 | | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) was (...) small (...) bread- (...) hasn't (...) Funny? The KB I work for not only has the Chrome Castle sets but also just got the Women's Soccer Team in. Just FYI. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | RE: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) 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 (URL) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) 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 (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GD6KF3.828@lugnet.com... (...) I agree with Larry. The customer is not always right. I have seen this dozens of times with our customers. What customers do have the right to do is (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
