| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > In lugnet.announce, Bram Lambrecht wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.asphodel.org/bsv/
> > >
> > > Very cool, Bram! Thanks for posting this.
> >
> > I agree, it's pretty darn nifty!
> >
> > > Now if only BSV could surmise real name data and contact info ;-)
> >
> > Perhaps there is a way to have it get at the LUGNET cross reference info?
>
>
> The reason the "real name" info was removed was to comply with COPPA.
>
> > I must say that I thought this was nifty. Really! But what I would really really
> > like to see, though, is that there be a way developed to show the ads. Since
> > BrickShelf is paying the bandwidth for the images, and this is basically a much
> > improved BrickShelf interface,
>
> Much improved?
>
> Here's what I see:
>
> Pros:
> selectable number of images per row
> selectable number of rows per page
> large image resize function
>
> Cons:
> slower reponse (by using php plus having to query the actualy site)
> "recent" view includes avatars
> no color coded directory/file names
> no filenames at all
> does not work in Netscape 4.x (and probably other legacy browsers)
>
> I won't comment on the page design since that is subjective
> and I'm admitedly biased :)
>
> Granted the 3 new features above would be nice, and if there is
> enough demand for them I will certainly make them a priority.
>
> Also, aside from the fact that it shouldn't be necessary to have
> a redundant interface, it is extremely bad netequitte. Remember
> the controversey surrounding "reframing" other pages? This is
> much worse in that is extracts essentially all of the content of a
> site, and redisplays it elsewhere.
>
> While I greatly appreciate constructive criticism of the Brickshelf
> design, this is the wrong thing to do.
I think the comment "does not work in Netscape 4.x (and probably other legacy
browsers)" is funny and sad at the same time. Frankly, that Brickshelf currently
works in Netscape 4 (and be honest, it works in Netscape 3, 2, and 1, as well,
where "works" means "displays the same way in a visual browser") means that it
doesn't work in browsers for smaller devices like telephones or PDAs, it is
irritating to users of 800x600 displays or browser windows, and wastes the space
of people running their browser full-screen on 1600x1200 and up. What is the
case about how many visitors (who aren't bots or otherwise masquerading) are
using Netscape 1-4 that makes a statement of corporate purpose to support a 1998
browser at the expense of later developments necessary?
Constantine
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brickshelf Viewer
|
| (...) I had trouble parsing this sentence. Would you consider restating it, perhaps as several sentences with less convoluted sentence structure? Clearly, it's a point you'd like to make, but I am not yet getting what point it is. Thanks. (21 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brickshelf Viewer
|
| (...) The reason the "real name" info was removed was to comply with COPPA. (...) Much improved? Here's what I see: Pros: selectable number of images per row selectable number of rows per page large image resize function Cons: slower reponse (by (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
