)
Redini's gotten a few hundred questions since we launched Build last Monday.
(My favorite so far: "Can I have all the LEGO?") Our core audience so far
seems to be around the age range we expected -- median age of 9-10. So we're
trying to make Build readable for kids, but interesting for everyone. Down
the road we're planning on adding more interactive content, like games about
building and simple 3D building apps, as well as more building instructions
and construction techniques.
Tell us what you think! We're happy to take suggestions for Build features,
interviews, Time Capsule content, and so forth. Just post here or drop me a
line -- or tell Redini, and he'll pass the comments on to us.
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
"Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:GCvDvB.3Do@lugnet.com...
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
>
> http://www.lego.com/build/
>
> Since the Build section has some content that might be of interest to
> Lugnetters and AFOLs in general -- and will hopefully have more in the
> future -- I thought I'd post an announcement about what the Build section • is
> and what we're trying to do with it.
>
> * the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
> evolved from
I thought this section was very well done.
More the same please.
regards
lawrence
|
|
| |
"Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> writes:
> * the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
> evolved from
Looked like it would be quite interesting. So, I enabled cookies and went
for a look. I gave up after 30 seconds, however - tiny black letters on
a fairly dark background made it extremely difficult to read. Perhaps
your page designers haven't tried the page with Netscape (with Javascript
disabled)?
For any curious, I took a snapshot:
http://www.graysage.com/cg/snapshot.gif
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
That's actually a stylesheet problem, not a javascript one. It looks like
you're using some version of Netsacape 4 for X. Which I happen to be using at
the moment too, so I can tell you exactly what to do: select Preferences under
the Edit menu, go to the Advanced tab, turn Stylesheets on. Stylesheets don't
get misused very much, Netscape has pretty solid support, and they make
LEGO.com look much nicer, so I can recommend that with good conscience.
It's generic CSS1, part of the official W3C standard, but it shouldn't break
like that if you don't have stylesheets turned on. Thanks for finding that bug,
we should be able to fix it some time soon.
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Gray writes:
> "Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> writes:
>
> > * the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
> > evolved from
>
> Looked like it would be quite interesting. So, I enabled cookies and went
> for a look. I gave up after 30 seconds, however - tiny black letters on
> a fairly dark background made it extremely difficult to read. Perhaps
> your page designers haven't tried the page with Netscape (with Javascript
> disabled)?
>
> For any curious, I took a snapshot:
>
> http://www.graysage.com/cg/snapshot.gif
|
|
| |
I liked what happens to Redini when you click on him, its like a Lego
punching bag that you can use while you are trying to figure out what the
84(!) different colors are for Lego, and how to get your hands on all 84(!),
hehehe.
So Tomas, what are the 84 colors????? We will get to when you are going to
sell them in bulk at a later time, first things first :) hehehe.
Mark P
mfuss903@aol.com
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
>
> http://www.lego.com/build/ • <snip>
> * Ask Redini, where our resident LEGO guru, a floating minifig head who
> calls himself The Amazing Redini, answers questions about all things LEGO.
> (And before you ask, Redini doesn't know what bulk brick offerings are
> planned, and won't engage in debate about issues like juniorization.)
>
> Redini's gotten a few hundred questions since we launched Build last Monday.
> (My favorite so far: "Can I have all the LEGO?") Our core audience so far
> seems to be around the age range we expected -- median age of 9-10. So we're
> trying to make Build readable for kids, but interesting for everyone. Down
> the road we're planning on adding more interactive content, like games about
> building and simple 3D building apps, as well as more building instructions
> and construction techniques.
> Tomas Clark
> Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
"Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> writes:
> That's actually a stylesheet problem, not a javascript one. It looks like
> you're using some version of Netsacape 4 for X. Which I happen to be using at
> the moment too, so I can tell you exactly what to do: select Preferences under
> the Edit menu, go to the Advanced tab, turn Stylesheets on. Stylesheets don't
> get misused very much, Netscape has pretty solid support, and they make
> LEGO.com look much nicer, so I can recommend that with good conscience.
>
> It's generic CSS1, part of the official W3C standard, but it shouldn't break
> like that if you don't have stylesheets turned on. Thanks for finding that bug,
> we should be able to fix it some time soon.
Hmm. I've always had Stylesheets turned on, since, as far as I know, they
are not a security problem. I tried visiting the same page with them
turned off and it is indeed different. The main problem that I see is
the darkness of the background (especially the "BUILD" blocks), with
the small black text on top of it.
However, thanks for looking into it. You were right about the Netscape
version, however - its 4.72 on X on Linux.
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Gray writes:
> > "Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> writes:
> >
> > > * the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
> > > evolved from
> >
> > Looked like it would be quite interesting. So, I enabled cookies and went
> > for a look. I gave up after 30 seconds, however - tiny black letters on
> > a fairly dark background made it extremely difficult to read. Perhaps
> > your page designers haven't tried the page with Netscape (with Javascript
> > disabled)?
> >
> > For any curious, I took a snapshot:
> >
> > http://www.graysage.com/cg/snapshot.gif
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Gray writes:
> Hmm. I've always had Stylesheets turned on, since, as far as I know, they
> are not a security problem. I tried visiting the same page with them
> turned off and it is indeed different. The main problem that I see is
> the darkness of the background (especially the "BUILD" blocks), with
> the small black text on top of it.
>
> However, thanks for looking into it. You were right about the Netscape
> version, however - its 4.72 on X on Linux.
Your snapshot
> > > http://www.graysage.com/cg/snapshot.gif
It HAS to be somehow related to browser version. Using IE 5.5 on Win 2000 I
don't see anything like your snapshot. I only see the blue background once
on the title bar. The rest of the page has a white background. In your
snapshot you can even see where the image ends and a repeat of it starts...
I am wondering if your browser is not honoring the "background-repeat:
no-repeat" setting in this style sheet (from a view source of the page)
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {
background-color: #FFFFFF; background-image:
url(/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat}
-->
</style>
because that image IS the background that is repeating for you (go here:
http://www.lego.com/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif to see the image
just one time)
I'm sure Tomas already knows this and so do you, but just in case other
readers are curious (I was... I am trying to learn embedded style sheets at
the moment)...
++Lar
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> I liked what happens to Redini when you click on him, its like a Lego
> punching bag that you can use while you are trying to figure out what the
> 84(!) different colors are for Lego, and how to get your hands on all 84(!),
> hehehe.
Wow i didn't see that! i was thinking about the 18 trans. colors, i have
close to 18 colors.
Josh
> So Tomas, what are the 84 colors????? We will get to when you are going to
> sell them in bulk at a later time, first things first :) hehehe.
> Mark P
> mfuss903@aol.com
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> > As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> > LEGO.com:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/build/ • <snip>
> > * Ask Redini, where our resident LEGO guru, a floating minifig head who
> > calls himself The Amazing Redini, answers questions about all things LEGO.
> > (And before you ask, Redini doesn't know what bulk brick offerings are
> > planned, and won't engage in debate about issues like juniorization.)
> >
> > Redini's gotten a few hundred questions since we launched Build last Monday.
> > (My favorite so far: "Can I have all the LEGO?") Our core audience so far
> > seems to be around the age range we expected -- median age of 9-10. So we're
> > trying to make Build readable for kids, but interesting for everyone. Down
> > the road we're planning on adding more interactive content, like games about
> > building and simple 3D building apps, as well as more building instructions
> > and construction techniques.
> > Tomas Clark
> > Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> I am wondering if your browser is not honoring the "background-repeat:
> no-repeat" setting in this style sheet (from a view source of the page)
>
> <style type="text/css">
> <!--
> body {
> background-color: #FFFFFF; background-image:
> url(/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat}
> -->
> </style>
>
> because that image IS the background that is repeating for you (go here:
> http://www.lego.com/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif to see the image
> just one time)
Could be - I know enough about HTML to do simple stuff, but I've never
gone beyond that. I wonder if the "background-repeat" setting is a new
extension, and perhaps even an IE-specific one? Some old "intro-to-HTML"
stuff I've got lists many fairly basic tags as "IE-only" or "NS-only",
although it might be out-of-date.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
Chris Gray writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> > I am wondering if your browser is not honoring the "background-repeat:
> > no-repeat" setting in this style sheet (from a view source of the page)
> >
> > <style type="text/css">
> > <!--
> > body {
> > background-color: #FFFFFF; background-image:
> > url(/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat}
> > -->
> > </style>
>
> Could be - I know enough about HTML to do simple stuff, but I've never
> gone beyond that. I wonder if the "background-repeat" setting is a new
> extension, and perhaps even an IE-specific one? Some old "intro-to-HTML"
> stuff I've got lists many fairly basic tags as "IE-only" or "NS-only",
> although it might be out-of-date.
AFAIK, background-repeat is part of the W3C CSS1 specifications, but I could
be wrong. Anyway, it seems to work in NS4.7[1] as long as stylesheets are
turned on. The problem lies in the BODY tag. If CSS is turned off, the
browser reads:
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" background="/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif"...
and thus, the background repeats.
--Bram
1) Surprisingly enough...since Netscape 4.x has terrible stylesheet
implimentation. Take a look at
http://bram.rapturesoft.com/cgi-bin/display.pl?m=diablo
in 4.x and some other browser (NS 6 or IE 5.x) to see an example of how
badly NS 4.x screws things up.
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
http://home.cwru.edu/~bxl34/
|
|
| |
I don't have any problems running netscape on the site, everything
seemed to come up fine for me. Slower than molasses in sub-zero
winter... though it looked ok..
Tamy
Chris Gray wrote:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
>
> > I am wondering if your browser is not honoring the "background-repeat:
> > no-repeat" setting in this style sheet (from a view source of the page)
> >
> > <style type="text/css">
> > <!--
> > body {
> > background-color: #FFFFFF; background-image:
> > url(/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat}
> > -->
> > </style>
> >
> > because that image IS the background that is repeating for you (go here:
> > http://www.lego.com/images/build/bgr770x074buildnav.gif to see the image
> > just one time)
>
> Could be - I know enough about HTML to do simple stuff, but I've never
> gone beyond that. I wonder if the "background-repeat" setting is a new
> extension, and perhaps even an IE-specific one? Some old "intro-to-HTML"
> stuff I've got lists many fairly basic tags as "IE-only" or "NS-only",
> although it might be out-of-date.
>
> --
> Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
>
> Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
> http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
WOW! This is Fantastic! It's exactly what I've wished
the lego.com site would be! Excellent work!
I love the interview with part designer; please continue
this series, and try to go into more detail on why parts
fit together in different ways and why/how certain color
themes were picked. (I understand you don't go into too much
engineering detail due to the target age range.)
The "flashback" feature is very nice to see. I'm hoping
for a flashback to classic space and the emergence of all
the new little parts that came out at that time. The other
noteworthy breakthrough in architecture came when the castle
series released the forestmen, with a lot of 1x3 plates and
hinge bricks. (In other words, don't focus only on the
technic and model team themes).
Please keep up the good work.
-gyug
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
>
> http://www.lego.com/build/
>
> Since the Build section has some content that might be of interest to
> Lugnetters and AFOLs in general -- and will hopefully have more in the
> future -- I thought I'd post an announcement about what the Build section is
> and what we're trying to do with it.
>
|
|
| |
....Beautiful! Nice looking site. Cant wait to dive in deeper :-)
"Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> wrote:
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
>
> http://www.lego.com/build/
>
> Since the Build section has some content that might be of interest to
> Lugnetters and AFOLs in general -- and will hopefully have more in the
> future -- I thought I'd post an announcement about what the Build section is
> and what we're trying to do with it.
>
> LEGO.com is split into many different areas -- there's Shop at Home online,
> of course, and sites for all the different product lines. We also have
> sections that cut across many product lines, like Play and Learn (for
> parents of young kids), Cool Kids (profiles of amazing kids), or Games
> (portal for all the games on the site). Build is the latest one of these,
> and (oddly enough) it's all about building and related areas: construction
> techniques, showing off MOCs, product development, and more.
>
> We're starting off small, and will be adding to Build incrementally, so
> don't expect the works just yet. Here's what we're offering in the first
> "issue:"
>
> * the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
> evolved from
>
> * a Q&A with Hans Madsen, one of our Master Builders and co-designer of
> the Dark Side Developer Kit, the Technic turntable, and many other sets and
> elements
>
> * some profiles of people whose careers have been influenced by LEGO
> building (you may have seen some of these in the Press section a few months
> back)
>
> * the Builders Gallery (where you can submit photos of MOCs for a monthly
> contest), formerly in the Club section, now in a new home and open to public
> viewing
>
> * a collection of links to all the building instructions on LEGO.com
>
> * the Time Capsule, a look at LEGO sets from the past -- this month, sets
> from 25 years ago, including the gorgeous 395 Rolls Royce
>
> * Ask Redini, where our resident LEGO guru, a floating minifig head who
> calls himself The Amazing Redini, answers questions about all things LEGO.
> (And before you ask, Redini doesn't know what bulk brick offerings are
> planned, and won't engage in debate about issues like juniorization.)
>
> Redini's gotten a few hundred questions since we launched Build last Monday.
> (My favorite so far: "Can I have all the LEGO?") Our core audience so far
> seems to be around the age range we expected -- median age of 9-10. So we're
> trying to make Build readable for kids, but interesting for everyone. Down
> the road we're planning on adding more interactive content, like games about
> building and simple 3D building apps, as well as more building instructions
> and construction techniques.
>
> Tell us what you think! We're happy to take suggestions for Build features,
> interviews, Time Capsule content, and so forth. Just post here or drop me a
> line -- or tell Redini, and he'll pass the comments on to us.
>
> Tomas Clark
> Producer, LEGO Direct
---
wubwub
wubwub@wildlink.com
www.sitcatsit.com <-- a guy and his cat
www.wildlink.com <-- the wildlinks
< INSERT HUMOROUS TAGLINE HERE >
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
>
> http://www.lego.com/build/
Nice job!
I especially like the Auto Chassis history. That is my favorite
progression because each model is an improvement from the previous
(and the original was a masterpiece in it's time). I bet we won't
be seeing a police station evolution :)
I also noticed the poll uses the "time frame" categories I had not seen in
public before. Is there any chance you could publish the entire product
tree (for each year) so sites like LUGNET could more accurately categorize
themes/subthemes etc.? It used to be simple but now it's quite difficult
to figure out where things go.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> I liked what happens to Redini when you click on him, its like a Lego
> punching bag that you can use while you are trying to figure out what the
> 84(!) different colors are for Lego, and how to get your hands on all 84(!),
> hehehe.
> So Tomas, what are the 84 colors????? We will get to when you are going to
> sell them in bulk at a later time, first things first :) hehehe.
> Mark P
> mfuss903@aol.com
I thought there were more like 120 colors. Maybe it's 84 currently used.
Obviously most of them are for the model shop. Just as well. I don't think my
sorting system could handle 84 colors.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> [...]
> LEGO.com is split into many different areas -- there's Shop at Home online,
> of course, and sites for all the different product lines. We also have
> sections that cut across many product lines, like Play and Learn (for
> parents of young kids), Cool Kids (profiles of amazing kids),
Does the "Cool Kids" section profile only the amazing kids or does it also
profile the average or below-average kid?
What makes one kid more amazing or cool than another? I thought LEGO was
about using your imagination and creativity and not about being cool or
amazing.
I guess my question is: Does this section of your site tell viewers that
the creations kids build are cool and amazing or does it tell them that the
kids themselves are cool and amazing for having done such cool stuff?
Did you consult with a child psychologist before naming the "Cool Kids"
section?
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> [...]
> * a Q&A with Hans Madsen, one of our Master Builders and co-designer of
> the Dark Side Developer Kit, the Technic turntable, and many other sets and
> elements
Cool, can't wait for more!
> * the Time Capsule, a look at LEGO sets from the past -- this month, sets
> from 25 years ago, including the gorgeous 395 Rolls Royce
Excellent! Are you taking requests for other old sets? I would like to see
the old Moon Landing set from the mid-70's!
> * Ask Redini, where our resident LEGO guru, a floating minifig head who
> calls himself The Amazing Redini, answers questions about all things LEGO.
A floating minifig head -- LOL -- awesome!
> (And before you ask, Redini doesn't know what bulk brick offerings are
> planned, and won't engage in debate about issues like juniorization.)
Does this mean that LEGO now officially acknowledges "juniorization" and
officially recognizes that it is an issue for some people?
--Todd
|
|
| |
Tomas,
Where did you get the time capsule model photos? Are they old stock or new
photos taken for the web site. Any interactive picture would really add a
lot.
Rose
"Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:GCvDvB.3Do@lugnet.com...
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
>
> http://www.lego.com/build/
> * the Time Capsule, a look at LEGO sets from the past -- this month, • sets
> from 25 years ago, including the gorgeous 395 Rolls Royce
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> As some of you have already noticed, we recently launched a new section of
> LEGO.com:
> http://www.lego.com/build/
Add me to the list of people who are very impressed with the new section!
Lots of fascinating info just in the first "issue." Perhaps the most
interesting to me, possibly because I was obsessed for so long with finding
this set, was this bit about the 396 Thatcher Perkins set from 1976:
"The American market was calling for a nostalgic locomotive toy, so LEGO
contacted museums in America for photographs and drawings of the classic
Thatcher Perkins, a train that operated on the B&O Railroad starting in
1863. #396 was an expensive set to buy, due to the high cost of research and
permissions required to create it -- so in the end, it did not sell as well
as hoped. The model was built by the LEGO Company's designers using only
pre-existing LEGO elements."
So it was designed for the American market but never sold here? Any chance
that had as much of an affect on sales as the expense? My parents maybe
wouldn't have bought me all those Hobby Sets but I sure would have been
begging for them loudly if I'd known they existed at the time. I had to make
do with the Spirit of St. Louis set, instead. :-) I'll have to dig out the
pieces and rebuild it for the 75th anniversary of the flight.
Doug
> Tell us what you think! We're happy to take suggestions for Build features,
> interviews, Time Capsule content, and so forth. Just post here or drop me a
> line -- or tell Redini, and he'll pass the comments on to us.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > Does the "Cool Kids" section profile only the amazing kids or does it also
> profile the average or below-average kid? What makes one kid more amazing or cool than another? I thought LEGO was about using your imagination and creativity and not about being cool or amazing. Does this section of your site tell viewers that the creations kids build are cool and amazing or does it tell them that the kids themselves are cool and amazing for having done such cool stuff?>
The Cool Kids area profiles kids who reflect the LEGO values: creativity,
inspiration and construction. It is meant as a departure point for our
audience - a place where they will come and be inspired to be active and
interested in a wide area of topics - to construct, to play and to create.
That being said, we take special care NOT to showcase only “overachievers,”
but instead accessible, normal kids who do particular interesting or
exciting things. For instance, one of our “cool kids” Nicholas, is
interested in animal rights, and is doing what he can with his time and
energy to support what he thinks is an important cause.
What Nicholas’ did - developing a plan and putting it into action, is the
kind of thing we showcase in order to inspire other kids to do similar
things - not necessarily in order to raise money or volunteer for animal
rights causes - but find out what they’re interested in, and pursue it.
So Cool Kids isn't just about kids who create with LEGO bricks, although we
do feature some kids that are whizzes at construction. Building is the
speciality of the Build section, where the creations themselves are
spotlighted (in the Builders Gallery, where anyone can submit pictures).
Cool Kids focuses more on the creators, thus the name.
--Candace Feit & Ari Vena
LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
hanks to everyone for the positive comments! Here are
some answers to various people's questions:
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> So Tomas, what are the 84 colors????? We will get to when
> you are going to sell them in bulk at a later time, first
> things first :) hehehe.
Yes, I hope we'll eventually get to what exactly the
colors are... I think the 84 was colors currently in
production -- it might be colors that you can currently
get in sets that are on sale but I doubt that. I'll have
to ask Redini. As a couple people pointed out, there are
something like 100+ colors over the history of LEGO? I
think LDraw uses 104? It's a slightly confusing subject.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Paul Gyugyi writes:
> (In other words, don't focus only on the technic and
> model team themes).
Definitely. We're aware that our first issue was skewed
a little bit towards slightly "older" lines like Technic,
Mindstorms, the model cars, etc. but we're going to try
and cover a broad range.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> I also noticed the poll uses the "time frame" categories
> I had not seen in public before. Is there any chance you
> could publish the entire product tree (for each year) so
> sites like LUGNET could more accurately categorize
> themes/subthemes etc.?
Those "time frame" categories aren't used officially. We
just made them up as an alternate way of grouping many of
the themes and product lines into a small number of
"meta-themes" for easy voting in the poll. Which just goes
to show that there are lots of ways you could categorize
all the sets. There are some "product trees" floating
around, some spanning many years (like the evolution of
trains) so we may get into that as long as we can present
it in a coherent and understandable way. Also, a lot of
the internal product categories are based on how things
were marketed more than their structural/design relationship
to each other, although there's often a good correlation
between the two. So personally speaking, I'm not sure
there is one "master" tree that would be suitable for all
purposes. Do people want to see something like that, or
closer to that?
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> Are you taking requests for other old sets?
Yep! Request noted.
> Does this mean that LEGO now officially acknowledges
> "juniorization" and officially recognizes that it is an
> issue for some people?
No, it means that Tomas Clark recognizes that it's an issue
for some people and one that is frequently discussed on
Lugnet. AFAIK there's no official company pronouncement on
juniorization. Of course there have been posts by LEGO
employees (like Ashley Glennon's post from 6 months ago)
about juniorization, but that wasn't an official press
release either. There are plenty of shades of gray between
a press release and a personal "not the opinion of my
employer" comment on a subject. Please resist natural urge
to blow minor references out of proportion.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rose Regner writes:
> Where did you get the time capsule model photos? Are they
> old stock or new photos taken for the web site. Any
> interactive picture would really add a lot.
The photos for the Time Capsule came from the historical
archives in Billund. We've been looking into taking new
(non-interactive) photos but obviously that's a bit more
work. What were you thinking as an "interactive picture"?
Something you can click on to get a new visual, like
rotating a model or seeing the box flap move, something
like that?
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
P.S. Remember, requests for Time Capsule, suggestions
of people to profile in the careers area, or Cool Kids,
etc. all welcome.
|
|
| |
"Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:GD13HB.1pw@lugnet.com...
> P.S. Remember, requests for Time Capsule, suggestions
> of people to profile in the careers area, or Cool Kids,
> etc. all welcome.
What about doing Karsten Kristensen for the careers section? I remember reading
about him in Brick Kicks as a kid, and also had the pleasure of meeting him out
at LEGOLAND California during Kidvention. I regret that I didn't get to talk to
him more, but I would like to learn more about his history with the company,
founding the Enfield model shop, etc.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Arianne Vena writes:
> The Cool Kids area profiles kids who reflect the LEGO values: creativity,
> inspiration and construction. It is meant as a departure point for our
> audience - a place where they will come and be inspired to be active and
> interested in a wide area of topics - to construct, to play and to create.
Were other, less psychologically loaded alternatives like "Cool Stuff" or
"Cool Clicks" or "Cool Tips" ever considered?
Labeling someone a "Cool Kid" (which you do several times on your pages) is
something you (collective you -- The LEGO Company) should be ashamed of.
Note that you're not saying that visitors to the "Cool Kids" area are cool,
but that the kids you're worshipping there are cool, with phrases like "Look
up previous Cool Kids" and "This month's Cool Kid" and "More cool kids"
implying that there are only a handful of cool kids -- only the ones that
you select.
Don't get me wrong -- I think the general idea behind the area is great! --
and the graphic design is beautiful! -- I just think LEGO picked a cruel
name for it.
> That being said, we take special care NOT to showcase only “overachievers,”
> but instead accessible, normal kids who do particular interesting or
> exciting things.
> [...]
> So Cool Kids isn't just about kids who create with LEGO bricks, although we
> do feature some kids that are whizzes at construction.
In contrast to that, your webpage says:
"LEGO Cool Kids is a monthly feature highlighting dynamic kids
accomplishing extraordinary things. Cool Kids are creative, hardworking
and productive. Most of all they are constructive... in how they spend
their time, what they accomplish and how they shape their world." [1]
I don't know about you, but to me, the phrase "dynamic kids accomplishing
extraordinary things" sounds like classic overachiever worship: put 'em up
on a pedestal and worship 'em in front of the other kids in order to make
the other kids feel envious...and hope they achieve more (or...ahem...buy
more toys).
The difference between labeling creations as "cool" and labeling the
creators as "cool" is subtle but hugely important.
Did LEGO approach this area of the website from a parental values
perspective or from a marketing perspective?
> Cool Kids focuses more on the creators, thus the name.
Did LEGO consult with a child psychologist before naming the "Cool Kids"
section?
Is there a full-time child psychologist on staff there at LEGO Direct?
Don't you think the title "Cool Kids" is a bit condescending? Especially
for the age range LEGO seems to be targeting with this? Kids have enough
growing-up problems to worry about without toy companies creating new ones
for them.
BTW, The Cool Kids is the name of a punk rock and ska band, some of whose
members were previously in a band called Pen15. The Cool Kids have a song
called "Big Booty Hoes Get on the Dance Floor and Bust a Move."
--Todd
[1] http://www.lego.com/coolkids/ - in the "about cool kids" section.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> No, it means that Tomas Clark recognizes that it's an issuefor some
> people and one that is frequently discussed on Lugnet. [...] Please
> resist natural urge to blow minor references out of proportion.
(Smile) OK, when you post using an @lego.com email address and with your
official LEGO title (e.g., Producer, LEGO Direct) in your sig, you are
actually speaking for LEGO; anything you say without a personal disclaimer
is understood to be The Official Word -- straight from the horse's mouth.
Since you did post in an official capacity to an official announcements
newsgroup with no personal disclaimer, I don't think anything was blown out
of proportion, do you? Additionally, my question was a serious question.
If you have opinions that happen to be your own and yours only (i.e., not
the official company line), most places ask their employees to include a
disclaimer of some sort to avoid any possible source of confusion.
So, more to the point, saying "...won't engage in debate about issues like
juniorization" in an official company post is, absent a personal disclaimer,
official acknowledgement from LEGO that juniorization is an issue and
something that LEGO is becoming self-conscious about.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification. (And we'll let you off the hook this
time. :-)
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> Labeling someone a "Cool Kid" (which you do several times on your pages) is
> something you (collective you -- The LEGO Company) should be ashamed of.
> Note that you're not saying that visitors to the "Cool Kids" area are cool,
> but that the kids you're worshipping there are cool, with phrases like "Look
> up previous Cool Kids" and "This month's Cool Kid" and "More cool kids"
> implying that there are only a handful of cool kids -- only the ones that
> you select.
I can see a problem with the specific word "cool" (if it means the same
thing today that it did 20 years ago). I certainly was not "cool" when
I was 8, but that meaning does not fit the context of the LEGO page.
The page doesn't give any indication that the featured persons are
more socially desirable to their peers.
The context seems to suggest that the kids did something mildly remarkable,
and are recognized for what they created, not for any intrinsic personal
qualities.
The best thing to do would be to ask some kids how they view that section.
What's their reaction?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> If you have opinions that happen to be your own and yours only (i.e., not
> the official company line), most places ask their employees to include a
> disclaimer of some sort to avoid any possible source of confusion.
It is refreshing to read candid (i.e. not press release) posts from
LEGO employees. Try not to make it so painful for them.
Who cares if juniorizaion is an "official" issue? Everyone, including LEGO
knows what it is, why they did it, who told them to do it and what effect it
has had on sales and brand image.
Why would you expect them to want to admit/discuss that "officially"?
What kind of press release would that be? It's an embarrasing footnote in LEGO
history and I can see why they don't want to talk about it. I certainly
wouldn't like it if people kept bringing up my most painful mistakes again and
again.
KL
|
|
| |
Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
>
> I can see a problem with the specific word "cool" (if it means the • same
> thing today that it did 20 years ago). I certainly was not "cool" • when
> I was 8, but that meaning does not fit the context of the LEGO page.
> The page doesn't give any indication that the featured persons are
> more socially desirable to their peers.
I suspect (though I don't know*) that giving an alternative
interpretation to "cool" was part of the intent. (Actually kids around
here don't say "cool" now: they say "Sweeet!" instead). Get them while
they are still Lego age and make 'em think that "cool" means helping
animals, building neat stuff, going to faraway places..... instead of
hanging out at the mall, smoking, and drinking.
Nice try, though not likely to work except on those who would be
interested in the "constructive" stuff anyway.
Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
eBay Lego auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/kevinw1/
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
| |
Tomas Clark wrote:
>
> hanks to everyone for the positive comments! Here are
> some answers to various people's questions:
<snip>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Rose Regner writes:
> > Where did you get the time capsule model photos? Are they
> > old stock or new photos taken for the web site. Any
> > interactive picture would really add a lot.
>
> The photos for the Time Capsule came from the historical
> archives in Billund. We've been looking into taking new
> (non-interactive) photos but obviously that's a bit more
> work. What were you thinking as an "interactive picture"?
> Something you can click on to get a new visual, like
> rotating a model or seeing the box flap move, something
> like that?
Did anyone notice the modeling clay holding up the tailwing of the
Spirit of St. Louis? I guess that gave the photographer a better
picture-taking angle.
I've heard rumors that LEGO has a historical museum of every set ever
produced in Billund somewhere. Can anyone confirm or deny these
rumors? Is it a museum of built-up sets, or are the sets still in their
boxes? Are multiple copies of some or all sets kept for archiving
purposes?
I would love to see more "Time Capsule" type pictures. And of course, I
would love to see sets like the Thatcher Perkins re-released (at least
those wheel sets).
Another thing I would love to see (although I highly doubt this will
happen) is pictures of sets that were completed but NOT released :) I'm
sure there are several sets that just about made it to market, but were
withdrawn for one reason or another. If nothing else, LEGO could
package these pictures as an "idea book" :) :)
Great job on the build section in general...I think it's my favorite
part of lego.com :)
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Arianne Vena writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > > Does the "Cool Kids" section profile only the amazing kids or does it also
> > profile the average or below-average kid? What makes one kid more amazing or cool than another? I thought LEGO was about using your imagination and creativity and not about being cool or amazing. Does this section of your site tell viewers that the creations kids build are cool and amazing or does it tell them that the kids themselves are cool and amazing for having done such cool stuff?>
>
> The Cool Kids area profiles kids who reflect the LEGO values: creativity,
> inspiration and construction. It is meant as a departure point for our
> audience - a place where they will come and be inspired to be active and
> interested in a wide area of topics - to construct, to play and to create.
>
> That being said, we take special care NOT to showcase only “overachievers,”
> but instead accessible, normal kids who do particular interesting or
> exciting things. For instance, one of our “cool kids” Nicholas, is
> interested in animal rights, and is doing what he can with his time and
> energy to support what he thinks is an important cause.
>
> What Nicholas’ did - developing a plan and putting it into action, is the
> kind of thing we showcase in order to inspire other kids to do similar
> things - not necessarily in order to raise money or volunteer for animal
> rights causes - but find out what they’re interested in, and pursue it.
>
> So Cool Kids isn't just about kids who create with LEGO bricks, although we
> do feature some kids that are whizzes at construction. Building is the
> speciality of the Build section, where the creations themselves are
> spotlighted (in the Builders Gallery, where anyone can submit pictures).
> Cool Kids focuses more on the creators, thus the name.
>
> --Candace Feit & Ari Vena
> LEGO Direct
I'd like to make a comment about the Build.com section which is a little bit
off-topic, but which is, I feel, nonetheless germaine. Part of me has a problem
with the section where people can vote for their favorite fan MOC; I just don't
think its good to put up a voting contenst that pits 6-year-olds against grown
people. Personally, I always vote for the youngest kid, no matter what the
child's model looks like. When a child sees that his/her model is only
preferred by 6% of voters, I'm afraid that it could send a hurtful message to
the child; the child will no doubt be proud and excited to see his/her creation
on the web, but I'm not sure that a young child will be able to understand that
only a handful of votes in his/her favor does not mean "nobody likes what I've
made" when he/she is competing with an adult's creation for praise. Why not
simply have a "Look what these fans have created!" showcase? Is competition
really that important? Why even fostor a spirit of competition? Is that what
the art of Lego is about? (And in particular, is that the spirit of the Lego
company? Isn't the Lego philosopy about imagination and creativity rather than
competition? I may seem to be nitpicking, but I'd say that a nitpick is
appropriate when children's self-esteem can be affected by adult actions.
james
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> It is refreshing to read candid (i.e. not press release) posts from
> LEGO employees. Try not to make it so painful for them.
Agreed.
FUT admin.nntp
>
> Who cares if juniorizaion is an "official" issue? Everyone, including LEGO
> knows what it is, why they did it, who told them to do it and what effect it
> has had on sales and brand image.
>
> Why would you expect them to want to admit/discuss that "officially"?
> What kind of press release would that be? It's an embarrasing footnote in LEGO
> history and I can see why they don't want to talk about it. I certainly
> wouldn't like it if people kept bringing up my most painful mistakes again and
> again.
Again, agreed. Well said, Kevin.
|
|
| |
James Simpson wrote in message ...
> Why not
> simply have a "Look what these fans have created!" showcase? Is • competition
> really that important? Why even fostor a spirit of competition? Is • that what
> the art of Lego is about? (And in particular, is that the spirit of • the Lego
> company? Isn't the Lego philosopy about imagination and creativity • rather than
> competition? I may seem to be nitpicking, but I'd say that a nitpick • is
> appropriate when children's self-esteem can be affected by adult
actions.
I totally agree. I put on a couple of "Lego shows" at my daughter's
school - kids brought their own creations in and we put them on
display - and lots asked "what are the prizes" and "who's the judge"
and were surprised when I said there was no judging and no prizes.
With kids ranging in age from 3 to 16, plus myself, putting models on
display, and the whole school coming to look, I couldn't see any
justification for judging. The kids got a big kick out of seeing their
stuff on display and ogling everyone else's models, we had a great
time. Competition could only have made it less fun, not more.
Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
eBay Lego auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/kevinw1/
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Simpson writes:
...
> child's model looks like. When a child sees that his/her model is only
> preferred by 6% of voters, I'm afraid that it could send a hurtful message to
> the child; the child will no doubt be proud and excited to see his/her creation
> on the web, but I'm not sure that a young child will be able to understand that
> only a handful of votes in his/her favor does not mean "nobody likes what I've
> made" when he/she is competing with an adult's creation for praise. Why not
At first, my own reaction to your comment was "Well, then, maybe they could
split it into adults, teenagers and children, or beginner and expert
categories". Until I read the rest of what you posted:
> simply have a "Look what these fans have created!" showcase? Is competition
> really that important? Why even fostor a spirit of competition? Is that what
> the art of Lego is about? (And in particular, is that the spirit of the Lego
> company? Isn't the Lego philosopy about imagination and creativity rather than
> competition? I may seem to be nitpicking, but I'd say that a nitpick is
> appropriate when children's self-esteem can be affected by adult actions.
>
> james
Wow, that's a really good point. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but
you're absolutely right. Why does there need to be a competition (that could
send the wrong message to a young child and end up discouraging them from
future LEGO endeavors).
Brickshelf embodies the same sharing vs. competition spirit; I think you're
right, TLG should basically provide an official Brickshelf.
Mark W.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
<SNIP>
> The best thing to do would be to ask some kids how they view that section.
> What's their reaction?
I think this is what needs to be done, us adults can say what we think all
we want, and be 100% wrong. I would be interested as to the feedback outside
of Lugnet to this "cool kids" section. I personally see nothing wrong with
it, (the part saying these are 'cool kids' that is) I have more faith in my
child that he will not be 'hurt' by not being up there as a 'cool kid'.
Heck, when he builds something I tell him its cool, and he is a great
builder! That is what matters to *him* and to *me* Who cares if Lego says
these kids are cool, who would think they were the 'only' cool people in the
world, or that they were not 'cool' because they were not on the page, if
this is the case then they have a low self-esteem level and have deeper
issues than Lego.
My 2 cents, but hey, what can 2 cents get you these days?
Mark P
mfuss903@aol.com
|
|
| |
No offense but, for cripes sake man...
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
[...]
> Does the "Cool Kids" section profile only the amazing kids or does it also
> profile the average or below-average kid?
>
> What makes one kid more amazing or cool than another? I thought LEGO was
> about using your imagination and creativity and not about being cool or
> amazing.
[...]
> Did you consult with a child psychologist before naming the "Cool Kids"
> section?
>
> --Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, "Erin Windross" <e-windross@home.com> writes:
> No offense but, for cripes sake man...
Sorry, but I actually couldn't be more serious by those questions. I think
TLC is making a huge blunder on the name of that. Unless, of course, if
it's marketing driven and they're aware of it, in which case maybe it's good
for their bottom line.
--Todd (old fart traditionalist)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> It is refreshing to read candid (i.e. not press release) posts from
> LEGO employees. Try not to make it so painful for them.
I share your viewpoint, to a large extent. Question: Are you suggesting
that it is wrong to post a follow-up asking whether a particular portion of
a post was an official statement or a personal statement??
I would love to see TLC officially recognize juniorization as an issue for
some people. But as you illustrate, it prolly just ain't gonna happen.
Now, since Tomas's announcement was posted in a very official manner
(official title in sig, official lego.com email address, posted in a group
specifically created for official TLC announcements, and it announced new
features on the official website bullet by bullet), it begged the question.
I don't think I should be sorry at all that I asked -- and I'm grateful that
Tomas took a few moments to clarify what he meant.
> Who cares if juniorizaion is an "official" issue?
Well, I care! -- at least to the extent that, if I knew they were
acknowledging it and maybe trying to cut down on it, I could hold out hope
for better product lines in the future.
Thank God for LEGO Direct and the promise of mass customization. It will
save the company.
> Everyone, including LEGO
> knows what it is, why they did it, who told them to do it and what effect
> it has had on sales and brand image.
>
> Why would you expect them to want to admit/discuss that "officially"?
Heh, well, I certainly wouldn't *expect* them to. It's worth asking about,
of course, especially when the word is used in an official post. I sure
wouldda been pretty surprised (pleasantly) if the answer had been yes, but
that doesn't mean I'd assume no -- certainly not with all the great strides
that LEGO Direct has made and is continuing to pave the way for.
> What kind of press release would that be? It's an embarrasing footnote in LEGO
> history and I can see why they don't want to talk about it.
I sure hope down the road that it's only a footnote. Today it rather still
seems (to me) like it's an increasing trend over the past six years.
> I certainly wouldn't like it if people kept bringing up my most painful
> mistakes again and again.
Are you implying that juniorization is TLC's most painful mistake? (I'd be
hard pressed to disagree, and I'm mostly curious what you mean by that.)
--Todd
[xfut => lugnet.general]
|
|
| |
Ah well, as long as this debate is...er... good for the community ;)
--
Erin
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, "Erin Windross" <e-windross@home.com> writes:
> > No offense but, for cripes sake man...
>
> Sorry, but I actually couldn't be more serious by those questions. I think
> TLC is making a huge blunder on the name of that. Unless, of course, if
> it's marketing driven and they're aware of it, in which case maybe it's good
> for their bottom line.
>
> --Todd (old fart traditionalist)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, "Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> writes:
> I can see a problem with the specific word "cool" (if it means the same
> thing today that it did 20 years ago). I certainly was not "cool" when
> I was 8, but that meaning does not fit the context of the LEGO page.
> The page doesn't give any indication that the featured persons are
> more socially desirable to their peers.
I think it's the special-kid/not-special-kid aspect that rubs me the wrong
way rather than the precise meaning of the word "cool."
> The context seems to suggest that the kids did something mildly remarkable,
> and are recognized for what they created, not for any intrinsic personal
> qualities.
When LEGO Direct announced the area[1], it was described as being "profiles
of amazing kids." Now, I don't know about you, but to me, that implies
intrinsic personal qualities. Note that it wasn't described as being
profiles of kids who have done or created amazing things. To me that's a
fundamental difference.
I'm not a parent -- and, heh, maybe this means I'm not cut out to be one --
but I imagine that if I were a parent, that I'd find the "Cool Kids" area
somewhat offensive and insulting. Perhaps having been first exposed to the
resource via the phrase "profiles of amazing kids" impaired my ability to
look at it fresh when I viewed the webpage for the first time.
> The best thing to do would be to ask some kids how they view that section.
> What's their reaction?
That could tell you what kids *think* their reaction is, yes.
But even the reaction, if you could truly know it, isn't necessarily so
relevant as the long-term psychological effects of telling kids that some
kids are more special than they are.
--Todd
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2418
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Simpson writes:
> I'd like to make a comment about the Build.com section which is a little bit
> off-topic, but which is, I feel, nonetheless germaine. Part of me has a
> problem with the section where people can vote for their favorite fan MOC; I
> just don't think its good to put up a voting contenst that pits 6-year-olds
> against grown people.
<snip>
Yes, that's a very germane comment, and not really off-topic at all! You'll
be glad to know that we consider the current Builders Gallery contest to be
just a modest start, much like the rest of the Build section. We have plans
and ideas for expanding and improving it, some that are similar to things
that have been mentioned in this thread. For the modest launch of Build we
simply adopted the contest as it currently existed in the Club area of the
site, but we were well aware that there's room for improvement.
On a more personal note, I also agree that LEGO building isn't fundamentally
about competition. But I do think that contests can be fun, rewarding,
motivating, and inspiring for creative people of all ages, and compatible
with LEGO as a creative medium. Just think of competitions for creative
writing, poetry, or visual arts. That said, I don't think we'll be elevating
contests to a central, dominant position in the Build section or throughout
the rest of the site.
A good place to look for a contest that's worked well over the last couple
years is the "venerable" Mindstorms area of the site -- which happens to be
run in part by the same team that put together Build. Members of the
Mindstorms community can share pictures, descriptions, and programs for
their creations, without needing to enter a contest. Members can also
nominate particular creations for the semi-monthly contest, which is broken
into novice and expert levels. And then members can vote on which of the
nominees is their favorite, and voting determines the winners. The site
admins (us) mostly just pick a theme for the "special" category, weed
through the nominations to pick out the final contestants, and publish the
results.
LEGO also runs contests that aren't about building per se, like the Life on
Mars Coloring Contest (for which the winners will be announced soon) and the
recurring Story Contest on LEGO.com. So you don't necessarily have to be a
building expert to get recognition for creativity. Among other things, the
Build section hopes to encourage and help kids to make their own LEGO
creations, so we'll be focusing on the stuff that involves sticking bricks
together, and contests are one way to foster that.
A contest often spurs someone on to make their next awesome creation -- we
saw a lot of very nice walking robots come out of the recent Ambulator
contest on the official Mindstorms site. Of course, it's probably a good
idea to provide positive reinforcement for all the kids (and big kids) who
get nominated, for instance, not just the winners. And for that matter,
everyone who bothers to upload an actual picture of a creation. So we're
keeping that in mind as we evolve the Build section, and we'll see what we
can do.
> When a child sees that his/her model is only preferred by 6% of voters, I'm
> afraid that it could send a hurtful message to the child [...]
Here's a question -- is it better to keep the exact percentages of votes
under wraps? And just announce winners and runners-up and honorable
mentions, or something along those lines, instead of the "interactive" 6% /
15% / 43% kind of thing? I admit, however, that I tend to vote for the
underdog, especially the wild "rainbow warrior" creations that are usually
made by the younger kids.
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> When LEGO Direct announced the area[1], it was described as being "profiles
> of amazing kids" • [...]
> [1] http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2418
Minor correction, the original mentions on Lugnet are here:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=915
And here:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=973
Ari, being the producer for Cool Kids, probably did a much better job of
succinctly describing her project than I did in my four-word blurb, quoted
above. I mentioned it as another example of a "cross-product-line" area of
LEGO.com in part because it had previously been announced on Lugnet. So I'll
have to take the blame if my overly brief summary was inaccurate or made a
bad first impression.
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, "Erin Windross" <e-windross@home.com> writes:
> > No offense but, for cripes sake man...
>
> Sorry, but I actually couldn't be more serious by those questions. I think
> TLC is making a huge blunder on the name of that.
I think you gave pretty good reasons. Probably would have been better to
call it something like "kids doing cool things" or something like that, to
avoid the implication that some kids are cool and some aren't.
And if the model selection is retained (which itself is arguable that it
ought not to be) the voting process similarly ought to be changed to an
anonymous one in which the final determination of which model wins is kept
as an editorial judgement (the way that you do CLSotW... doing it that way
is brilliant. We've had very few vote solicitations because of that inspired
decision of yours many years back).
But don't be too surprised if you get a not very friendly reaction from Lego
about what is, after all, a valid question asked in a well intentioned way.
Not everyone takes constructive criticism, requests for information, or
questioning of motive particularly well.
(difficult questions *are* easier to ask than to answer!)
After all, consider what happened when I asked if you had secured permission
to use the Lego(r) theme logos here. That was actually a question that I was
asking to perhaps benefit other sites that might want to use them too, and
was really hoping to get an answer along the lines of "yes we did and here's
how you go about it if you wanted to".
When you didn't answer that question but evaded it instead, it seemed like
you hadn't secured it. I made a suggestion that you might want to seek legal
advice if you didn't actually have clear cut rights to do what you were
doing. (which suggestion I got offline mail about from someone at TLC
telling me that in their unofficial opinion I was spot on to ask the
question) Although it's valid advice that I've seen you give others (for
instance regarding domain names)... your reaction to that was not "thanks",
it was to jump on me.
So don't be surprised if you get stonewalled or worse. It's just human
nature. Take comfort in knowing that you tried and that you did raise a
valid point, even if you get no, a semantically null, or a vicious response
in return. That's what I did, anyway. The vicious ones are the hardest to
take but I got over it.
Hope that helps.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> > that his/her model is only preferred by 6% of voters, I'm
> > afraid that it could send a hurtful message to the child [...]
>
> Here's a question -- is it better to keep the exact percentages of votes
> under wraps? And just announce winners and runners-up and honorable
> mentions, or something along those lines, instead of the "interactive" 6% /
> 15% / 43% kind of thing? I admit, however, that I tend to vote for the
> underdog, especially the wild "rainbow warrior" creations that are usually
> made by the younger kids.
While I do think some underdog voting would be lost by keeping the
percentages under wraps I think it on balance would be beneficial to do
that. As I said in an off-topic.debate post in response to one of Todd's, I
think the model of how Todd does CLSotW is great.
People can and should vote, but running tallies are not revealed, and
further, the final winner decision is editorial with the votes being one
input factor rather than it being a democratic process.
A side benefit is the lessening (but not total elimination, unfortunately)
of campaigns by those who want votes and of attempted fraud in the voting
process.
While we are talking about this, what is the prospect for improving the
screening process, or has that been done already? (I'm referring for the
tendency that it seems that every 2 or 3 months someone enters work that
clearly "came off the web" instead of out of their imagination).
Thanks!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...]
> When you didn't answer that question but evaded it instead, it seemed like
> you hadn't secured it. I made a suggestion that you might want to seek legal
> advice if you didn't actually have clear cut rights to do what you were
> doing. (which suggestion I got offline mail about from someone at TLC
> telling me that in their unofficial opinion I was spot on to ask the
> question) Although it's valid advice that I've seen you give others (for
> instance regarding domain names)... your reaction to that was not "thanks",
> it was to jump on me.
I jumped on you for insulting Suzanne (it wasn't the first time, and you
know darn well what I'm talking about), for insulting our intelligence, for
questioning our integrity, for acting with an egregiously pompous attitude
(once again), and I asked you to stop worrying about issues that weren't
yours to worry about (once again), and I believe I also asked you who you
the devil you thought you were.
As I recall, when I jumped on you, I was nearly screaming at the top of my
lungs, so my main point -- that I was upset with your attitude and hoping
you would check it at the door in the future -- should have had no trouble
getting across. I think you heard the message loud and clear, but just
can't bring yourself to accept it. Maybe you don't want to, I don't know.
So be it. I don't think this personal issue needs to be dragged out
publicly any further. We should talk over beer at BrickFest or something.
Some beers would probably help work this out.
Finally, our use of the logo on the DUPLO page is compliant with the rules
of juxtapositioning the LEGO logo next to the DUPLO logo (a change made
sometime around 1998), and we further believe that the usage is also fully
compliant with fair use of the composite logo. We did write to TLC Legal
long ago and pointed them to that particular page in question, and the
response we received, which included a bit of background about their logo
policy, did not contain instructions to remove the logo or to alter the page
in any way, nor have we been contacted about it again since. If it were
something TLC had had a real issue with, it would never have appeared there
in the first place.
--Todd
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:3af8669a.2408665@lugnet.com...
> Labeling someone a "Cool Kid" (which you do several times on your pages) is
> something you (collective you -- The LEGO Company) should be ashamed of.
> Note that you're not saying that visitors to the "Cool Kids" area are cool,
> but that the kids you're worshipping there are cool, with phrases like "Look
> up previous Cool Kids" and "This month's Cool Kid" and "More cool kids"
> implying that there are only a handful of cool kids -- only the ones that
> you select.
Someone else brought this up before (I forget who), but I don't think the site
is saying 'these are the only cool kids,' or 'if you're not up here, you're not
cool.' In that sense, isn't the Cool LEGO Site of the Week cruel to other
people who make websites which don't get voted, or to take it a bit further,
sites which are (God forbid I say it) bad? Don't you think that those owners
suffer poor self esteem because they never get nominated CLSOTW?
<sarcasm>
We shouldn't be able to celebrate something or someone exceptional because there
are many more people/things out there which are not up to that standard and that
puts them in a negative light.
</sarcasm>
> Don't get me wrong -- I think the general idea behind the area is great! --
> and the graphic design is beautiful! -- I just think LEGO picked a cruel
> name for it.
To an extent, perhaps, but I think you're making too big of a deal out of it.
Consider this article (debate fodder - and I see an interesting one here):
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2001/0
5/08/life_of_reilly/
(my apologies if the URL cuts off due to wrapping)
In this article, they're talking about schools banning games like dodgeball
because it 'encourages the best to pick on the weak.'
<personal experience>
As a kid I sucked at throwing a ball, or evading a dodgeball as a target. I was
one of what that person quoted above would consider 'weak.' I usually spent
more time out than in in games like dodgeball.
</personal experience>
Yet - after these years of growing up, I look back and do not find myself
emotionally damaged because I got hit by a rubber ball a lot. I'm sure you
could poll a lot of people in your office, school, or neighborhood who can say
they played dodgeball as kids and aren't emotionally damaged by sucking at it
either.
But even deeper than that runs this quote from the article,
"I know what all these NPR-listening, Starbucks-guzzling parents want. They want
their Ambers and their Alexanders to grow up in a cozy womb of noncompetition,
where everybody shares tofu and Little Red Riding Hood and the big, bad wolf set
up a commune. Then their kids will stumble out into the bright light of the real
world and find out that, yes, there's weak and there's strong and teams and
sides and winning and losing. You'll recognize those kids. They'll be the ones
filling up chalupas. Very noncompetitive. "
I see a surprising similarity between this article - in which I wholeheartedly
agree with the author - and the ideas presented here about the negative impact a
section 'Cool Kids' will have on every kid not mentioned's self esteem.
fut: o-t.debate
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> I think it's the special-kid/not-special-kid aspect that rubs me the wrong
> way rather than the precise meaning of the word "cool."
>
>
But ther *are* special kids! My parents told me I was special
when I was a kid. Of course every parent should do that from time
to time because all kids are special and amazing in their own way.
Wether it's a parent, LEGO or their friends, eventually each one of us
figures out what makes us special.
As for not being special, I'm not a parent but I would think this kind of thing
happens every day. "I wasn't chosen for the team" "suzie said I was ugly"
"John has way more LEGO than I do". Hey, that's life and good parents
show their kids how to deal with it constructively. Not being in the
"special kids" section of a website is probably much less psycologically
damaging and harmful as observing their parents drive home from soccer
practice.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
<snip>
Nicely proving my point, thanks... What I viewed as helpful questions and a
desire for clarification you viewed as meddling.
Right now, probably, someone inside TLC is no doubt saying to him or
herself: "Who does this (pompous) Todd guy think he is, asking if we have a
child psychologist on staff? We have this under control. Why is this guy
(again) asking questions that are not his area of concern, even after we
gave a lengthy and entirely satisfactory (from our perspective) answer?"
They happen to be wrong about your motive, as you were and are about mine,
but it's only human nature to take that attitude, which was the point I was
making. If you don't see the parallel, I am truly sorry, but it is there.
I'm done, but feel free to jump on me again if you like.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> They happen to be wrong about your motive, as you were and are about mine,
Your motive, as always, is to prove to yourself that you are smarter than
everyone around you.
> but it's only human nature to take that attitude, which was the point I was
> making. If you don't see the parallel, I am truly sorry, but it is there.
The difference being: I haven't been asked to knock it off. And if I am
asked to knock it off because I'm upsetting or insulting them personally,
I will, and I won't even have to be asked several times.
--Todd
|
|
| |
There's a known bug, at least in the Mac version of Netscape 4.x where
turning off Javascript also turns off stylesheets.
You must browse a lot of shady sites if you're that concerned about
JavaScript security breeches ;-)
In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Gray writes:
> "Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> writes:
>
> > That's actually a stylesheet problem, not a javascript one. It looks like
> > you're using some version of Netsacape 4 for X. Which I happen to be using at
> > the moment too, so I can tell you exactly what to do: select Preferences under
> > the Edit menu, go to the Advanced tab, turn Stylesheets on. Stylesheets don't
> > get misused very much, Netscape has pretty solid support, and they make
> > LEGO.com look much nicer, so I can recommend that with good conscience.
> >
> > It's generic CSS1, part of the official W3C standard, but it shouldn't break
> > like that if you don't have stylesheets turned on. Thanks for finding that bug,
> > we should be able to fix it some time soon.
>
> Hmm. I've always had Stylesheets turned on, since, as far as I know, they
> are not a security problem. I tried visiting the same page with them
> turned off and it is indeed different. The main problem that I see is
> the darkness of the background (especially the "BUILD" blocks), with
> the small black text on top of it.
>
> However, thanks for looking into it. You were right about the Netscape
> version, however - its 4.72 on X on Linux.
>
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Chris Gray writes:
> > > "Tomas Clark" <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > * the history of the 8448 Super Car and many of the Technic cars that it
> > > > evolved from
> > >
> > > Looked like it would be quite interesting. So, I enabled cookies and went
> > > for a look. I gave up after 30 seconds, however - tiny black letters on
> > > a fairly dark background made it extremely difficult to read. Perhaps
> > > your page designers haven't tried the page with Netscape (with Javascript
> > > disabled)?
> > >
> > > For any curious, I took a snapshot:
> > >
> > > http://www.graysage.com/cg/snapshot.gif
|
|
| |
Tim Courtney wrote:
> <sarcasm>
> We shouldn't be able to celebrate something or someone exceptional because there
> are many more people/things out there which are not up to that standard and that
> puts them in a negative light.
Good post Tim, IMHO there is nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition, in
fact I think it is essential in many ways otherwise kids are going to be in for a
big shock when they leave the nest and enter the real world. Ok, so it's only Lego,
but play is an important part of growing up, and on the flip side, seeing people
doing better than you can be very motivating.
For the record, I did lose a Lego competition held by a shop as a kid, and I was
pretty cheesed off for at least half an hour, but psychologically damaged? Nah. I
had made a tractor with cool mechanical functions that looked pretty bad, the
winner had made an oil rig with no mechanical functions that looked great. I reckon
I learned a valuable lesson that day ;-)
Jennifer Clark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jennifer Clark writes:
> Good post Tim, IMHO there is nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition, in
> fact I think it is essential in many ways otherwise kids are going to be in for a
> big shock when they leave the nest and enter the real world. Ok, so it's only Lego,
> but play is an important part of growing up, and on the flip side, seeing people
> doing better than you can be very motivating.
Moreover seeing Jennifer doing better than you can be very motivating. Right
I'm off to order a video encoder card, I put the side skirts on my tank last
night and it's looking brilliant and need it's own web site. I'm sure it'll
at least put me on the same continent as regard comparison with Jennifer's
best :-).
> For the record, I did lose a Lego competition held by a shop as a kid, and I was
> pretty cheesed off for at least half an hour, but psychologically damaged? Nah. I
> had made a tractor with cool mechanical functions that looked pretty bad, the
> winner had made an oil rig with no mechanical functions that looked great. I reckon
> I learned a valuable lesson that day ;-)
>
> Jennifer Clark
Deja Vu
One day I was told of a lego competition at the local church, I simply
scooped up what I had built at the time. Unforunately it was the worst thing
I'd built in a long time, a car ferry. Needless to say I came second to a
worse pile of junk some space thing, at least it was all the same colour.
Anyway at least the sweets we're nice I got for second :-). (I was very
young at the time).
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
<snip>
> I see a surprising similarity between this article - in which I
> wholeheartedly agree with the author - and the ideas presented
> here about the negative impact a section 'Cool Kids' will have
> on every kid not mentioned's self esteem.
Good post, good point, good debate fodder, Tim.
I'm ambivalent, I do think that maybe "cool kids" may be a bit TOO
judgemental... but dodgeball (I was always picked last and usually out first
too) taught me something very valuable: no one can excel at everything, so
pick what you want to be good at, because there are lots and lots of things
to be good at, and those bullies who think they rule the world because they
rule dodgeball CAN be worked around, avoided, or even defeated.
I think going back to one's high school reunion is extremely instructive, it
is interesting to see what washouts some of the golden children that
tormented their "non betters" turned out to be. Too bad you have to wait 10
or 20 years to learn that lesson.
There is nothing "wrong" with being better than others at some things and
worse than others at some things.
Equal rights != Equal opportunity != Equal outcomes. And that's a GOOD
thing. We must demand equal rights where practical but we should actively
shun equal outcomes.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
> news:3af8669a.2408665@lugnet.com...
>
> > Labeling someone a "Cool Kid" (which you do several times on your pages) is
> > something you (collective you -- The LEGO Company) should be ashamed of.
> > Note that you're not saying that visitors to the "Cool Kids" area are cool,
> > but that the kids you're worshipping there are cool, with phrases like "Look
> > up previous Cool Kids" and "This month's Cool Kid" and "More cool kids"
> > implying that there are only a handful of cool kids -- only the ones that
> > you select.
>
> Someone else brought this up before (I forget who), but I don't think the site
> is saying 'these are the only cool kids,' or 'if you're not up here, you're not
> cool.'
lol, was it me? ( http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2524 ). My post
there says what I would have posted here.
> In that sense, isn't the Cool LEGO Site of the Week cruel to other
> people who make websites which don't get voted, or to take it a bit further,
> sites which are (God forbid I say it) bad? Don't you think that those owners
> suffer poor self esteem because they never get nominated CLSOTW?
Good point! Basically, the core of it is the same thing? Even has the 'cool'
part. I can not recall many (note: I said recall, not saying there has not
been) CLSotWs that have not been heavy in the flashy HTML department, and
with high-level models on it. I understand there is a wide variety up for
the voting, but when I get my sons models up on a prety plain, no fancy html
site, will it stand much of a chance up against a flashy-HTML site with
video and huge buildings or mechs? So am I not cool because I do not know
fancy html? Am I not cool because I will probally never have a CLSotW?
Should I be hurt because of it, nope.
> > Don't get me wrong -- I think the general idea behind the area is great! --
> > and the graphic design is beautiful! -- I just think LEGO picked a cruel
> > name for it.
>
> To an extent, perhaps, but I think you're making too big of a deal out of it.
Ditto, especially when the 'Cool' Lego site is up there front and center on
the main page here.
<snip the excellent debate fodder, if you missed it, go back and find it>
> -Tim
I read this on the cool kid page:
"LEGO Cool Kids is a monthly feature highlighting dynamic kids accomplishing
extraordinary things. Cool Kids are creative, hardworking and productive.
Most of all they are constructive... in how they spend their time, what they
accomplish and how they shape their world."
I am assuming kool kids stay off drugs, out of gangs, stuff like that -
sounds good to me. But does it mean if your picture is not up there you do
not have the charisteristics of a cool kid? No, it does not. Should kids be
hurt that they are not up there, no it does not.
Mark P
mfuss903@aol.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> [...] Don't you think that those owners suffer poor self esteem
> because they never get nominated CLSOTW?
I think it must happen some, yes, and that's a probably a downside. CLSotW
isn't specifically marketed at masses of kids, though, so I'm not too
worried.
> [...]
> I see a surprising similarity between this article - in which I wholeheartedly
> agree with the author - and the ideas presented here about the negative impact a
> section 'Cool Kids' will have on every kid not mentioned's self esteem.
The competitive nature of the area is there regardless of the name. I don't
have any problem with that. I'm just saying I think the _name_ is poorly
chosen...and I don't think LEGO consulted with child psychologists before
picking the name. That upsets me more than I'd like to admit it does.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Protective undergarments notwithstanding, I have just checked on Netscape
4.75 for Linux (pretty darn close to what Chris was using), and the same bug
is present. If you turn off Javascript you also turn off stylesheets, even
if it looks like stylesheets are checked... So Chris, in that particular
browser you'll have to turn on Javascript as well if you want to use
stylesheets and view legible Build pages -- at least until we can patch in
the no-stylesheets fix.
Tomas Clark
tclark@halfrobot.com
No official information of any kind is contained in this post.
In lugnet.lego.direct, "Jacob Arnold" <jacob@gridface.com> writes:
> There's a known bug, at least in the Mac version of Netscape 4.x where
> turning off Javascript also turns off stylesheets.
>
> You must browse a lot of shady sites if you're that concerned about
> JavaScript security breeches ;-)
|
|
| |
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:3afb4206.11726475@lugnet.com...
> The competitive nature of the area is there regardless of the name. I don't
> have any problem with that. I'm just saying I think the _name_ is poorly
> chosen...and I don't think LEGO consulted with child psychologists before
> picking the name. That upsets me more than I'd like to admit it does.
Ok, I think I get it now. I don't have as big of a problem with the name as you
do, but I see your point.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> Protective undergarments notwithstanding, I have just checked on Netscape
> 4.75 for Linux (pretty darn close to what Chris was using), and the same bug
> is present. If you turn off Javascript you also turn off stylesheets, even
> if it looks like stylesheets are checked... So Chris, in that particular
> browser you'll have to turn on Javascript as well if you want to use
> stylesheets and view legible Build pages -- at least until we can patch in
> the no-stylesheets fix.
I'd vote for a no-javascript fix. Until Lego's website is viewable without
it, you're alienating people who don't have Javascript due to platform or
security issues.
Whatever happened to plain old regular HTML, anyway?
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> > Protective undergarments notwithstanding, I have just checked on Netscape
> > 4.75 for Linux (pretty darn close to what Chris was using), and the same bug
> > is present. If you turn off Javascript you also turn off stylesheets, even
> > if it looks like stylesheets are checked... So Chris, in that particular
> > browser you'll have to turn on Javascript as well if you want to use
> > stylesheets and view legible Build pages -- at least until we can patch in
> > the no-stylesheets fix.
>
> I'd vote for a no-javascript fix. Until Lego's website is viewable without
> it, you're alienating people who don't have Javascript due to platform or
> security issues.
>
> Whatever happened to plain old regular HTML, anyway?
It's dead. Web sites that just use plain HTML without JS or
animations or other glitz are just not "cool" enough.
I agree with you, don't get me wrong. But the reality is that the
vast majority of Web users these days are using M$ Internet Exploiter
and don't have the foggiest idea what risks they might be running.
I'm fairly sure however that JavaScript's security holes were fixed
years ago, and any modern version of NS or IE should offer very little
risk with JS turned on. ActiveX, on the other hand ... *shudder*
--Bill.
--
William R Ward hermit@bayview.com http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."-Groucho Marx
|
|
| |
Tomas Clark writes:
> I have just checked on Netscape 4.75 for Linux (pretty darn close
> to what Chris was using), and the same bug is present. If you turn
> off Javascript you also turn off stylesheets,
I believe this problem exists for Netscape 4.x on all platforms. Netscape
4.x does a horrible job with CSS positioning anyway, so I don't know if it's
a big loss.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
http://home.cwru.edu/~bxl34/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tomas Clark writes:
> > Protective undergarments notwithstanding, I have just checked on Netscape
> > 4.75 for Linux (pretty darn close to what Chris was using), and the same bug
> > is present. If you turn off Javascript you also turn off stylesheets, even
> > if it looks like stylesheets are checked... So Chris, in that particular
> > browser you'll have to turn on Javascript as well if you want to use
> > stylesheets and view legible Build pages -- at least until we can patch in
> > the no-stylesheets fix.
>
> I'd vote for a no-javascript fix. Until Lego's website is viewable without
> it, you're alienating people who don't have Javascript due to platform or
> security issues.
Does anyone have any reliable stats on how many people are left out (as a
percentage) due to platform issues, due to using obsolete browsers (perhaps
for perfectly legitimate reasons) and due to running with restrictions
turned on?
Where I am going with this is that I am wondering exactly who is being
marginalized by use of JavaScript??? (and I have been in the "has to work
with IE and NS 3.0" camp for a while now but am thinking of giving up.
Partly because I myself have something neat I want to do in JS... I will
have an alternate page too, of course.
Not sure where to FUT but probably doesn't belong here if this thread goes
in this direction
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, William R. Ward writes:
> "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> > Whatever happened to plain old regular HTML, anyway?
> It's dead. Web sites that just use plain HTML without JS or
> animations or other glitz are just not "cool" enough.
Well, www.lego.com has been "too cool" for me since virtually day one
anyway, so if its webdesigners can't figure out these issues, it'd be no big
loss if I can never access content on it. LUGNET is *much* more friendly
(and more human IMO) than Lego's website could ever be.
Expect me to go ballistic if Lego decided to take S@H off of the phones and
exclusively onto the net, or offer any decent deal for web-only customers.
> I agree with you, don't get me wrong. But the reality is that the
> vast majority of Web users these days are using M$ Internet Exploiter
> and don't have the foggiest idea what risks they might be running.
>
> I'm fairly sure however that JavaScript's security holes were fixed
> years ago, and any modern version of NS or IE should offer very little
> risk with JS turned on. ActiveX, on the other hand ... *shudder*
With an average of 4 months between IE security patches from Microsoft, and
the trend actually *speeding up* as more (untested) features are added, I
seriously doubt that JavaScript (or at least Microsoft's implementation)
will be secure for a long, long time.
And that's just Javascript. I'm not going to get into the gaping security
holes evident in certain plugins -- Flash, Real, etc...
What really grinds me is the ignorance -- or arrogance -- that modern
webmasters (especially those at www.lego.com) exhibit by expecting us users
to restrict ourselves to only one or two browsers, in a very specific
configuration.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Does anyone have any reliable stats on how many people are left out (as a
> percentage) due to platform issues, due to using obsolete browsers (perhaps
> for perfectly legitimate reasons) and due to running with restrictions
> turned on?
There are a couple good sources of stats like this. Statmarket.com used to
be one of them, but now you have to pay to get access to their stats. After
they changed to pay-only, a couple handy pages like these popped up:
http://www.eleganthack.com/toolbox/browser-stats.htm
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/
With links to lots of useful stats sites. Here are the ones I tend to look
at for my own personal use:
http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
They're both based on log analysis programs in use on thousands of sites --
the first one smaller sites, the second one larger ones. The numbers are
pretty comparable, the upshot being that roughly 1% or less are using
Netscape 3. Around 95% or more are using "the common browsers" -- Netscape 4
or IE 4+, which is probably why many people are supporting those as their
baseline target, and trying to calculate the tradeoffs for supporting the
rest. Similarly, Macintosh = 5% or less, Linux = 1% or less, and so forth.
Of course it's a self-fulfilling prophecy in some cases -- if your design is
broken in a certain browser, you won't get many hits from that browser.
The other interesting thing to consider is what kind of users are using the
less common browsers. Older versions are more common in academic,
government, and developing nations. Unix and variants tend to have certain
kinds of users, of course. And Macintosh, interestingly, tends to be widely
supported in part because many designers use Macs -- often the people making
the sites, or handing out coveted design awards. That's the political power
of the Mac, at least on the web. Too bad the same isn't true of the software
market.
> Where I am going with this is that I am wondering exactly who is being
> marginalized by use of JavaScript??? (and I have been in the "has to work
> with IE and NS 3.0" camp for a while now but am thinking of giving up.
> Partly because I myself have something neat I want to do in JS... I will
> have an alternate page too, of course.
Interesting statistics on thecounter.com is that 17%-20% run with Javascript
disabled, which is a whole lot. Which by their reckoning must include a lot
of 4.0 folks. I don't think that statistic is particularly well known. One
good thing to keep in mind is that some Javascripts can be implemented
without any adverse effects on non-Javascript users, or with simple
workarounds. The popular image rollovers are one example. The most common
thing non-javascript users tend to get left out on is pop-up windows.
Anecdotally, a lot of people who do disable javascript do so because they
feel that a) it slows down performance, b) it introduces security risks, c)
their computer can't handle it, d) there are people out there who do really
annoying things with it like pop-up ads and opening new windows when you
close old ones. A lot of people (some very tech-savvy) that I've run into
seem to think that Javascript = Java, and their computer can't handle that
Java stuff. Of course, Javascript has almost nothing to do with Java -- from
what I understand it was named that by Netscape as a sort of
marketing/synergy ploy. Also, Netscape used to (maybe still does) thrash
around while "loading" its Javascript engine, not when the app started, but
the first time Javascript is encountered. This made a lot of people think
that they were hitting some huge download or complicated "Java" app, when it
might have been a one-line script. So reasons A and C are usually not true
unless you have a significantly old computer, and B is mostly a flaw of
older browsers, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. D is a
depressing fact of life, and I bet pop-up ads account for a pretty big chunk
of the non-javascript users.
For the record, I mostly use Internet Explorer on Windows and Netscape on
Linux, and occasionally Internet Explorer on Mac.
> Not sure where to FUT but probably doesn't belong here if this thread goes
> in this direction
This seems like lugnet.publish to me?
Tomas Clark
tclark@halfrobot.com
No official information of any sort is contained in this post.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> What really grinds me is the ignorance -- or arrogance -- that modern
> webmasters (especially those at www.lego.com) exhibit by expecting us
> users to restrict ourselves to only one or two browsers, in a very
> specific configuration.
The only conclusion I've been able to reach is that AFOLs probably aren't
part of the target market at www.lego.com. AFOLs are useful for spreading
contagious enthusiasm and giving feedback on the website, but we really
don't need to be wowed or marketed to -- we're already loyal consumers.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> > [...] Don't you think that those owners suffer poor self esteem
> > because they never get nominated CLSOTW?
>
> I think it must happen some, yes, and that's a probably a downside. CLSotW
> isn't specifically marketed at masses of kids, though, so I'm not too
> worried.
Oh? And who recovers from bad feelings faster, adults or children? If you think
adults, you need to rethink it. The older a person gets, the easier it seems to be to
retain and intensify bad (or good, luckily) emotions.
i.e., Lugnet can probably be said to be doing more damage with CLSOTW than Lego with
CoolKids.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> > [...]
> > I see a surprising similarity between this article - in which I wholeheartedly
> > agree with the author - and the ideas presented here about the negative impact a
> > section 'Cool Kids' will have on every kid not mentioned's self esteem.
>
> The competitive nature of the area is there regardless of the name. I don't
> have any problem with that. I'm just saying I think the _name_ is poorly
> chosen...and I don't think LEGO consulted with child psychologists before
> picking the name. That upsets me more than I'd like to admit it does.
Todd, I hope you never have kids. If you do, I'm going to feel really sorry for them
when the real world smacks them in the face and they can't handle it. Depending on
how badly you smother them, that could be as late as the college years, which would
make them in for a SERIOUSLY rude shock.
I can't stand people that want to milksop the entire world for the benefit of their
kids (or others), because "kids shouldn't have to deal with that". YES, THEY SHOULD.
It's called LIFE, and they'd better get used to it. They won't have you people to
hold their hands their entire lives (unless they legislate it all. If they do, I'm
leaving the country for good).
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
"Tomas Clark" <tclark@halfrobot.com> writes:
> Protective undergarments notwithstanding, I have just checked on Netscape
> 4.75 for Linux (pretty darn close to what Chris was using), and the same bug
> is present. If you turn off Javascript you also turn off stylesheets, even
> if it looks like stylesheets are checked... So Chris, in that particular
> browser you'll have to turn on Javascript as well if you want to use
> stylesheets and view legible Build pages -- at least until we can patch in
> the no-stylesheets fix.
Much better! Now I'll have to spend a while exploring... :-)
Thanks Tomas!
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Oh? And who recovers from bad feelings faster, adults or children? If you
> think adults, you need to rethink it. The older a person gets, the easier
> it seems to be to retain and intensify bad (or good, luckily) emotions.
I'm intrigued by that. Where did you read that?
> i.e., Lugnet can probably be said to be doing more damage with CLSOTW than
> Lego with CoolKids.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
If it was called "Cool AFOLs" then I would agree with you.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Oh? And who recovers from bad feelings faster, adults or children? If you
> > think adults, you need to rethink it. The older a person gets, the easier
> > it seems to be to retain and intensify bad (or good, luckily) emotions.
>
> I'm intrigued by that. Where did you read that?
Read? Were you never a kid? Have you never watched kids? In the vast majority
of cases, young children will change from crying like the world is coming to an
end to laughing in seconds. Adults? Hardly.
Do you have to READ something somewhere to make it true? If so, I'll just go
write up a webpage somewhere to point to, if that will make you feel better about
it.
> > i.e., Lugnet can probably be said to be doing more damage with CLSOTW than
> > Lego with CoolKids.
> >
> > Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> If it was called "Cool AFOLs" then I would agree with you.
Ohhhhhh, Okkkkk. So saying "this site created by these guys is cooler than YOUR
site" isn't doing any damage, because it's about the site. No, it's got nothing
to do with the people that created the site (I certainly haven't run into any AI
sites that write themselves).
Todd, you lost this battle before you started. You're holding TLG to a standard
that you ignore yourself, no matter how fine YOU seem to want to split hairs to
get away with it.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Read? [...] Do you have to READ something somewhere to make it true? [...]
I meant where did you read it as in what brought you to that conclusion?
I'm intrigued by your viewpoint because in my experience with people it
isn't the case.
I've met my share of embittered adults, but I've always assumed they started
down that path at an early age.
> > > Pot. Kettle. Black.
> >
> > If it was called "Cool AFOLs" then I would agree with you.
>
> Ohhhhhh, Okkkkk. So saying "this site created by these guys is cooler than
> YOUR site" isn't doing any damage, because it's about the site.
I believe there's a large perceptual difference.
> No, it's got nothing to do with the people that created the site (I certainly
> haven't run into any AI sites that write themselves).
I haven't seen any either (not that I know about, anyway! :-). That would
sure be cool, though!
> Todd, you lost this battle before you started.
Battle? I'm still trying to figure out how this turned into a debate.
> You're holding TLG to a standard that you ignore yourself, no matter how fine
> YOU seem to want to split hairs to get away with it.
So you agree then that what TLG is doing with the name "Cool Kids" is
potentially damaging?
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> So you agree then that what TLG is doing with the name "Cool Kids" is
> potentially damaging?
I do agree with you that the label is potentially damaging.
But then, a lot of things are potentially damaging.
This one may be small beer, compared to some other stuff. I imagine there
are some (in the viewing audience, at TLC, etc...) that are not sure it
justifies the level of scrutiny (or rhetoric) you're giving it.
But then, we both do love to strain at gnats and swallow camels, so carry on...
I agree with you also that this particular discussion shouldn't be viewed as
a debate so much as an exploration of the issues. But I suspect a number of
participants have posted things that have moved it in the debate direction.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> > You're holding TLG to a standard that you ignore yourself, no matter how fine
> > YOU seem to want to split hairs to get away with it.
>
> So you agree then that what TLG is doing with the name "Cool Kids" is
> potentially damaging?
Not at all. You're the one that is setting the standard here (for TLG, while
ignoring it yourself).
Personally, I think you take this WAY too seriously. Kids shouldn't be coddled so
much.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > You're holding TLG to a standard that you ignore yourself, no matter
> > > how fine YOU seem to want to split hairs to get away with it.
> >
> > So you agree then that what TLG is doing with the name "Cool Kids" is
> > potentially damaging?
>
> Not at all. You're the one that is setting the standard here (for TLG,
> while ignoring it yourself).
A bit of history here might help...
"Cool LEGO Site of the Week" was named that back in 1996 when there were
tons and tons of "Cool Abcdefg (type) of the Wxyz (timeframe)" sites popping
up all over the Web. I think the first site was "Cool Site of the Day" back
in 1994 -- it spawned hundreds of similar-sounding resources. Given the
whole history of "Cool x of the y" sites and their continued proliferation,
I don't feel that the name "Cool LEGO Site of the Week" per se is damaging.
I also can't help thinking that the name "Cool Kids" (focusing on the person
and not the creation) and www.lego.com's target market puts it in a
completely different ballpark -- or, to use another analogy, it seems like
comparing apples and oranges to me. Yeah, they're both fruit, but pretty
different.
Notwithstanding, I do think there might be aspects of CLSotW other than the
pure name which may cause unnecessary psychological damage to folks. I
don't know what all those aspects are, but as I've been thinking about this
based on the points you've raised, I'm beginning to wonder if the subtitle
"Showcasing the finest from LEGO fans around the world" should come out or
be tweaked, or if some disclaimer should be added that says that it's all in
good fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
> Personally, I think you take this WAY too seriously. Kids shouldn't be
> coddled so much.
Well, like I said, this bothers me more than I'd like to admit... And I'm
neither a psychologist nor a parent, so my concern isn't necessarily
warranted in the first place. (I guess I came across as overly obnoxious as
well.)
What bothers me most, I think, is that it's simply not something I ever
expected to see from a company like LEGO. It just underscores once for me
again that, for better or for worse, marketing is more imporant to LEGO than
the traditional values I once thought it held.
--Todd
|
|
|
