It's time for my biennual plea.
My browser button that reveals the links is needed much too often.
Maybe I'm missing something: is hiding the links some kind of sophisticated
video game? Or an Easter-egg hunt gone astray? What's the prize for winning?
Mason C
id: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
In article <5khn43df3meiuhhkpc7vlm179jk586e81l@4ax.com>,
Mason C
> It's time for my biennual plea.
This some stomach or lower bowel query you make every 2 years?
>
> id: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
At the least, on the poker page, get rid of:
My writings
and jut put:
My writings.
Ditto other form text there.
Be rid f;
TEXT-ALIGN: right; in sidebar, add padding of .2em rather 0
and there are more things that can be suggested... Stick around
Mason.
--
dorayme
Scripsit Mason C:
> It's time for my biennual plea.
Does "biennual" relate to "bi-" and "ennui"?
> My browser button that reveals the links is needed much too often.
Pages that hide links are seldom worth visiting, still less studied for
their links. If you spend your time doing such things, then that's an
interesting hobby.
> Maybe I'm missing something: is hiding the links some kind of
> sophisticated video game?
Are rhetoric questions some intellectual game?
> id: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
I don't think link hiding is at its worst there. True, the unvisited link
color deviates from the common default and, worse still, link color does not
change for visited links. Visited links get a grey background, so they are
more or less _highlighted_, which works against usability principles. But it
is _relatively_ easy to guess which texts are links, once you have decided
to waste 10 or 15 seconds of your life on the page (which is too much, given
the rather obvious lack of structuring, theme, and keynote text).
Of course, _some_ of the links have been hidden in a rather nasty way, as
one can immediately see by using the advanced cluelessness detector, Lynx:
Javascript is off.
Menus will not work.
(The "Valid HTML 4.1!" icon is not a link, so it's not an example of hiding
a link - just an example of foolish contamination of pages with pompous
symbols that have a negative value to visitors. Only the small fraction of
visitors that is interested in _authoring_ pages and specifically interested
in validity will get the clue that the page is probably _not_ valid, if they
have tested a few pages that claim validity. It's usually not a deliberate
lie, just ignorance or carelessness.)
So it's an example of amateurishly and foolishly messing up links and hiding
them, but surely there are even more striking examples.
Followups trimmed to alt.html.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Not sure what browser you are referring to but here is something that might
be what you want:
"If, for some reason, the Links Bar doesn't appear anywhere on the Internet
Explorer interface, you'll have to set the browser to display it. Open the
View menu, select the Toolbars command, then click the Links option. The
Links Bar should now appear."
"Mason C"
news:5khn43df3meiuhhkpc7vlm179jk586e81l@4ax.com...
> It's time for my biennual plea.
>
> My browser button that reveals the links is needed much too often.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something: is hiding the links some kind of
> sophisticated
> video game? Or an Easter-egg hunt gone astray? What's the prize for
> winning?
>
> Mason C
>
> id: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
>
On Thu, 17 May 2007 15:56:10 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
wrote:
>
>> id: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
>
>I don't think link hiding is at its worst there. True, the unvisited link
"id:" means "identification" -- it is not a request for witless comment.
Mason C
Mason C wrote:
> It's time for my biennual plea.
>
> My browser button that reveals the links is needed much too often.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something: is hiding the links some kind of sophisticated
> video game? Or an Easter-egg hunt gone astray? What's the prize for winning?
>
> Mason C
>
> id: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "hiding the links". All links at your
cited page are visible with SeaMonkey. True, they use a color scheme
that overrides my defaults. However, I can still tell which links I
visited and which I did not.
I frequently visit other Web sites where the color scheme distinguishing
visited from unvisited links uses far less distinct colors. I also
visit some sites where the text color (including links) does not have
much contrast from the background color. For those sites, I have a
checkbox on my browser's toolbar that suppresses the page's colors,
using only my default colors.
Some people design Web pages to show how clever they are, not to convey
information. For more rants on this topic, see my
--
David E. Ross
Don't ask "Why is there road rage?" Instead, ask
"Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such
Thing as Fast Enough?"
On Sat, 19 May 2007 06:43:37 GMT, Mason C
wrote:
>"id:" means "identification" -- it is not a request for witless comment.
Just another free service from c.i.w.a.h !
Next one is to advise you to find out what a sigsep "-- " is all about.
On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:01:32 +0100, Andy Dingley
>On Sat, 19 May 2007 06:43:37 GMT, Mason C
>wrote:
>
>>"id:" means "identification" -- it is not a request for witless comment.
>
>Just another free service from c.i.w.a.h !
>
>Next one is to advise you to find out what a sigsep "-- " is all about.
Google didn't help me. I'll bite: what is sigsep"-- " all about?
> Google didn't help me. I'll bite: what is sigsep"-- " all about?
>
Proper signature marker is 2 hyphens a space followed bat a carriage
return as you will find with my signature
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Mason C wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:01:32 +0100, Andy Dingley
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 06:43:37 GMT, Mason C
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "id:" means "identification" -- it is not a request for witless comment.
>> Just another free service from c.i.w.a.h !
>>
>> Next one is to advise you to find out what a sigsep "-- " is all about.
>
> Google didn't help me. I'll bite: what is sigsep"-- " all about?
>
http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:32:10 -0400, Ed Mullen
>Mason C wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:01:32 +0100, Andy Dingley
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 06:43:37 GMT, Mason C
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "id:" means "identification" -- it is not a request for witless comment.
>>> Just another free service from c.i.w.a.h !
>>>
>>> Next one is to advise you to find out what a sigsep "-- " is all about.
>>
>> Google didn't help me. I'll bite: what is sigsep"-- " all about?
>>
>
>http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
Thank you, Ed. I had thought the "-- " was something added by
servers or something. And never would have known of the
required space. Now I'll start using the "-- "
--
MasonC
In article
Mason C
> >http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
>
> Thank you, Ed. I had thought the "-- " was something added by
> servers or something. And never would have known of the
> required space. Now I'll start using the "-- "
>
> --
>
> MasonC
No need for a double carriage return
--
dorayme
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message
>On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:01:32 +0100, Andy Dingley
>
>>Next one is to advise you to find out what a sigsep "-- " is all about.
>
>Google didn't help me. I'll bite: what is sigsep"-- " all about?
Indeed, searching for "sigsep" today one needs to look as far as the
fifth suggestion, which is evidently relevant. If it were thought to be
a possible acronym, the first entry today would have led you to a site
that explains it.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:01:32 +0100, Andy Dingley
>>
>
>>> Next one is to advise you to find out what a sigsep "-- " is all about.
>> Google didn't help me. I'll bite: what is sigsep"-- " all about?
>
> Indeed, searching for "sigsep" today one needs to look as far as the
> fifth suggestion, which is evidently relevant. If it were thought to be
> a possible acronym, the first entry today would have led you to a site
> that explains it.
>
http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message
>
>http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
To be foolproof, it should say that "dash dash space" must be on a line
on its own.
ISTM that "separator" is better than "delimiter" as it makes it clearer
that the signature starts after it rather than with it.
Established Usenet convention is for at most 4 lines of sig, not 6; see
Wikipedia.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message
>
>> http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
>
> To be foolproof, it should say that "dash dash space" must be on a line
> on its own.
>
> ISTM that "separator" is better than "delimiter" as it makes it clearer
> that the signature starts after it rather than with it.
>
> Established Usenet convention is for at most 4 lines of sig, not 6; see
> Wikipedia.
>
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for standards and conventions.
"Established Usenet convention" is found in the Internet Society RFC
database. RFC 3676 is where the "-- " separator is described (section
4.3). However, the RFC does NOT indicate anything about the number of
lines in a signature; and I can't find any other RFC addressing this
issue.
See also "Reference Materials" under
--
David E. Ross
Don't ask "Why is there road rage?" Instead, ask
"Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such
Thing as Fast Enough?"
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message
>>
>>> http://mozilla.edmullen.net/moz_sigtag.html
>>
>> To be foolproof, it should say that "dash dash space" must be on a line
>> on its own.
>>
>> ISTM that "separator" is better than "delimiter" as it makes it clearer
>> that the signature starts after it rather than with it.
>>
>> Established Usenet convention is for at most 4 lines of sig, not 6; see
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>
>Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for standards and conventions.
No; but it is generally indicative, and has useful links.
>"Established Usenet convention" is found in the Internet Society RFC
>database. RFC 3676 is where the "-- " separator is described (section
>4.3). However, the RFC does NOT indicate anything about the number of
>lines in a signature; and I can't find any other RFC addressing this
>issue.
Well, demanding an actual RFC is a little pedantic, under the
circumstances. You should have looked at Son-of-RFD1036, indicated in
my signature. Or in many other places, including Timo Salmi's site.
And in RFC1855/FYI28.
Wiki "signature block" calls it the "McQuary Limit".
Four lines is a good general recommendation. Six lines is not.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)