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!

FOX.com Apologizes to Linux Users

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the it-was-all-a-mistake... dept.

Television 171

OnlyNou writes "found this story at Linux Today." Apparently Fox did not intentionally exclude Linux users - along with users of all operating systems other than Mac and Windows - from fox.com, and is rectifying the error. Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com. (Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time.*grin*)

cancel ×

171 comments

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

Re:Hopefully... (2)

freakho (28342) | more than 14 years ago | (#1469987)

I don't think it was incompetence, really, just analness combined with ignorance. If you look at the script itself, it indicates that the writer wanted every person who viewed the site to view it the exact same way, without a pixel's difference. Thus, he had to check for browser and OS, since IE/win and IE/mac display differently, and NS/w and NS/m do too. And, of course, he checked for flash, and then decided to wrap all of this up into one script, all of the checks dependant on the other. And he knew not of Linux, and ended up excluding all alt OS's with a bad script. This is not the problem, however. The problem was the original intent of forcing everybody to see the exact same page.

This can't really be called incompetence, as anyone capable of the lengths necessary to do this probably is capable of pretty much anything web-related. This here was a case of bad web design philosophy. The people who do this are highly-educated, technically-skilled, not-incompetent, fucking idiots.

Of course, web designers have PHB's, too, especially since half the time they are still under the marketroids. Imagine trying to explain to a marketroid that flash is overrated or that a shift of one element by a few pixels across platforms is not fatal. Uugh. I know people who've had to work in situations like this, and it's not pretty.

In short, I reserve judgement on the designer's competence until Rob gets the actual designer, instead of a talking head, to make a statement... or maybe an interview? :)

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (1)

Demona (7994) | more than 14 years ago | (#1469988)

Designing a site in proper accordance with World Wide Web principles does not mean making your pages "boring and text-only", it does not mean you can't use whatever "latest and greatest technology" is de rigeur for your sacred cowser, and it does not mean you have to work harder. I recommend reading what the Pedantic Gang of Five have to say in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html [authoring.html] , with Alan Flavell and Arjun Ray being the most knowledgeable.

NEWS: Murdoch: Linux Is Best OS Ever (4)

cje (33931) | more than 14 years ago | (#1469999)

MURDOCH: LINUX IS THE BEST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER
"Fuck M$", Says High-Powered Executive


Note: This article subsumes a previous article [slashdot.org] posted by the United Press International.

NEW YORK, NY (UPI) - Businessman Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the immense and powerful News Corporation, sang the praises of the popular Linux operating system today at Fox News Headquarters in New York. In addition, Murdoch also announced the cancellation of a previously-planned program entitled "World's Least-Supported Operating Systems." The program was part of Fox's new fall line-up.

"What a jag-off I've been," admitted Murdoch.

"We all do things in life that we're ashamed of," explained Murdoch. "For my part, I allowed myself to be swept up by a large, domineering corporation. I allowed myself to be manipulated. I allowed the rascals in Redmond to brainwash me." Murdoch's voice cracked dramatically at several points in his speech.

"But we're past all of that now," continued Murdoch. "And I'm a better man because of it. That's why I say 'to hell with M$!' We will forge on! We will make history! The Fox network considers Linux to be the best operating system ever invented!" Murdoch spent the next several minutes explaining to reporters that the 'S' in "MS" was to be replaced with a dollar sign.

"It's important," explained Murdoch.

Candace Gorman, a public relations spokeswoman for the Fox network, made a few brief statements after Murdoch's comments. "I would like to make clear that Mr. Murdoch's statements and position reversal have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of Red Hat stock, and they certainly are unrelated to the record-setting IPO of VA Linux. Mr. Murdoch's stock portfolio is his own goddamn business."

Ms. Gorman continued. "Additionally, I must also add that Mr. Murdoch's comments are unrelated to the successful IPO of Andover.Net. It is common knowledge that supporters of Andover.Net are a bunch of complete and total assholes. [slashdot.org] "

Nick Petreley contributed to this story.

Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Off-topic) (1)

davidu (18) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470000)

I am glad someone agrees with me...don't get me wrong...I value, and want to hear Roblimo's opinion, just not in the brief...I want to read it down below where I can consider EVERYTHING to be opinion...I think most of us expect the NewsByte to be factual (as much as possible) and not contain opinion...

-Davidu

No Linux support was unintentional? (3)

cyoon (99971) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470001)

Of course it was unintentional of FOX to have their site not support. I find it completely typical of Slashdotters to believe that the world is so out to get them and that they must all band together to make their mark in the world. Does anyone actually believe that FOX didn't want Linux users to view their site? Let's be realistic. Noticing that their site didn't recognize Linux was not Slashdot news. Who cares if it doesn't work? Just send a note to them and ask them to rectify it. To try to get everyone to jump on the Slashdot bandwagon was ludicrous to begin with.

And after all this commotion, Slashdot has a right to complain that it isn't worth visiting anyway? WTF?

Slashdot effect. (1)

ahaning (108463) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470002)

Well, now there will be an even bigger problem. Millions of Joe/Josefine Users will not be able to view the page. They'll be thinking "What? I could have sworn that I saw F-O-X-dot-C-O-M at the end of Ally McBeal. Hmm..maybe I'm wrong." and only *we* know what the problem is. Maybe they'll have to apologize next for their site being inavailable..."No, Fox.com was not down. There was an influx of people viewing our site due to it being viewed on Slashdot [slashdot.org] ." Then all their users will follow the link and we'll be wondering "Hmm..is this the Twilight Zone or something? Slashdot NEVER gets slashdotted...strange...maybe they had to take down the site." And the process will have begun all over again.

I found a penny on the ground today. Therefore, this is my $0.03 worth. I didn't need it anyway.

Re:I HATE FLASH INTRO SCREENS (5)

Foogle (35117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470003)

You know, there's a lot of people who think like you, and I'm one of them.

Yeah, get rid of the Flash intro screens. And while you're at it, get rid of those annoying animated buttons. And those blasted popup windows. And color too, because it's just a strain on my eyes. Actually, just get rid of all the images anyway; text is the way to go. Aw, fuck the text, let's just have a big array of lights on my desktop that I can use to view the contents of my CPU registers. Nah, forget that, that's a waste of lightbulbs... I'll just guess what's in the registers, because -- seriously -- it's more fun that way.

Oh wait... I guess I don't agree with you.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Long Download Time? (4)

ReadParse (38517) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470004)

Roblimo wrote:
"Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time."

Sorry Rob, I've got to disagree with you on this. I'm sure the /. crowd is no fan of Flash, and there can be a multitude of reasons for it (in all honesty, there's a lot of "If it looks nice it must suck" in this community. Not everybody, but many).

Anyway, amid all the reasons, download time shouldn't be it. Sure you *could* make a Flash movie that requires the browser to download all day before it starts, but most Flash downloads very quickly. And if it's big, there's a small initial download followed by streaming.

That has been true from the earliest days of the technology, when it was called FutureSplash (before Macromedia bought it).

Many of us geeks enjoy the whole multimedia experience, even in a web browser under the right circumstances, as long as it's done right and isn't forced upon us when we don't want it. Kind of like porn, now that I think about it :)

RP

Re:I'd like to know ... (2)

friedo (112163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470005)

Does that mean that all the messages we may have sent them went to /dev/null?

No, they most likely went to the "Recycle Bin." :)

Field Report: FoxNews.com (2)

BaronCarlos (34713) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470006)

I don't know if this works with Linux or not, but Fox News [foxnews.com] just re-vamped their website, in a simmilar move to the Parent Site [fox.com] .

Can you guys check it, I cannot from my present location [intuit.com] .

*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*

"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (1)

Blue Lang (13117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470007)

Some people need graphics, animations and sounds to keep them interested.

Then those people should go watch tele-vision. ;)

I defy any assertion that jiggly-fied web pages get more traffic than content-at-all-costs ones do. I believe the numbers speak in favor of those who provide services or information, not eye-candy.

Qualifier: I don't have a tv, and I spent about three hours tonight reading www.webelements.com. That's right, it's the periodic table. Some neat stuff in there. No flash.

I can't see the fox site at all. There are no links. Pretty cool. Sorta artsy, all black and imposing.. Hmmm.. maybe it's a metaphor for some new dirge-comedy they have brewing. Damn, those kids are smart.

--
blue

I'd like to know ... (1)

drix (4602) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470011)

I'm curious if the VA Linux IPO had never happened would this apology have come? I guess ten billion dollars equates legitimacy to a crazed few :)
--
"Some people say that I proved if you get a C average, you can end up being successful in life."

I HATE FLASH INTRO SCREENS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470014)

Everyone should get rid of stupid Flash intro screens. I hate those damn things, just a waste of time, with little to no information *sigh*

Re:I'd like to know ... (2)

mintech (93916) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470016)

What I'm even more curious about is how many emails did the webmaster/PR team received.

What is puzzling and strange is that it took someone from LinuxToday to escalate the issue at Fox. Does that mean that all the messages we may have sent them went to /dev/null?

Anyway, its good to know they will comply, but they could speed it up quickly than saying it will be done by 12/17 -- it's not that difficult modification. I guess theyre probably trying to track down who actually runs the website. :)

Yeah but... (1)

nicedream (4923) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470018)

I still can't view it. So who cares about the apology?

