Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment

On Nov 11, 10:43 am, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam....RemoveThis@Zierke.com>
wrote:
> And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
>
> Hans-Joachim

Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
those who don't use Javascript?
If that's the case, tell me what's needed -- either functional
requirements or actual additional HTML to use and I'll adopt it from
now on.

--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenetspam011.DeleteThis@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfje8p7.cqi.Usenetspam011@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> Charles Packer schrieb:
>
>
> > The site's not far from where I live, so I went there Saturday
> > afternoon and snapped these pics:
>
>
> And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
>
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
>

Everybody a critic for no damn reason. The link works.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Charles Packer schrieb:


> Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
> those who don't use Javascript?

Only the pictures...

Instead of referencing the picture, which is typed in about 5 seconds,
you reference a script pointing to same picture, for whatever reason.
At least, it's more keypresses to type...


> If that's the case, tell me what's needed -- either functional
> requirements or actual additional HTML to use and I'll adopt it from
> now on.

It looks like
<a href="javascript:ShowSecondary('a7.jpg','width=640,height=480')"
><IMG align=left border=2 SRC="x-a7.jpg" width=160 height=120 ></a>

Just link to the picture, instead of telling Javascript, that it should
link to the picture.

After all, you don't need scripting to provide the functionality, which
was already a standard feature of Mosaic. ... Oh, if you don't know,
what Mosaic is or has been, you're simply too young.


Hans-Joachim
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Charles Packer <mailbox DeleteThis @cpacker.org> writes:
>> And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
>
> Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
> those who don't use Javascript?

It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.

In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

-Miles
--
I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono album; no rhyme
or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and then it's over. --Ian Wolff
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader <miles.bader.RemoveThis@necel.com> wrote:
: Charles Packer <mailbox.RemoveThis@cpacker.org> writes:
: >> And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
: >
: > Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
: > those who don't use Javascript?
:
: It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
: firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
: is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
: javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.
:
: In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
: sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
: this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
: does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
capability, so I guess it was already there.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Robert Coe <bob.DeleteThis@1776.COM> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader <miles.bader.DeleteThis@necel.com> wrote:
>:Charles Packer <mailbox.DeleteThis@cpacker.org> writes:

>:>>And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.

>:>Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
>:>those who don't use Javascript?

>:It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
>:firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
>:is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
>:javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.

>:In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
>:sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
>:this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
>:does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

>FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
>capability, so I guess it was already there.

He didn't say Java, but javascript; it's different. How exactly would
you have handled it if you'd had scripting turned off? I find IE7 too
inflexible in this regard with no easy to use features allowing one to
choose different options while actually looking at the page, as I can do
with Firefox and the no-script add-on I'm using.

The issue isn't whether client A or client B can handle scripting,
but a basic issue of proper Web page design. I have scripting turned off
by default for unknown sites. Sometimes when it appears that I've gotten
the whole page, I turn it on to see what the noscript element is
blocking. The other day, I found that it was just a tag to the link to
the page's author. Why would anyone use js for something like that?

For a while now, I've been encountering Web pages that hide basic
navigation in Flash elements. I never turn Flash on because I hate
waiting for the video elements to load that I am unlikely to care about.

How much worse will Web page design get?
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

On Nov 12, 1:58 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a....TakeThisOut@chinet.com> wrote:
> Robert Coe <b....TakeThisOut@1776.COM> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader <miles.ba....TakeThisOut@necel.com> wrote:
> >:Charles Packer <mail....TakeThisOut@cpacker.org> writes:
> >:>>And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
> >:>Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
> >:>those who don't use Javascript?
> >:It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
> >:firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
> >:is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
> >:javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.
> >:In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
> >:sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
> >:this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
> >:does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.
> >FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
> >capability, so I guess it was already there.
>
> He didn't say Java, but javascript; it's different. How exactly would
> you have handled it if you'd had scripting turned off? I find IE7 too
> inflexible in this regard with no easy to use features allowing one to
> choose different options while actually looking at the page, as I can do
> with Firefox and the no-script add-on I'm using.
>
> The issue isn't whether client A or client B can handle scripting,
> but a basic issue of proper Web page design. I have scripting turned off
> by default for unknown sites. Sometimes when it appears that I've gotten
> the whole page, I turn it on to see what the noscript element is
> blocking. The other day, I found that it was just a tag to the link to
> the page's author. Why would anyone use js for something like that?
>
> For a while now, I've been encountering Web pages that hide basic
> navigation in Flash elements. I never turn Flash on because I hate
> waiting for the video elements to load that I am unlikely to care about.
>
> How much worse will Web page design get?

I agree. I turn almost everything off, just for basic security
reasons. Besides, they create other problems.

I keep everything off and only turn things on when needed -- and
generally it's not needed so I ignore many sites because of it. Java
is getting pretty ubiquitous so there's not much you can do about that
-- including things like ROES software. When in doubt, I won't allow
anything to launch.

I even keep my speakers off and won't listen to/play audio/video on my
main computer.

Unfortunately I've ended up having to php-based application for some
sets of photos but at least that's on my website's server, not on my
computer.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk.DeleteThis@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:4738a252$0$47120$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Robert Coe <bob.DeleteThis@1776.COM> wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader <miles.bader.DeleteThis@necel.com>
wrote:
> >:Charles Packer <mailbox.DeleteThis@cpacker.org> writes:
>
> >:>>And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
>
> >:>Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
> >:>those who don't use Javascript?
>
> >:It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
> >:firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
> >:is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
> >:javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.
>
> >:In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
> >:sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
> >:this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
> >:does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.
>
> >FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
> >capability, so I guess it was already there.
>
> He didn't say Java, but javascript; it's different. How exactly would
> you have handled it if you'd had scripting turned off? I find IE7 too
> inflexible in this regard with no easy to use features allowing one to
> choose different options while actually looking at the page, as I can do
> with Firefox and the no-script add-on I'm using.
>
> The issue isn't whether client A or client B can handle scripting,
> but a basic issue of proper Web page design. I have scripting turned off
> by default for unknown sites. Sometimes when it appears that I've gotten
> the whole page, I turn it on to see what the noscript element is
> blocking. The other day, I found that it was just a tag to the link to
> the page's author. Why would anyone use js for something like that?
>
> For a while now, I've been encountering Web pages that hide basic
> navigation in Flash elements. I never turn Flash on because I hate
> waiting for the video elements to load that I am unlikely to care about.
>
> How much worse will Web page design get?

You tell us.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

"Charles Packer" <mailbox.RemoveThis@cpacker.org> wrote in message
news:1194793011.419216.143960@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> The site's not far from where I live, so I went there Saturday
> afternoon and snapped these pics:

Javascript, Java, vbscript, c++, whatever, makes no difference - the
pictures are so bad, distant, tiny, pixelated and heavily compressed I'd
equally believe they were pictures of a cream cake.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Robert Coe <bob RemoveThis @1776.COM> writes:
> FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
> capability, so I guess it was already there.

I wasn't talking about the basic functionality ("clicking on the link")
-- that probably works in most modern browsers -- nor about java (as
Adam mentioned, java isn't involved), nor about javascript being
disabled (though obviously people who do that are screwed).

I was talking about other (useful!!) stuff that gets screwed up when
websites use javascript to clumsily re-implement basic links. There's
no apparent reason for such re-implementation (it seems to offer
absolutely no benefits), and it has negative side-effects.

-Miles

--
Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

"George Conklin" <nil.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> writes:
> Everybody a critic for no damn reason. The link works.

Not if you want to open it in a tab, or copy the link location (you can
copy it, but the resulting "link" is useless)...

Those aren't minor little warts either. Using middle-click to avoid
"open in a new window" disease is a basic part of browsing for many
people.

-Miles

--
People who are more than casually interested in computers should have at
least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like. Otherwise the
programs they write will be pretty weird. -- Donald Knuth
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

On Nov 12, 5:30 pm, Miles Bader <mi... RemoveThis @gnu.org> wrote:
> "George Conklin" <n... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> writes:
> > Everybody a critic for no damn reason. The link works.
>
> Not if you want to open it in a tab, or copy the link location (you can
> copy it, but the resulting "link" is useless)...

It took me about 45 seconds to find the URL of the image file itself.
I'm sure you could have done it too, if you were actually interested.

Geez, people, the man took some photos and offered to let you see
them. If you aren't interested in the photos, don't look at them. If
you don't think it's worth navigating through javascript to see them,
don't. If you want to be an activist, politely suggest improvements
along with your thanks. Otherwise, shut up already.

Dan
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Miles Bader <miles.TakeThisOut@gnu.org> wrote:
>"George Conklin" <nil.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> writes:

>>Everybody a critic for no damn reason. The link works.

>Not if you want to open it in a tab, or copy the link location (you can
>copy it, but the resulting "link" is useless)...

>Those aren't minor little warts either. Using middle-click to avoid
>"open in a new window" disease is a basic part of browsing for many
>people.

In Firefox 2, there are a few useful options. I assume you know about
them, but if you don't:

options > tabs > New pages should be opened in: a new tab

will attempt to force the page to load as a tab and not a window, but it
doesn't always work.

options > content > block pop-up windows is a toggle, which blocks the
rest of it. With the first option checked and scripting under control of
NoScript add on (which as I've mentioned allows me to temporarily enable
scripting on a per-site basis, or always enable per site, or never)
makes pop ups and pop unders tolerable so they appear only occassionally.

I'm using a 10-year-old two-button mouse after the three-button mouse
failed, so I don't miss the middle button context menus too much.

I don't know which option is "force the Web site designer to appreciate
the ugliness of the design of the pages and realize how much all his
fancy bells and whistles slow down users' computers" feature. Anyone?
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment