Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dilbert Goes Flash, Readers Revolt

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the please-please-please-mr.-adams-pleeaaaase-no dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 486

spagiola writes "The Dilbert.com website just got an extreme makeover. Gone is the old, rather clunky but perfectly functional, website, replaced by a Flash-heavy website that only Mordac the Preventer of Information Services could love. Users have been pretty unanimous in condemning the changes. Among the politer comments: 'Congrats. Vista is no more lonely at the top in the Competition For The Worst Upgrade In Computing Industry, this web site upgrade being a serious contender.' You have to register to leave comments, but many seem to have registered for the express purpose of panning the new design."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Heh (5, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129382)

"You have to register to leave comments, but many seem to have registered for the express purpose of panning the new design."
I know some PHBs that would consider the boom in registrations as a positive thing.

Re:Heh (5, Funny)

me at werk (836328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129438)

"some" meaning "all"

uhhh hello... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129810)

The 1990's called and said that it wanted Dilbert back.

Look, Dilbert blows. It's as cooked as The Far Side. Let it go. Just let it go.

Re:Heh (3, Funny)

Devv (992734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129580)

"I know some PHBs that would consider the boom in registrations as a positive thing."

Since we changed the interface our website has become 1051% more popular. It's sticking.

Re:Heh (5, Funny)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129800)

Pure genius!

Only Scott Adams could come up with such a great parody. That's one way to get your cartoon talked about - screw it up in a way that only a PHB would love. Get on the front page of Slashdot. Energize your audience!

Actually, much of it is accessable. (5, Informative)

Pinckney (1098477) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129388)

Clearly, there is some flash on the site, but I can still view all the comics without it.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (3, Informative)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129424)

I thought the page is just broken. Didn't see any comics, just some background images. Clearly, it IS most hated "upgrade" if it made it to slashdot front page.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (4, Interesting)

e5150 (938030) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129468)

Well, yesterday and earlier today you couldn't see the comic w/o flash.
Thanks for pointing this out, I had just removed my cronjob to fetch-dilbert-and-set-as-wallpaper-script, probably need to rewrite it tough.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129502)

Nothing stopped me from accessing the site in windows or in penguin mode. But then I stopped thinking Dilbert was funny a 100 years ago.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (5, Informative)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129526)

Where I work flash is blocked from installing, my morning routine used to be to open Dilbert and have a read while some of the other apps I use slowly load. With no flash on your browser all you get is two coloured bars and two requests to install flash. I'm betting alot of corporate places follow similar practices.
I thought the old site was dated but after just glancing at the new one, I definitly want the old back.
No I'm not time wasting, it takes Outlook and Eclipse about a minute+ to load, more than enough time to pop open an IE tab and glance at Dilbert.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (5, Informative)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129612)

Where I work flash is blocked from installing, my morning routine used to be to open Dilbert and have a read while some of the other apps I use slowly load. With no flash on your browser all you get is two coloured bars and two requests to install flash. I'm betting alot of corporate places follow similar practices.
I thought the old site was dated but after just glancing at the new one, I definitly want the old back.

No I'm not time wasting, it takes Outlook and Eclipse about a minute+ to load, more than enough time to pop open an IE tab and glance at Dilbert.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/dilbert [yahoo.com]

Here ya go. It's SYNDICATED, people. That means, dilbert.com isn't the only place to get it. Woo~.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129546)

Flash CAN be accessible. But either ways, as soon as I noticed the "upgrade" I totally hated it. It was lightweight, simple, and did the job.

The update easily takes 10x as long to load (even thru a squid accelerating proxy) -- must be all the traffic to clearspring.com and the widgets and all, it uses flash an awful lot (yuck), and the navigation sucks.

Unless they change it back, I might either 1) stop visiting or 2) make a greasemonkey script to make it bearable or such...

I hate to say it, but I like Vista more (not that I use it) than their new site. And registering for feedback? No thanks.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (3, Funny)

GuidoW (844172) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129790)

And frankly, what with all the annoying blinking animated ads on the new page, viewing this without flash is definitely the better way.

Re:Actually, much of it is accessable. (4, Funny)

Stellian (673475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129868)

Ok, you non web-2.0-adopting retrograds... here's the html version:
http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/index.html [comics.com]

Excuse me while I emerge myself in the synergistic experience of the new flash interface, and step into the 21st (maybe even 22nd) century, while leaving you the prisoners of the old web 1.0

Deleted (4, Insightful)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129402)

I have flashblock and noscript up. I tried temporarily allowing just a few things to let me view the site, but when that didn't work, I gave up and deleted Dilbert from my bookmarks.

It's funny, but it's not worth it. He also has an irrational love of Microsoft at times, such as when he thought that Bill Gates would make a good president.

Because, you know, it's not like the rest of the world minds having the USA push them around. And it's not like Bill is known for being good at that kind of business, or anything like that...

Suffice it to say, I didn't feel like it was worth the bother to continue reading it.

Re:Deleted (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129492)

I assume your using FF. Same problem for me. No matter what I disable (flashblock, Adblock plus, greasemonkey, Noscripts) I just get a comforting white page. It works in Safari but what a total throwback to 2000.

Not worth it....

Re:Deleted (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129518)

Well, now it's showing me the "Download the Dilbert Widget" gif and helpfully offers to let me register. Progress!

Re:Deleted (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129506)

Did it get reverted back or something?

I don't understand the outrage. For comparison, this [jlarocco.com] is what it looks like for me.

Re:Deleted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129642)

I don't have a screenshot, but that's not what it looked like for me

Re:Deleted (3, Informative)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129732)

Did it get reverted back or something?

I don't understand the outrage. For comparison, this [jlarocco.com] is what it looks like for me.
Same here...I have Firefox on a mac with Adblock Plus and Noscript active, and I can read the site just fine.

Re:Deleted (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129740)

That's what it looks like to me when I have noscript enabled for that site. It looks different with javascript enabled, so I'm guessing they do a javascript check. I could look at the source code but meh.

Can't leave well enough alone (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129406)

This seems to be universal among web designers. They just aren't happy unless they're redesigning something to make it more complicated and less likely to work.

My award for "sticking with what works" goes to craigslist.org.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129542)

Indeed; I can't stomach the website of Toys for Bob, and rely on other people to give me info about their latest works. Stop using flash for your entire site, people.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (3, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129558)

s/web designers/designers/g

Wisdom is knowing when to rip out the kludge, and knowing when it isn't really a kludge and to leave it the #$@# alone.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129624)

Among these is Slashdot itself with the lousy new AJAX interface. It doesn't load a standard set of comments upon first reading the page, and ctrl-F no longer works for finding content inside of comments. To read any thread, we have to keep clicking, expanding, clicking, expanding, and so forth. It's a royal pain in comparison to the old format, and for what advantage? I see none.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129636)

It's funny, because in the past, experienced web designers could produce good sites. Now it's experienced designers who put out unusable crap, and those who just know basic HTML who make usable sites.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (5, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129666)

As a web programmer I'd say its that managers can't stop demanding new features. I spent half my time trying to talk people out of features my job would be so much easier if I just relented....

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (2, Insightful)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129770)

This seems to be universal among web designers. They just aren't happy unless they're redesigning something to make it more complicated and less likely to work.

Hey, don't lump all web designers together. At our studio our focus is on standards-based design - valid XHTML combined with CSS for design and unobtrusive JavaScript (via jQuery) for behavior. We avoid Flash at all costs, not because we can't use it, but because it's non-standard and almost everything people use Flash for can be done using XHTML + CSS + JavaScript if you know what you're doing. Many design shops use the tools in the Adobe (formerly Macromedia) suite because it's "easier." That's partly why there are so many crappy web sites - most web designers don't really know how to design for the web. They get tools handed to them that "ease" the transition from print design and now they think they're web designers.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129774)

I agree, roll everything back to 1989. Gopher and Lynx were good enough for me. None of this fancy pants "world wide web web browser" nonsense. Mosaic was the beginning of the end.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (5, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129806)

Look at this site, the reply to this buttons replaced a perfectly useful reply text link. Now the pages are 10% longer than they used to be and take forever to scroll on small screens. Since the change I have been coming to Slashdot maybe 10% of the time I used to. Does anyone know how to get the old slashdot back?

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (5, Informative)

GotenXiao (863190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129842)

Disable Javascript. All the old behaviour comes back. Alternatively, go into Help & Preferences, Posting and select Slashdot Classic Discussion System.

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129866)

It can be done with a Greasemonkey script in Firefox. If anyone cares enough to write one please upload it for others to use. It seems pretty easy to fix in greasemonkey since all you want to do is replace the buttons with text links.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 [mozilla.org]

Re:Can't leave well enough alone (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129828)

What about Google? Still no ads on main page. Main page has a grand total of one graphic, no flash. Any new tabs added provide hefty new, and free, features. How are they not sticking with what is working?

Dilbert stopped being funny a decade ago (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129408)

Am I the only one who thinks Dilbert stopped being funny back in the 1990s? The last collection I enjoyed was Bring Me the Head of Willy the Mailboy [amazon.com] . Since then, Adams has just been going over and over the same handful of gags. And even though corporate culture in America may have changed to some extent, the Dilbert office seems the same early '90s environment that inspired him to turn the strip towards a parody of office life.

Re:Dilbert stopped being funny a decade ago (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129458)

No, you're not.

Re:Dilbert stopped being funny a decade ago (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129574)

Well, that is when he stopped working in an actual office, isn't it? Should we be surprised that he doesn't have new office ideas to use?

repeat old stuff for a new generation (5, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129640)

Since then, Adams has just been going over and over the same handful of gags

That's OK, it's just a genreational change.

Each generation is arrogant enough to ignore the collected wisdom of what's gone before, so it makes the same old mistakes. Hence Dilbert is just as popular with the new "breed" of readers as it was with the last lot. The reason is they get just as frustrated with the same bosses making the same mistakes as their forebears. No doubt in 100 years time, people will still be grousing about the incompetence of their superiors and Scott Adams, or his grandchildren, will still be making money out of it.

Re:Dilbert stopped being funny a decade ago (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129650)

Am I the only one who thinks Dilbert stopped being funny back in the 1990s? The last collection I enjoyed was Bring Me the Head of Willy the Mailboy [amazon.com] . Since then, Adams has just been going over and over the same handful of gags. And even though corporate culture in America may have changed to some extent, the Dilbert office seems the same early '90s environment that inspired him to turn the strip towards a parody of office life.
There's a website that was passed around the office here that had 13 YEARS of Dilbert archived.

You're not kidding. The biggest example of a reused gag is the following:

PHB Creates Spreadsheet with everyone's Salaries. PHB gives spreadsheet to Secretary She-Bitch from Hell. SSBfH then... ... Forwards it to the entire company on accident, causing 2 weeks worth of "wtf" strips. ... Punches through her LCD monitor, causing the PHB to comment that that's what everyone who sees it does. ... Has a breakdown once she realizes her salary compared to the others.

And those are just the 3 (out of the 5 or so) that I remember the punchline for.

While we're on the subject. (4, Interesting)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129414)

What's up with all the ajax and interface changes creeping in on slashdot ?

Re:While we're on the subject. (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129484)

Cowboys will be cowboys.

Re:While we're on the subject. (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129514)

I love them.

If only they fixed the bug that happens when you moderate, then you try to comment, the dialog warns you that the moderation you did it will be undone and you can't get out of there....

Re:While we're on the subject. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129658)

For the love of god, when will they show the journal entry you are replying to on the reply page? It is fucking retarded to have to keep open a separate window/tab to do this.

Re:While we're on the subject. (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129670)

I love them.

If only they fixed the bug that happens when you moderate, then you try to comment, the dialog warns you that the moderation you did it will be undone and you can't get out of there....
I used to love them, until yesterday, when I entered a discussion to discover that about 5 pages of racist bigot droppings, all marked -1 troll, was being displayed prominently, because the Magic Ajax Bar (tm) decided to slide all the eway over to the right on it's own.

Nothing quite like running into GNAA crap first thing in the morning to ruin ones day.

No Linux? (5, Interesting)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129426)

Here's what I sent them earlier on when discovering that part of the site even does not support Linux:

I really can't believe you show such a big lack of understanding of your target audience. Dilbert & Co. are engineers. Engineers read Dilbert because of how much it reflects the silly issues they face every day when dealing with clueless managers, marketeers, etc. It helps them to have a smile on their face in the face of office misery.

And then what do we get? A Dilbert site update that does not support Linux. In 2008. Guess what? Engineers use Linux. I've fought my PHBs for the right to do so back in 1999 and I won. About the whole department has been Linux-on-the-desktop ever since...

My MBA (yes, I have one of those as well and yet I still use Linux) tells me that you're making a classical mistake of many companies that once were successful. Note the tense of that!

April 17, 2008: A day that will live in infamy.

And that's just one of my gripes. The new UI is clunky; the site is slow; ...

Re:No Linux? (5, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129590)

And try going to the next strip....
No previous or next button on any of the pages...

BRILLIANT!

Re:No Linux? (1)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129596)

Well the site kinda works for me I guess, and I'm using some older version of ubuntu, but I don't know what you mean by "working".

What still sucks is the browsing the strips, why not just add previous/next/random in? Dilberts website sucked before too, don't forget that.

If you want something good, check out xkcd.com, the only thing I miss being better there is the archives.

Re:No Linux? (3, Informative)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129644)

For the non-working bit, try the animated strips section. I'd post a link, but for some reason I'm now seeing the old site again...

Re:No Linux? (1)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129766)

was the animated strips something that worked before? otherwize, that is an addition to the site, and should be welcomed I think, even if it is flash.. but keep my strips working :-D

Re:No Linux? (2, Insightful)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129786)

I don't care whether the feature was there before: it should just work. And I actually even don't care that much about using flash (although flash does have a tendency to hang my browser, so static pages are still better). It's the "we don't support Linux" thing that really p*sses me off.

Re:No Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129602)

I use Linux. I lke the redesign. How is this possible?

Re:No Linux? (1)

Rogue974 (657982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129616)

I agree 100% with this. I hate the new site. There is only one thing I liked about the new site. I used to read Dilbert almost everyday, now, I doubt I will be able to. It was a quick 15 second diversion that gave me a laugh. Now, I can't even get the page to load in 15 seconds, let alone read the comic! The place I work at, the internet connection is horrendously slow and it takes so long to load the site and all the "bells and whistles", it makes it difficult to even load the page.

Re:No Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129692)

Here's what I sent them earlier on when discovering that part of the site even does not support Linux:

I really can't believe you show such a big lack of understanding of your
target audience. Dilbert & Co. are engineers. Engineers read Dilbert
because of how much it reflects the silly issues they face every day when
dealing with clueless managers, marketeers, etc. It helps them to have a
smile on their face in the face of office misery.


And then what do we get? A Dilbert site update that does not support Linux.
In 2008. Guess what? Engineers use Linux. I've fought my PHBs for the right
to do so back in 1999 and I won. About the whole department has been
Linux-on-the-desktop ever since...


My MBA (yes, I have one of those as well and yet I still use Linux) tells
me that you're making a classical mistake of many companies that once were
successful. Note the tense of that!


April 17, 2008: A day that will live in infamy.



And that's just one of my gripes. The new UI is clunky; the site is slow; ...

It works fine in Linux -- CentOS 5, FF 2.0.0.14, Flash plug-in.

Re:No Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129718)

It seems that some Pointy-Haired Boss made his job setting this new fat-flash website.

Scott's karma...

Re:No Linux? (1)

hedgefighter (1066902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129758)

It's really interesting actually, because it seems to be a false limitation. If you change your user agent to Windows the animation stuff works fine in Linux despite its saying otherwise before. Not sure why they don't want you to view a Flash video on Linux...

Re:No Linux? (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129808)

I couldn't believe what they did. I simply mailed them to tell them it used to be my home page. Now it isn't. What a mess.

Re:No Linux? (5, Funny)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129856)

BrianRegan.com got flashed a year or so back and I sent a complaint email (parts of it didn't work in Opera). Next thing I know, Brian used my first name for one of the dumber characters in a comic routine. So I'd suggest complaining anonymously...

What, people still read dilbert? (0, Troll)

cbraga (55789) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129428)

The funny dried out many years ago... It's just a repetition of old jokes (or let's call them situations, since calling them a joke implies they're funnY) or the same old comments over a new subject.

Well, a good, unintended slashdotting ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129434)

Ought to make them think a little more carefully about extensive use of resource-heavy options such as Flash. :-)

Re:Well, a good, unintended slashdotting ... (1)

GuidoW (844172) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129820)

Who said flash is that much more resource heavy on the server side?

ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129442)

Here's another reason why I hate modern software... Load up on the inefficient resource hogs, then wait for the next generation of hardware to get even faster. All thanks to people who spent most of their lives learning about the physics of the transistor and how to manufacture ever smaller ones.

But the software monkeys just jump around like kids going from one candy bowl to the next.

Damn I'm good (5, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129450)

I must be a flippin mind reader or able to see into the future. I just wrote about [slashdot.org] this kind of nonsense.


It's a freaking static cartoon! What possible asinine reason could there be to screw up such a simple concept? I saw this the other day and so, like Doonesbury, won't be visiting it any more due to their use of Flash.

Re:Damn I'm good (4, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129688)

I must be a flippin mind reader or able to see into the future. I just wrote about [slashdot.org] this kind of nonsense.



It's a freaking static cartoon! What possible asinine reason could there be to screw up such a simple concept? I saw this the other day and so, like Doonesbury, won't be visiting it any more due to their use of Flash.

Well, they do have this cool user-submitted "Mashup" system, where you can click on a Dilbert strip and re-write the punchline -- it's then put on a voting site where people can vote and comment on it. I thought that was brilliant, myself...

Re:Damn I'm good (1)

Indefinite, Ephemera (970817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129836)

What caught my eye - as I realised that I'd have to scroll to the right to click the Flashblock box - was that without activating Flash even the static text that is the Terms of Use [dilbert.com] won't display.

And on reading the ToU: it's one of those sites that magnanimously gives permission to link to it... if twelve conditions are satisfied.

What flash? (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129456)

I just checked dillbert.com. There are only two flash images: Animation and the list of most popular comics.

I don't see any flash... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129462)

thanks NoScript :-)

Probably a Consultant (5, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129472)

It was probably some outside consultant that convinced them of the perceived need to produce a "competitive" web-site in today's market, and only this garbage will do.

Don't these PHB clowns realize that it's content that draws people to a site, and excessive bandwidth, insecure plug-ins required, inane registration requirements, and slow downloads that drive them away again.

Scott Adam's personal e-mail address is well-known (remember to put 'Dilbert' in the subject line to slip past his spam filter). One can still complain to him directly.

non flash dilbert (5, Informative)

Cromac (610264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129476)

Good thing you can still get your dilbert fix at http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/ [unitedmedia.com]

Re:non flash dilbert (1)

jkerman (74317) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129852)

in black and white.....

Ouch (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129482)

It uses flash for the menu ... nuff said.

Re:Ouch (3, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129844)

It is fairly common for people who have no clue about how to design with standards complient html/css to use flash to make a wiz-bang menu that doesn't work with many browsers, takes longer to load, and is completely hostile to the sight impaired.

Like the yahoo! upgrade - not going back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129490)

After Yahoo! was buying its search from google, they started using pop-up ads. I dropped yahoo! an email about how that was fine, but I do not have to visit them. And have not been back.

Now, the same with Dilbert. Flash is not universal and does not run on my platform of choice. So - Bye United Features. If they bother to not use flash - I won't be visiting 'em to find out.

(Oh that and flash adds to the security risks)

at least they didn't use silverlight? (1)

hxnwix (652290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129516)

I for one am less annoyed than I otherwise would have been.

Thanks, Microsoft?

My God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129528)

It's full of stars!

My eyes!

Seriously, there's so much stuff going on that I don't know what to do. Is this some kind of weird experiment? Or was the web site designed in Elbonia by Elbonians for Elbonians?

Okay, I've seen today's strip. Does anybody see where to click to get the previous day's strip? I'm looking ... looking ...

searching ...

For April's fool... (1)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129530)

They should've just re-direct to MySpace.

...intellectual property on the web (1)

JensR (12975) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129538)

...embracing the new realities of intellectual property on the web.
So I guess they don't want people e-mailing the current strip around at work anymore, if it is relevant to a manager or situation on the team. And they don't want people saving one out as desktop background, or keeping a copy of their favourite ones.

Re:...intellectual property on the web (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129754)

...embracing the new realities of intellectual property on the web.
So I guess they don't want people e-mailing the current strip around at work anymore, if it is relevant to a manager or situation on the team. And they don't want people saving one out as desktop background, or keeping a copy of their favourite ones.
Yes, they hate that so much that they added a nice "email" and "embed" button that makes it trivial to send strips around to anyone and everyone:

[dilbert.com]

Oh, and the embed thing comes with a (lower quality) .gif version of any strip in the (now vastly extended) Dilbert archive.

Re:...intellectual property on the web (3, Informative)

JensR (12975) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129794)

You've got to be signed in to use the save button, and to email it you have to give them the email address.
It would've been easier to just leave it a gif as before.

Now I have to change my script (1)

siwelwerd (869956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129562)

Damn, now I have to change my web-comic fetching script (it emails me when a new comic is uploaded) again. I already had to handle Dilbert as a special case since they would insert a seemingly random string of numbers in a seemingly random place in the image file name (e.g. instead of 20080419.gif 20081740960419.gif).

Re:Now I have to change my script (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129862)

Ought to be a minor change. I just had to rebase the main URL for the archive since it changed on the 16th:

#baseurl="http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive"
baseurl="http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive"

I grab the filename and extension with this regular expression:
/\/comics\/dilbert\/archive(\/images\/dilbert.*?)\.(gif|jpg|jpeg)/i

Of course this gives you the non-colored strip (which is fine by me)

It's call irony (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129572)

The only logical explanation is that the use of flash is a joke, and it is going over everybody's head. What else could explain the site doing in real life, exactly what the site is designed to make fun of?

So we start to rip (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129586)

People will start doing things like this more:

#!/bin/bash
PIC=`lynx -source dilbert.com|grep strip.print.gif|awk -F\" '{print "http://dilbert.com"$18}'`
wget -O ~/dilbert.gif $PIC
and put that in their crontab.

Seems to work ok without flash. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129620)

As one not having flash installed at all, the site seems to work ok. There's a lot of "space" where there's obviously some interactive mojo going on, but I can read todays strip, yesterdays, the one before that and so on.

Although I agree the site was better before, all I ever do there is read todays strip (and a couple of days back I've missed).

At Least it's not Silverlight (5, Funny)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129626)

At Least it's not Silverlight...

Flash not the real issue (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129648)

I care more that there's no "previous" and "next" buttons near the strip. Sure, if you click "strips" at the top you get an archive with thumbnails, which is good if you want to find a specific strip. But the lack of "previous" and "next" make casual browsing more difficult.

It's a ploy to make us all more productive, and damn it, it shall not stand!"

With Flash Block enabled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129668)

...I'm not even able to see the website. It flashes some content (pun intended) and then goes blank.

What a bunch of grumpy old cave trolls (1, Troll)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129676)

Are you afraid of new technology? Don't like it when your comfortable Internet existence is shaken up by change? Sure, I had to look at all 5 sites NoScript blocked; and unblock 2 sites to get all the relevant content.

Be thankful you still have the choice of what content to accept and what to block with a proper open source, modern web browser. Be thankful one of the innovative cartoonists of our time is continuing to attempt to expand the horizons of satire and humor. Be thankful you don't have to pay for this content unless you specifically choose to purchase his product.

The only element of the design I think is short sighted is the layout -- narrow and long. Most modern LCD displays' aspect ratio is wider than it is long.

Re:What a bunch of grumpy old cave trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129760)

Dude. You're spouting this to the crowd that hates Vista for the most ridiculous of reasons. Especially because new technology is instantly bad!

Marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129694)

Wouldn't this be something that Dilbert would blame on the idiots in Marketing?

I wondered by my Dashboard clip stopped working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129696)

I had been reading Dilbert daily using the dashboard webclip widget on my Leopard Mac. Yesterday it stopped working... I guess this site redesign is why.

By reading it in dashboard I didn't see any of the accompanying ads. I wonder if worries over that kind of thing are the reason they've gone away from a nice functional html page to a flash monstrosity.

Too bad, I liked Dilbert. I'm not braving that website to read him though.

New layout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129702)

Over all, I wouldn't say I'm a fan of the new layout, but I don't particularly hate it either.

          I found three problems with the new layout:

        1) Unnecessary flash. Flash makes sense for the animations, most of the flash is literally displaying a single static image. In Unitedmedia's favor, the flash itself isn't all bloated like some flash sites though.

          2) No forward/back button on the comics. I like to read, for instance, the last weeks comics all at once.. I can't just click "next comic" with the new layout. Certainly fixable 8-).

          3) The BIG problem... the animation player, instead of just checking for flash, does some artificial OS check. If I use User Agent Switcher to lie and say I'm running Mozilla for OSX, they play fine on my Ubuntu systems. Telling me I have to run Windows or OSX when all I really need is flash is sloppy.

Their Dilbert iGoogle Widget (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129706)

is not working either. Lame.

Come over to the dark side (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129716)

Most person becomes that which they most rail against. More often than not, these people realize that those they railed against, for instance the PHB, were just doing things that they could not at that point understand. It has been interesting to see Scott Adams descend into the PHB. The PHB that is continuously coming up with new ways to make a profit, and has little concern with quality or application. Be it outsourcing to unqualified labour or redesigning a web site, the PHB is interested in earning, not customers or quality. This is why engineers have such trouble dealing with them. Engineers are taught that their job is to make the world better, and it is unethical to cut corners primarily to increase profits.

SO, this website redesign proves that Dilbert has become the PHB. A design not help the customers or users, but to help the bottom line. How does it hep. Well, for one, it put Dilbert on the front page of /. after I don't know how long. It is an marketing gimmick, nothing more. Dilbert is irrelevant, and when one is irrelevent, there is little else to do but employ gimmicks. OTOH, I am sure it will work. Admas will sell some of his collected blog entries, people will reminisce about the good old days, and many will complain simply because they cannot understand that a business must generate a good profit.

Now with RSS? (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129738)

I don't much care for the addition of flash (what's the point?). However, in the past I looked for an RSS feed for Dilbert and either I was stupid and missed it or it just didn't exist. But in the flash app that shows the comic, there's now a nice little "RSS" icon. So now I can read my daily Dilbert and not even need to use their new stinking flash!

Personally, I consider this a win.

Re:Now with RSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129832)

Well, there's a tapestry comics RSS feed, but the new official one has it in color, and about two days ahead. Definitely a win. True, the new site is an abomination - but I like RSS better for strips anyway.

Note that, unlike the PvPonline RSS feed, this one actually includes the comic image, not just a link to the page. PvPonline uses ComicPress, which definitely supports having the comic in the RSS.

In future news... (3, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129818)

The Dilbert site managers, responding to the overwhelmingly negative reaction by users to the recent Flash makeover, just announced that the Flash enhancements will be removed and replaced with Silverlight.

Double standard... (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23129838)

I flash MY dilbert and I get four months.

Don't speak for the readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23129846)

I'm a regular dilbert.com non-registered reader and I am not revolting at all. At April 19, actually I think the new site is quite an improvement because it has a number of exciting new features. There's this old teaching of life: most statements made speaking for people are actually not representative of peoples feelings. I think this is just the case.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?