Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment

On Nov 13, 7:37 am, bon... RemoveThis @host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> Aside: things like this also illustrate 'why' putting something meaningful
> in the 'alt=' tag for <img ...> links is so important.

No they don't. The number of lynx users is just too small to count as
"important", if you're targeting a general interest audience such as
railfans or photographers. The rest of the world has already made the
decision that the web will be largely graphical. You can either accept
the web, and get yourself a usable browser, or reject it. But you
don't have the right to demand special accommodation.

There is, in fact, a _different_ reason why it's sometimes important
to give your photos an alt tag: blind web users, who use audible
browsers. But if you're posting _photos_, then it's not particularly
necessary to cater to the blind.

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

Miles Bader schrieb:


> 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 think, that the tenthousands of users, who got caught with Javascript
on, while navigating the hacked Myspace-pages without the latest
bugfixes, were screwed. Quite.

I don't hold others back from playing the victim, I just don't like that
role for myself.


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

In article <13jgl4d1mdt34fa.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com>,
George Conklin <nil.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"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.

_ONLY_ for idjits that run with scripting languages enabled when visiting
random web-sites.

For those who value the integrity and security of their systems, and the data
contained therein, your statement is a _lie_. You, however, probably lack
the knowledge to 'know what you don't know' on the matter -- and thus
state such FALSE TO FACT conclusions with absolute certainty.

_Smart_ website designers make sure that pages work with *NO* 'bells/whistles'
involved, and then use said bells/whistles to provide *optional* 'added
functionality' for those who choose those bells/whistles.


Note to the original poster:

if you -really- want to use a script for image rendering, the *right*
way is to 'hard code' a simple '<img href={filename}>' link, put it in
a uniquely-named '<div>', and then have some javascript that runs on page-
load that OVERWRITES that name <div> with the '<img href=javascript()>'
code.

THAT way, _only_ people with javascript enabled get the page code with
the javascript link in it. AND the page is still usable by anyone who
runs a browser without javascript.

I for example, do most of my browsing with a tool called "lynx' it is a
*TEXT*ONLY* browser , and doesn't understand _any_ scripting languages.
OTOH, it starts up in a fraction of a second -- I can launch it, browse
several pages, and exit, in less time than it takes most 'graphical'
browsers to start up.

lynx does -not- understand any picture formats either, but it *does*
know how to launch an external rendering application to display an
image. That only works, however, when the 'href=' is a direct pointer
to the image file on the server. 'Scripting' means I cannot get access
to the image, -at-all-.

Aside: things like this also illustrate 'why' putting something meaningful
in the 'alt=' tag for <img ...> links is so important.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

On Nov 13, 4:03 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a... RemoveThis @chinet.com> wrote:
> dpelt... RemoveThis @my-deja.com wrote:
> >On Nov 13, 1:28 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a... RemoveThis @chinet.com> wrote:
> >>dpelt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>>On Nov 13, 7:37 am, bon... RemoveThis @host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> >>>>Aside: things like this also illustrate 'why' putting something meaningful
> >>>>in the 'alt=' tag for <img ...> links is so important.
> >>>No they don't. The number of lynx users is just too small to count as
> >>>"important",
> >>Not so, but don't argue against Unix clients please just 'cuz the
> >>concept is foreign to you.
> >Good grief, man, you have to stop making assumptions about me. I used
> >lynx and Mosaic concurrently for several years. I stopped because a.)
> >I got a computer and network connection fast enough to make the speed
> >difference unimportant, b.) I could run Mosaic directly on my
> >Powermac, instead of having to log in to a workstation, and c.) most
> >websites became unusable. Still, I was the only person I knew who had
> >a home page that claimed to be "lynx enhanced!".
>
> Well, that's a cool thing, but why have you been posting through Google
> Groups lately?

My first Usenet posts just went out with my college email address
there for anyone to read. That was starting to become a serious spam
magnet when I graduated, so I decided to avoid the issue. dejanews let
me create an email account and use that to post under, which let me
ignore spam while avoiding violating any terms of service by, say,
figuring out how to use a fake email address. I don't know if that
would be necessary anymore, but since dpeltier RemoveThis @my-deja.com hasn't been
able to receive spam or anything else for many years now, it works
well.

> >>Also, kindly think about the blind who use reading devices. If a Web
> >>site is lynx-able, it's guaranteed to be usable with a reading device.
> >>If it's not, the blind user is unlikely to make any sense out of it.
> >True, but irrelevant to the post I was responding to, which said that
> >alt tags were important was for spit-against-the-wind luddites, rather
> >than for blind people.
>
> Oh, are they? If I move my mouse over the icon, it displays the alt tag.

Point taken. I'm not sure it qualifies as "important", but it's useful
if you're on a slow connection.

> >>>if you're targeting a general interest audience such as
> >>>railfans or photographers. The rest of the world has already made the
> >>>decision that the web will be largely graphical.
> >>What does that have to do with anything? Did you read HJZ's comment
> >Umm... it has to do with the post I was responding to, specifically
> >the bit I quoted about alt tags, which have nothing whatsoever to do
> >with javascript.
> >I will say, however, that I stopped leaving javascript off by default
> >a while ago, when being unable to run scripts became more annoying
> >than scripts itself, and as far as I can tell it's never caused a
> >security problem. Is there some reason you feel that javascript is
> >inherently less secure than any other web content?
>
> Script isn't content.

OK, "inherently less secure than everything else that can come back in
response to an http: request".


> >My recollection is that the primary reason why Netscape
> >quickly eclipsed Mosaic among my peers was simply because it could
> >display JPEG as well as GIF pictures inline.
>
> Interesting.

Certainly I never would have made the switch just so I could see
things in their full, "Netscape-enhanced" glory! (Which mostly
consisted of "flash" tags and scrolling text along the bottom of the
browser window.)

> >Manners are formed by majority opinion,
>
> This will be news to Emily Post.

Yeah. Fortunately, she's dead

I don't mind etiquette commentators who honestly try to help well-
intentioned people avoid committing social gaffes. But I have very
little respect for those who look out at society and say, "Everyone is
being impolite to each other by not following this or that rule."

For instance: most people feel perfectly comfortable these days
wearing casual clothes on an airplane. If you are an old-school type
who remembers when air travel was a coat-and-tie affair, are you
justified in saying that the jeans-wearing hordes are being rude? No:
the rules changed when people's behavior changed.

With web pages, it's fine to think more highly of someone who designs
a clean, elegant, and fully lynx-compatible site. I'd even say its
reasonable to demand that of a commercial site at the risk of losing
your business. But I don't think that there's any rational basis for
saying that someone who makes a messy site is doing something
"improper", given that it's what most people do when they design a web
site. (When was the last time you saw a clean, elegant myspace page?)

> >>>There is, in fact, a _different_ reason why it's sometimes important
> >>>to give your photos an alt tag: blind web users, who use audible
> >>>browsers. But if you're posting _photos_, then it's not particularly
> >>>necessary to cater to the blind.
> >>How exactly is scripting ever done with the blind in mind?
> >I wasn't talking about scripting (which is why the word "script" never
> >appeared in my previous post), I was talking about alt tags.
>
> Ok. Nevertheless, I asked a good question. Your opinion?

I've never written javascript, so I don't really know.

A database company I used to work for had a rough "html only" policy
or guideline for all their web forms in order to comply with ADA. I
suspect this was overkill. Javascript is certainly useful in this
context for checking user input to make sure it is of the right format
(dates in date fields, numbers in numeric fields, etc.) and I don't
think that doing such data checking in javascript should be inherently
less pagereader-friendly than doing it only on submittal.

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

dpeltier DeleteThis @my-deja.com wrote:
>On Nov 13, 7:37 am, bon... DeleteThis @host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>> Aside: things like this also illustrate 'why' putting something meaningful
>> in the 'alt=' tag for <img ...> links is so important.

>No they don't. The number of lynx users is just too small to count as
>"important",

Not so, but don't argue against Unix clients please just 'cuz the
concept is foreign to you.

Also, kindly think about the blind who use reading devices. If a Web
site is lynx-able, it's guaranteed to be usable with a reading device.
If it's not, the blind user is unlikely to make any sense out of it.

>if you're targeting a general interest audience such as
>railfans or photographers. The rest of the world has already made the
>decision that the web will be largely graphical.

What does that have to do with anything? Did you read HJZ's comment
about Mosaic, the ORIGINAL Web browser? It was graphical, after a
fashion. lynx came later so the Web could be usable for those with
character cell terminals in a Unix environment.

Just because a Web site has graphics does not mean it should be designed
so that plain text upon it is unusable as plain text. Properly, a
document should be text with images. Then it's lynx-able.

>You can either accept
>the web, and get yourself a usable browser, or reject it. But you
>don't have the right to demand special accommodation.

No one demanded special accomodation. One requested PROPER Web site
design that DOESN'T rely upon scripting for very ordinary functions.

>There is, in fact, a _different_ reason why it's sometimes important
>to give your photos an alt tag: blind web users, who use audible
>browsers. But if you're posting _photos_, then it's not particularly
>necessary to cater to the blind.

How exactly is scripting ever done with the blind in mind?
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Charles Packer <mailbox RemoveThis @cpacker.org> writes:
> As far as the page design goes, I like photo thumbnail pages where
> when you click on a thumbnail image, the full size version opens in a
> separate window, _provided_that_ the full size image is no larger than
> the browser page itself.

BTW, you can cause a link to open in a new window without using
javascript, by using the <a> "target" attribute... e.g.:

<a href="http://blah.blah/blah" target="_blank">Test</a>

-Miles

--
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin]
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

dpeltier.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com wrote:
>On Nov 13, 1:28 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a....TakeThisOut@chinet.com> wrote:
>>dpelt...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>On Nov 13, 7:37 am, bon....TakeThisOut@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>>>>Aside: things like this also illustrate 'why' putting something meaningful
>>>>in the 'alt=' tag for <img ...> links is so important.

>>>No they don't. The number of lynx users is just too small to count as
>>>"important",

>>Not so, but don't argue against Unix clients please just 'cuz the
>>concept is foreign to you.

>Good grief, man, you have to stop making assumptions about me. I used
>lynx and Mosaic concurrently for several years. I stopped because a.)
>I got a computer and network connection fast enough to make the speed
>difference unimportant, b.) I could run Mosaic directly on my
>Powermac, instead of having to log in to a workstation, and c.) most
>websites became unusable. Still, I was the only person I knew who had
>a home page that claimed to be "lynx enhanced!".

Well, that's a cool thing, but why have you been posting through Google
Groups lately?

>>Also, kindly think about the blind who use reading devices. If a Web
>>site is lynx-able, it's guaranteed to be usable with a reading device.
>>If it's not, the blind user is unlikely to make any sense out of it.

>True, but irrelevant to the post I was responding to, which said that
>alt tags were important was for spit-against-the-wind luddites, rather
>than for blind people.

Oh, are they? If I move my mouse over the icon, it displays the alt tag.

>>>if you're targeting a general interest audience such as
>>>railfans or photographers. The rest of the world has already made the
>>>decision that the web will be largely graphical.

>>What does that have to do with anything? Did you read HJZ's comment

>Umm... it has to do with the post I was responding to, specifically
>the bit I quoted about alt tags, which have nothing whatsoever to do
>with javascript.

>I will say, however, that I stopped leaving javascript off by default
>a while ago, when being unable to run scripts became more annoying
>than scripts itself, and as far as I can tell it's never caused a
>security problem. Is there some reason you feel that javascript is
>inherently less secure than any other web content?

Script isn't content.

>>about Mosaic, the ORIGINAL Web browser? It was graphical, after a
>>fashion. lynx came later so the Web could be usable for those with
>>character cell terminals in a Unix environment.

>No, Mosaic was released in February of 1993 and lynx in March of 1993
>- in other words, simultaneously. Nor was Mosaic the original web
>browser, just the first to become widely popular.

My error.

>And you know why it was widely popular? Because it displayed graphics
>inline in the text, allowing for visually cluttered web pages and faster
>browsing of pornography.

Heh. Well, what else is the Web good for?

>My recollection is that the primary reason why Netscape
>quickly eclipsed Mosaic among my peers was simply because it could
>display JPEG as well as GIF pictures inline.

Interesting.

>>Just because a Web site has graphics does not mean it should be designed
>>so that plain text upon it is unusable as plain text. Properly, a
>>document should be text with images. Then it's lynx-able.

>The world would be a better place if anyone lived by those principles,
>but they are not binding on people who choose to voluntarily create
>some free content for you to download.

Of course they're not, but what's the point of standards if they are
flouted?

>>>You can either accept the web, and get yourself a usable browser, or
>>>reject it. But you don't have the right to demand special accommodation.

>>No one demanded special accomodation. One requested PROPER Web site
>>design that DOESN'T rely upon scripting for very ordinary functions.

>PROPER? PROPER? Who are you to decide what's PROPER?

If ordinary functions aren't usable with any browser set up in an
ordinary way, it's nonstandard.

>Manners are formed by majority opinion,

This will be news to Emily Post.

>>>There is, in fact, a _different_ reason why it's sometimes important
>>>to give your photos an alt tag: blind web users, who use audible
>>>browsers. But if you're posting _photos_, then it's not particularly
>>>necessary to cater to the blind.

>>How exactly is scripting ever done with the blind in mind?

>I wasn't talking about scripting (which is why the word "script" never
>appeared in my previous post), I was talking about alt tags.

Ok. Nevertheless, I asked a good question. Your opinion?
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

On Nov 12, 9:56 pm, "Bill Halbe" <william.ha... RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote:
> Good pictures Charles. I just clicked on link and got them.

Thanks for the kind word; and I've just revised the
page to accommodate those who have Javascript turned
off. But I like to see the thumbnails along with the
selected full-size image, so I rearranged the thumbnails
vertically so that the poop-up image window can be
dragged down next to them on the right. Then if there's
a lot of images, the image window can be shrunk to
expose the scrollbar of the browser window.

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

dpeltier.TakeThisOut@my-deja.com schrieb:


> No they don't. The number of lynx users is just too small to count as
> "important",

I don't understand your problem: Yes, yes, Lynx capability for a photo
page sounds like a funny concept, but HTML is a markup language, which
is supposed to provide a /logical/ context. Any well-written HTML will
therefore also display in a textmode browser. If it doesn't, it shows
problems far beyond judgement about importance.



> The rest of the world has already made the
> decision that the web will be largely graphical.

The web isn't textual or graphical, it is logical. That's the beauty of
the technology. It is the only way to make sure, that today's web pages
still display on the user interfaces of 2050. I assume, that this user
interface will be commonly some kind of wristwatch, which contains
phone, mail, and web functions. There may be others, which we cannot
think of yet.


> You can either accept
> the web, and get yourself a usable browser, or reject it. But you
> don't have the right to demand special accommodation.

You have the right to demand web-pages, which aren't full of HTML
errors.


> There is, in fact, a _different_ reason why it's sometimes important
> to give your photos an alt tag: blind web users, who use audible
> browsers.

Or braille lines. And now tell me: How do you do your judgement, wether
a webpage of yours "display"s nicely on a braille line? My admittedly
primitive judgement is, to look at my pages with a textmode browser. If
it displays in a logical way in text mode, I hope that it will do the
same on a braille line. Since I can't read braille, that's my best shot
at it.

There's two situations, in which I use a textmode browser: This
judgement, plus from a laptop with sometimes bad 9600 bps mobile phone
uplink.


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

dpeltier RemoveThis @my-deja.com schrieb:


> I will say, however, that I stopped leaving javascript off by default
> a while ago, when being unable to run scripts became more annoying
> than scripts itself, and as far as I can tell it's never caused a
> security problem. Is there some reason you feel that javascript is
> inherently less secure than any other web content?

Let me modify the question: Was there /any/ security hole, of the dozens
found by hackers in the last years, which was harmful to computers
configured for ///not executing/// any www-page content? Maybe my
memories betray me, but AFAIK, they were /all/ related to Javascript or
Active Scripting or Flash or Java or Word documents or whatever.

Okay, those, who recently hacked the webpages of popstars on myspace,
included a backup for people with secure webbrowser configs: "You have
to install this codec for listening to a sample of the new album."
"Social hacking" might even work better than Javascript loopholes.


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

Miles Bader schrieb:


> E.g.:
>
> http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/

Okay, got me, the hole isn't Javascript-related, but uses the Windows
protocol handlers.
But if I see this right (I'm no programmer), he still employs Javascript
for real usage of the hole.


Hans-Joachim


--
Großer FF-Gottesdienst jeden Sonntag 15 Uhr im Gemeindehaus am Roten
Fuchsstieg 2.0. Nächstes Predigtthema: "Ein Affe ist kein Fuchs. Oder:
Wie man gefährliche Sekten erkennt, die uns nicht zum Heil führen."
Thorsten Weisert
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam011 RemoveThis @Zierke.com> writes:
> Let me modify the question: Was there /any/ security hole, of the dozens
> found by hackers in the last years, which was harmful to computers
> configured for ///not executing/// any www-page content?

E.g.:

http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/

-Miles

--
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment 

Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam011.DeleteThis@Zierke.com> writes:
>> http://larholm.com/2007/06/12/safari-for-windows-0day-exploit-in-2-hours/
>
> Okay, got me, the hole isn't Javascript-related, but uses the Windows
> protocol handlers. But if I see this right (I'm no programmer), he
> still employs Javascript for real usage of the hole.

AFAIK, that particular use of javascript was just part of an example,
not a necessary part of the exploit (and in the example he uses it in a
way that avoids any user disabling settings).

-Miles
--
Fast, small, soon; pick any 2.
 >> Stay informed about: Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment