SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    80
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I for one believe the idea of smart tags is a good idea but they need more developing and the support of website designers. We need tags to disable the tags... maybe something like meta tags or maybe an add on to the div tag...
    <div disablesmarttags> or something.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Evangelist thewitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    468
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why should we have to go back and modify millions of web pages to support some freaking Microsoft smart tags?

    I would rather see meta tags to enable smart tags than meta tags to disable them.

    Stay the heck away from my content. It's my content, not yours, and if I want your freaking tags on my page I'll add them.

    -t

  3. #28
    SitePoint Member xtreeq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mir space station
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But the thing is that most users are ignorant of how their computer/software works. Sure they can disable it, but since most people would not know what it was called much less know where to go to disable it, would they even BOTHER to turn it off.
    I have to say that most of my friends, or better yet ALL of them who don't work with computers don't understand anything, especialy the ST.

    so if they don't understand it, they'll just except it, and get used to it and then in some time after the cry has gone, ST or whatever the tech' will stay and we can do nothing to stop it.

    I know, it's a cruel world...

  4. #29
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do not zink Herr Gates vould like to hear you talking like zis?

    ZIEG HEIL!

    Last edited by z7; Jul 6, 2001 at 06:32.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by z7
    I do not zink Heir Gates vould like to hear you talking like zis?

    ZIEK HEIL!

    HERR gates

    Zieg Heil
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  6. #31
    SitePoint Addict z7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thnx for the correction Crayol!

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast pman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Planet Namek
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by creole


    But the thing is that most users are ignorant of how their computer/software works. Sure they can disable it, but since most people would not know what it was called much less know where to go to disable it, would they even BOTHER to turn it off.

    That is the biggest problem that I have with the Smart Tags. The lack of control. As far as the user knows, any links shown by Smart Tags are actually ON MY SITE. Thus if they saw a link that they didn't agree with, they would come to ME and complain.
    they sure are ignorant, no arguing there they will eventually find that the SmartTags aren't on your website but a feature of the browser if they appear on all the websites they go to.

    I guess it would be good that the SmartTags default mode is turned OFF.

    PS - don't the meta tags work to disable?
    in persuit of world domination...uhh..for the better!

  8. #33
    SitePoint Enthusiast pman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Planet Namek
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by thewitt
    Why should we have to go back and modify millions of web pages to support some freaking Microsoft smart tags?

    I would rather see meta tags to enable smart tags than meta tags to disable them.

    Stay the heck away from my content. It's my content, not yours, and if I want your freaking tags on my page I'll add them.

    -t
    why should we have to go back? well, that's a problem that we have to face with newly released browsers (not just MS).

    good point about the metatags!
    in persuit of world domination...uhh..for the better!

  9. #34
    SitePoint Evangelist thewitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    468
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by pman


    why should we have to go back? well, that's a problem that we have to face with newly released browsers (not just MS).

    good point about the metatags!
    I don't revisist my sites when new browsers come out. I work very hard to make sure that the sites I design (I really have over 1,000,000 pages online now - not counting dynamic pages) are usable based on the W3C standards, and not simply look good in the latest version of a browser.

    The problem with Smart Tags and them being enabled by default, is they will change the way all of the web looks - dramatically - and require a visit and edit in order to disable them. This is absolutely not acceptable. We should be screaming at the top of our lungs against this abomination.

    Imagine if all of the sudden Microsoft decided to pin the browser window to 480 pixels wide - regardless of how large your monitor resolution was. What if they decided to wrap all your pages in MSN advertising inside frames embedded in IE. You could turn this off with a meta tag, but it was on unless you did something about it. Would that get your attention?

    -t

  10. #35
    SitePoint Zealot nflicanada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sk, Canada
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No offence to anyone but I'm wondering why everyone is upset over smart tags which before they were canned were disabled by default and had the meta tags working in the newest builds, but yet you hardly hear anyone complain about the P3P features which could disable the revenue stream for your site and the new image toolbar which allows images to easily be saved and is on by default.

    Smart tags to me seem to be a non-issue since individuals who would find sports scores, or stock information from within a site that mentions that material would probably be a boost to your company. For example your aligned with a Fortune 500 company, if people can see the background of the company your partnered with they may be more likely to buy from or spend more time on your site.

    When you consider the amount of trouble people go through to protect their images I'd think the image toolbar would be the most heated issue, especially considering you have to add a meta tag to disable that as well for the users who won't or don't know how to turn it off.

  11. #36
    Team SitePoint AlexW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    832
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's always been next to impossible to your protect your imagery, so the new image toolbar doesn't change much.

    Smart Tags are almost easy to accept when they are links from original, non-dictionary words. If 'SitePoint', or 'Microsoft' or 'eBay' or 'DowJones' were automatically linked back their respective DotComs (particularly if the webmaster enabled it in the metatags).

    But, if (for example) the words 'web design' all through-out SitePoint were linked through to Builder or Internet.com, then I think that is a calamitous situation.

    I would think web developers would have to seriously consider detecting IE6 and blocking it with an explanatory message to the user (I don't say that lightly either).
    Alex Walker
    SitePoint Developer
    SitePoint - Learnable

  12. #37
    SitePoint Zealot nflicanada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sk, Canada
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know images are fairly hard to protect but yet you still see people developing javascript to disable right clicking and buying cgi scripts, etc. in order to try to protect their images. Smart Tags didn't seem to have any major impact on revenue streams for a site yet it seemed to be the major point everyone was attacking.

    IE6's P3P setting blocking 3rd party ads and it's image toolbar however hurt profit margins of already struggling dot coms by eliminating ads by companies like doubleclick for the time being and killing the products for companies that develop these cgi tools to try and prevent images from being copied or causes companies to have to redo a bunch of their sites markup in order to add the meta tags which could be very pricy or restrictive depending on the site's state and size.

    Smart Tags however only represented a few catgories of words in the shipping version. Sports, financial information, travel and university information. And since they were disabled by default and most people here seem to feel as though users wouldn't know or care enough to turn them on, companies wouldn't really have to worry about redoing a bunch of code for the general population who doesn't feel the feature is value added to their net time.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Enthusiast Setac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Marcos CA
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    P3P vs ST's

    No offence to anyone but I'm wondering why everyone is upset over smart tags which before they were canned were disabled by default and had the meta tags working in the newest builds, but yet you hardly hear anyone complain about the P3P features which could disable the revenue stream for your site and the new image toolbar which allows images to easily be saved and is on by default.
    On offense taken. Two months ago I was excited about P3P. I now know how to circumvent it... or at least use it so all works. Plus with P3P my self interest as a designer was in line with the big money kids. I need my site and 3rd party cookies to work and so do the banner ad companies. So, I was pretty sure there would be a quick solution and that it would be widely published.

    Whatever, I got busy and figured out how to handle my P3P issues. THe unknown is scarey. P3P is old hat to me.

    ST's on the other hand put me on the opposit side of the fence from the big money. We are both competing for my visitors attention.

    I got a late start realizing what ST's would do to my sites. By the time I started this thread MS was declaring they would remove ST's from MSIE6.

    I also had Beta testers telling me that MSIE6 was not honoring the meta tag to turn off ST's. I was preparing to try and start a revolt to get as many designers as possible to request that their clients allow them to block MSIE users from their site. Or change everything to Flash and Fireworks (not the best choice but effective) to avoid ST's.

    I can't figure how you (a participant in web design and therefore probably a site designer) would see ST's as a none issue. What do you do when your client asks why his visitors' exit rates are up, length of visit time is down and what are you going to do about it?
    Dynamic HTML - Is that a Frisbee based language...

  14. #39
    SitePoint Zealot nflicanada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sk, Canada
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The reason I saw smart tags as a non-issue is brcause although you are right and the meta tag did not work in most builds of IE6 it was working in the last couple builds including 2501 which shipped with Win XP RC1. Since you can disable smart tags if you really don't want them and they are disabled by default I can't really see what the big deal is but maybe it's just me.

    Also for the site in my sig that I've done for my parents I've noticed that users who end up going to the DSA links on our site seem to have more trust when purchasing and have a much higher return rate, which is the reason I can't see how viewing stock information (which seemed to be ST's main hits) can really affect a sites visit. Sure you might have the few visitors that leave the site and don't come back, but I think a lot would like to see who you are affiliated with, if their trustworthy and then come back and potentially make a purchase or return visit in the future.

    I've been surfing with my privacy setting at low so I'm not sure whether or not Doubleclick has incorporated their P3P setting yet, but I know that even when installing builds up to 2479 that before I switched privacy setting ads on sites like Webmonkey would come up white, so while this may not be a problem for sites that are internally relying on cookies, use of 3rd party advertising could be greatly affected.

    Actually none of IE's new features really bothered me except the image toolbar and resizing for my personal browsing before I turned it off. Since there are no ads on any sites I've designed P3P has been a non-issue for me personally although I do see potential risk for others. Smart tags as I've said before I believe could actually help improve a site, and the image toolbar I don't worry about on my own sites due to the fact as long a people are not hotlinking to my site, I couldn't really care if they use a few images off my sites provided it isn't a logo and they don't copy the whole look.

    I'm just curious though on why everyone seemed to be so upset over ST's but yet their has been very little bickering over P3P shipping at medium and image toolbar being able to change content by resizing your images by default.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Zealot strangealienmagic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Metro Detroit area, Michigan
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by nflicanada
    ...and image toolbar being able to change content by resizing your images by default.
    I took a look at the IE6 preview site and according to what I read there, the resizing would only take place if the image was too large for the browser window. I also saw the demo of how the image could be made larger to fit the browser window.

    Am I missing something? What exactly does the default setting do to "normal" size images?

    Personally, from what I've read about the new features in WinXP and IE6, there doesn't seem to be much (other than a more dependable basic OS) that turns me on. I'll probably turn most of the new features off. (For instance, I LIKE my desktop "cluttered" with shortcut icons - they're very useful. But I don't know if the new "cleaner" desktop can be turned off. I hope.)

    I hate it when the software keeps asking me if I want to do this or that. (It looked like that would be the case with the Image resizing toolbar, but I don't know for sure.) If I want to do something, I will, otherwise the software should leave me alone!

    Any features to really get excited about in XP?

  16. #41
    SitePoint Zealot nflicanada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sk, Canada
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The image resize does only effect images that are too big to fit in a browser window, but when you look at the amount of photo sites, etc. it affects quite a lot of sites & a big argument agaist ST's is that they would change a person's site which is exactly what this does.

    From others comments though they feel as though most users do not know how to adjust anything in their browsers so using that sentiment most of these sites would have their users looking at distorted pictures with an image bar covering up the upper left corner.

    As for Win XP I think it greatly depends on the OS your running now, if your running anything on the 9x line XP is almost a must-have because of it's stability. For Win 2000 users though it's a bit tougher choice since it's Win 2k with a new UI and a bit of tweaking.

    As for the clean desktop while it defaults to just the recycle bin you can still add your own shortcuts and you can readd the shortcuts from previous windows versions.

    Don't get me wrong I'm a Microsoft developer and support Microsoft quite a bit, I'm just suprised to see all the backlash over smart tags when other issues I could see as more damaging have little to no discussion.

  17. #42
    Team SitePoint AlexW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    832
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sure you might have the few visitors that leave the site and don't come back, but I think a lot would like to see who you are affiliated with, if their trustworthy and then come back and potentially make a purchase or return visit in the future.
    But surely we all know how to write links to the sites and organisations we *want* to be affliated with. Building trust by communicating your associations is standard good business practice since year dot. Having a technology with no keen interest in my site second guess those affiliations is certainly not.

    I.E. If my site has a message saying 'This site is strongly anti porn', I would be quite angry if the browser had seen fit to link 'porn' through to 'www.megaporn.com' (or whatever). I suspect that would do little for my visitors perception of me as a 'trustworthy' source.
    Last edited by AlexW; Jul 9, 2001 at 20:22.
    Alex Walker
    SitePoint Developer
    SitePoint - Learnable

  18. #43
    SitePoint Zealot strangealienmagic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Metro Detroit area, Michigan
    Posts
    110
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the information Chris. I am running win98SE, and I figured that stability might be my major reason for upgrading. Also glad to know I won't have to get rid of my shortcut collection.

    I think the reason STs have drawn more attention is because of actually altering the perceived content of a particular site. Not having a graphic display properly would be a pain, but at least the software wouldn't be substituting a Microsoft graphic for the one on the site - flying windows to the left of us, flying windows to the right of us... auuuggggggg!

    Again, with P3P, it might prevent ads from being displayed, but wouldn't materially alter the content of a website, and the big third party ad agencies will likely figure a way around it.

    I'm not necessarily down on MS, but given their past history, I think they and their ideas bear watching.

    As Jefferson said (close enough anyway) - "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

  19. #44
    SitePoint Enthusiast Setac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Marcos CA
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Why we are excited

    nflicanada, I suspect your wondering why we were excited about ST's and our wondering why you aren't is based in our different expectations and preceptions of what visitors are like, capable of and what they will do and of what we expect MS and their ST Partners will try to do.

    I see visitors as thinking that anything on a site or linked to from a site has been put there by the site owner. I am positive that the majority have no clue. I have clients that have a really hard time remembering that you compose an e-mail BEFORE you try to send it. I see advertsiing companies taking over people's computers and they have no idea what is happening.
    Dynamic HTML - Is that a Frisbee based language...

  20. #45
    SitePoint Zealot nflicanada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sk, Canada
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Setac, that wasn't quite what I'm really wondering about. I'm just suprised that ST's are the only thing being talked about, when their are quite a lot of new features in IE6/XP that change the look and feel of your site and can disable revenue streams.

    Since Smart Tags could've been disabled I'd think P3P would be the major outrage since it's default setting at the present time is disabling ads from a number of companies. While most of the major ad companies have stated that by Oct. 29th they will be compliant that doesn't guarantee smaller ad companies will be or that any partner sites will be which at least to me seems to be able to cause alot greater harm than a ST which you can control whether or not it is displayed.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •