Anybody using so.cl?

So I wonder how many if any of you are using Microsoft’s [noparse]http://so.cl[/noparse] and what you think of it? if you’re not in it, why? and any other thoughts on the matter? and a bit related… are you in other social networks?

[FONT=Verdana]I don’t use social networking sites at all, but I went to look at this one just now, anyway. What I saw was this:

So what do I think of it? Not much, if that’s the best they can do. I have good reasons for browsing with JavaScript disabled. I might choose to enable it for a particular site, but I’d need to see the site first and be convinced that I actually want whatever increased functionality the JS provides. A site that tells me I have to enable JS before I can use it? Forget it.

Oh, and according to Domain Tools, “the owner of the domain has it listed for sale”, which suggests they don’t think much of their site, either. :)[/FONT]

I can’t see that attachment for some reason… :stuck_out_tongue:

Sorry - I don’t know what happened there. It was OK when I first posted it. Hopefully, you can see it now. :slight_smile:

[FONT=verdana]I had a quick lookat so.cl. To be honest, I couldn’t see any compelling reason to use it. It certainly didn’t seem to give me anything I needed.

Just about the only thing I like about it is the URL.

Mike
[/FONT]

It appears Microsoft has come to the dance a bit late. After Facebook and then Google+ I believe most who use these sites are “battle worn” from hopping to the next big thing.
Personally, I don’t use ‘social sites’ in the way most people do. And I am quite pleased with the features and performance of Google+ (it suits my Modus Operandi quite well).

@Mikl I also like the domain name. However, I find myself typing Soc.al for some reason. Perhaps that would have been a better choice!

Admittedly, I have an account on So.cl - but that was simply in order to secure my preferred username before someone else can. {A bit selfish, I guess}

Yes, perhaps it would. But it seems they would have needed an Albanian citizen to register the domain. Chile doesn’t appear to have that restriction.

Mike

@Technobear, how is the whole thing about JS working out for you with so many sites using it heavily? Do you find that a lot of sites nag you about this?

@Mikl, I feel the same way, it seems to be too broad of a network to make any dent to FB/LI/G+/Twitter and I don’t know why I would use it either but I thought I’d check with you guys.

@ParkinT - Definitely too late! And I did the socal thing too probably because I live in southern cali.

(ps. and how do you properly “mention” users here in the forums? I did the “@”+name but the names don’t seem to link…)

put a ; at the end Ziggy eg @ziggydigee;

Ah! Thank you @spikeZ;

And for those that missed their mentions… look above:
@TechnoBear; @Mikl; @ParkinT;

[FONT=Verdana]The “so many sites using it heavily” is the main reason I have to keep JS disabled. :slight_smile:

I have neurological problems which make it very hard, if not impossible, for me to use a page which has moving images. The current fad for multiple moving images is even worse. If everybody followed accessibility guidelines and provided a method to turn off the movement, it would be much easier, but all too few designers bother with that. And when it comes to providing alternative content for those without JavaScript … :rolleyes:

I expect to be able to use a site with JS disabled; I don’t expect to get the full bells-and-whistles experience. If I visit a site which really interests me, and it’s apparent that enabling JS will add something (other than usability nightmares :lol:), then I enable it for that site. If I visit a site and see a message on the page advising that I should enable JS to “enjoy the full experience of this site” or somesuch, I bear that in mind and might enable it at some point. If I visit a site and get met by a message like the so.cl one, then I think rude thoughts about the site, its owners and its designers/developers, and I depart, never to return. One lost customer. Sites which show no message about JS but then prove impossible to navigate because they’re using a JS menu have the same effect on me.[/FONT]

Ah, that makes sense, you bring up a lot of good points. Especially about the ability to disable things like a slideshow for example. I should try to add that into my sites. Would a “stop” during a mouse-over be sufficient you think? or better to have a permanent cookie-based setting on the site like a link to turn off motion in each or all elements?

I expect the same as you said but I just leave it running and have a couple plugins to help me stay safe since that’s another concern sometimes with scripts.

Thanks again!

[FONT=verdana]Personally, I’d rather have a setup where slideshows, animations and all other annoyances always default to disabled. Let the website operator give me a good reason why I should put up with their irritating flashing pages and constantly moving images. If they can’t, I don’t want them polluting my browser.

Mike
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

No - it doesn’t work for keyboard users. :slight_smile:

I’m not sure I’ve ever come across that solution, so I’m not sure how it would work in practice.

@Mikl summed up my feelings admirably. :tup: I’d say that’s the best approach - let the user opt in, rather than opt out.[/FONT]

So.cl doesn’t look very engaging. After a first glance it just looks like a bunch of pretty pictures on semi-random topics. Don’t know, why would I like to use it.

But thanks for telling about it, I’ve missed it’s release.

But even for a slideshow?

thanks guys for all your answers and I agree @pavels; It doesn’t look very attractive at all. I haven’t been back since I joined when I posted about it here.

What does Southern California have to do with it? :smiley: Or did you mean Soci.al?

I didn’t know about this website. I will start work on this site.

Apart from the issue with keyboarders, there is another problem with a slideshow that only pauses on mouse-over. Suppose I want to interact with another part of your page. As soon as I move my mouse, the slideshow resumes and I’m back to my moving-image problem. :frowning:

[FONT=verdana]I don’t object to the type of slideshow that starts out stationary (just showing one image), and the user has to explicitly do something to start it. In fact, that could be an attractive feature in some cases. What I object to is having constantly-changing images, whether I want them or not.

Mike[/FONT]