 | | Lego.com - new look —James Brown
|
| | | Well, it looks like the website got a facelift. I haven't poked around much, cause I'm way tired (and should have been in bed hours ago), but hey, I'm obsessive. It looks ok, and doesn't load too abysmally slowly over modem. James (URL) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | (...) So am I, obviously <g>. I poked around a bit. It's shockwave-heavy (probably why some people couldn't see the little dancing minifig advertising the change?) and it's pretty slow over my modem. There's a button marked "shop" at the top, but it (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, it kills Netscape 4.05 every time I run it... I can only see it with MIE... And the back button doesn't work past the main site (it's probably forcing a redirect)... so I'm voting for 'worse'. Although I never liked their old site (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | (...) In Netscape 4.(something pretty recent) for Linux, I only see a blank screen when I go to the main site at www.lego.com. Oh, there's a small banner on the top that's clickable, but nothing more. I can't see how this is good advertisement for (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Alex Roode
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't see why it crashes for you. I've got Netscape 4.05 too, and it works just find for me. (Oh, how I !HATE! MIE...!) (...) Yes it does. (probably some dang MIE junk. ARrggh!) (...) I'm voting for MIE stinks!!! I like the old site and the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | (...) much, (...) It loads super fast for me. Of course once it's loaded all that's there is a blank screen that fades from light blue at the bottom to dark blue at the top. Looks like the background screen you get during software installs. No (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Christian Holtje
|
| | | | | | (...) I am very dissapointed with this site. Your problem is just one of them; you don't have java/javascript enabled in your browser. Of course, if you have WebTV, it doesn't *have* java. It makes *no* allowance for people with disabilities, it (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Disabled unfriendly Lego —Christian Holtje
|
| | | | | | | Here is what would be read to someone who needs text to be read to them (either via speech synthesis or a braile/hand reader) if they visited lego.com: [btn065x020us0home.gif] [btn064x020us0shop.gif] [btn059x020us0help.gif] (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Disabled unfriendly Lego —Craig Hamilton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) sounds like i'm not missing much by not being able to get to the site. strange that my webtv came with a link to LEGO.com already set up in the favorites folder, and with this overhaul it can't even be accessed! TLG is not just asleep at the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | (...) there is (...) the (...) installs. (...) it (...) you (...) of us (...) The Doctor What <docwhat@gerf.org> wrote in article <19991016144608.A171...rf.org>... (...) you (...) This is why... unless you are going to provide multiple versions of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Greatest common denominator, probably. (You want to design for the highest level that people will have in common. "Lowest common denominator" is meaningless.) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in article (...) common. (...) <puzzled grin> I was expecting some contrary comments on my post, but wasn't really expecting a debate on semantics. :) Actually the expression "lowest common (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | [Followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek] (...) *grin* (...) Oh, certainly an amazing number of people use it wrongly. But a lot of people also say that they "could care less", when they mean that they couldn't. People don't think about what they're (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think the most accurate math term is actually the "greatest common factor" or "greatest common divisor" (GCF or GCD for short), which refers to the largest natural number which equally divides two whole numbers in question. In non-math (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | | | | | | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <380a066d.171574518@...et.com>... (...) common, (...) number (...) into (...) b.1884> (...) several (...) even (...) I have to be honest Todd... much of your math was just over my head. Sorry. :( (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Dictionaries, of course, are just tools reflecting common usage. Or supposed to be. That doesn't mean that common usage is correct. :) On another tangent, since we're in .off-topic already -- I really think the word "dumpster" has entered the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Oh...sorry, I left out the "limit as n approaches infinity" part. ;-) (...) I wonder that too. At first glance, they seem *very* incompatible. I'm not an English scholar, so I can't really say. But I think what may have happened is that the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Whoops, I didn't mean welcoming and accommodating the most infrequent ingredients per se -- glittery things like Shockwave or RealAudio, for example. I meant welcoming and accommodating browsers which happen to support special or infrequent (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, maybe I'll stop now. :) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm not sure that makes sense. By definition, all things that are in common occur the same amount -- i.e. everywhere. 'Cause otherwise, it wouldn't be common. Another possible alternative phrase might be "broadest common denominator"... (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yet another definition clash -- LOL! -- this just keeps getting confusinger and confusinger. Now I'm totally confusticated. :) In common English usage, does the phrase "common denominator" mean "denominators in common" (common within some (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I forgot adult LEGO-ness! It's a wonderful opportunity to make a very confusing and misleading true statment! :) :) Male adult LEGO fans are quite uncommon. Hee hee! It's true!! :) --Todd (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's the direction I'm coming at this from. Denominator, in its non-math sense, means "that which gives a name to something". Applied to the topic at hand, that very logically means what sorts of documents the browser is said to understand. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | Matthew: It is refreshing to see your pedantry and stubbornness so openly on display. I don't feel quite so alone! And as for correcting what arguably is an egregious error(1), I'm not done using my lance yet, you'll have to wait your turn. In the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Aha -- I think that's a key point! In numbers and divisors and factors, the isomorphic example to "simplest thing common to all" is probably the lowest common factor (always 1) or lowest common prime factor between a set of numbers. 1 would be (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Uh, I think that'd be "inconsistency in my bookmark file". For a while, we were pedantic about the something-can't-be-b...d-a-domain rule, but then we decided to give in to the New World Order of web/dns. *grin* (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | my biggest problem with www.lego.com —Remy Evard
|
| | | | | | I've got fast net to the house, am completely java enabled when I choose to be, and have no technical problems with the site. I gotta say, it looks pretty cool. And I still think it's awful. Larry mentioned the need for cognitive direction for a (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: my biggest problem with www.lego.com —Mark Herzberg
|
| | | | | | I too am fully java enabled, have had no technical problems with the site, and I usually connect at 49999K. I like the site, but you make a very good point. It is not at all easy for a child visiting the site to find what he wants when it comes to a (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lego.com - new look) —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes: [big snip about LCD, GCF, GCD, LCM, etc...] You should teach fractions, Todd :) That's a much more in-depth explanation than my 5th grade math teacher ever gave (the one who kept asking me to tell her if she (...) (25 years ago, 18-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