It needs some work anyhow... (2)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470020)

I'll believe it when I see it, but just to check, I load up fox.com. However, now I'm on a windows box.

All I wanted to do was view the source of the page, but this Shockwave stuff loads automatically and I can't stop it with the "Stop" button. Frickin' plug-ins.

"hard-hitting"... "always on"... "FOX.com"... "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down."

Oops. Maybe basic HTML *would* be a better idea. :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

good move (2)

confidential (23321) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470022)

Its always great to see big commercial companies bend their will to help us. I mean, they could have just said "ah, screw it, none of those nerds ever watch TV anyways" but they didn't. It's showing how large companies are willing to accept linux as a big thing now.

Just imagine Joe Schome TV watcher... "wow, they made their page compatable with linux? they bent to the linux users demands? there might be something in this linux thing i havnt seen. maybe i'll try it"

then he spends a week whining, crying, and complaining about how it doesnt like him, but still... one less windows user ;-)

Still get Refused ;( (1)

SmartyPants (27576) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470024)

So much for the apology... I still get the refused page. maybe if they had more linux people on their staff they may now how to fix it.

Re:The Net's S-N ratio is dropping (2)

cheese63 (74259) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470025)

Yeah, but they're a tv station. TV is flashy, catches the eye. What the hell did you expect? This isn't the website for National Geographic, or PBS... it's fox, the station that brings you the simpsons, and other stuff that pales in comparison to the simpsons.

Re:This event was no doubt brought to you by: (1)

BedPanDan (21825) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470026)

This REALLY doesn't deserve a +5 score! It was only given it because it mentions linux advocacy, and the linux advocacy HOWTO...

(sigh)

Re:Intro Screens are useless (2)

Fong Sai Yuk (33255) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470027)

Exactly. I had added a nice splash page to a site I was working on. Took no time to load. My bossed liked it, the board members like it, and the initial reaction was great. Then, the user feedback came in...

"Why do we have to have another page to get where we want to go?" They said.

I pulled the splash page the next day.

Stupid color choice (1)

Augusto (12068) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470028)

I don't think it has Flash, but boy they screwed up the colors big time. Unless my contrast is way off, some text is unreadable.

Look at the stock quotes on top, they are black foreground against a dark blue background !!! HELLO ???
Then the links on the right are blue against another blue background ... Have these guys heard about the concept of contrasting colors ?!?!

I'm about to send a screen shot to the interface hall of shame website.

Re:It needs some work anyhow... (1)

niola (74324) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470029)

The problem with Flash is that people over-use it. If you use it sparsely to spice up your navigation, it not only loads fast (it's vector) but can make for more stable rollovers then Javascript.

Jus my $.02

--Jon

Then again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470030)

you must realize that if fox.com could only be viewed by Linux users, it would probably receive much more complaints. Go about things the right way, like the author of that link did. Make calls and find a solution to the problem. I'm all for Linux but many Linux users look stupid by repeated posts of "Linux rules", blah blah. Cut that shit out and find solutions.

Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (2)

Pfhreakaz0id (82141) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470031)

especially when there's a better way. Put a small flash movie on the first page which just loads the front page of the flashed site. Auto refresh in 3 seconds or so to the non-flashed site. If they have flash, they'll go to the flash site, else they'll go to the other. I don't understand why people go nuts with the javascript.

Why is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470032)

It's a horrible comment.

well, shucks (3)

jetpack (22743) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470033)

I guess the best way to add to your karma on this story is to bash roblimo, so I must play the karma whore and do:

ObKarmaWhore: Roblimo is a lewser and doesnt know jack shit about journalism! He must be roasted over the pit for all eternity!

blah. Get over it people. Slashdot is *not* journalism, and the folks that run slashdot know it. They just point us to things they think geeks might be interested in knowing about. And that's why slashdot is such a great site.

You can bitch about the article contents, but please dont bitch that this isn't journalism because by definition it is not

When I've perfected my whiny-slashdot-filter program, I'll be sure to let you all know. Maybe even that guy that puts grits down his pants will use it.

Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (2)

ecampbel (89842) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470044)

The front page has commentary for all stories, and as long as the staff's commentary is obviously their own words, I don't see anything wrong. The italicized text is supposed to be the scoop, while the normal text is the staff's comments to the scoop. For the actual news, you have to click on the link. This is what Slashdot is.

Maybe there should be a preference to disable the staff's two cents. My only request is that they think about what they write first. They need to realize that Slashdot is a powerful medium, and many posters post without reading the article first. The summary is all they have.

Talking about how they don't like Fox's web site is one thing, but saying that a preliminary copyright ruling could, "destroy the web and all" is not responsible journalism. Obviously, CmdrTaco didn't read or think about the story before making the comment. How many people were at the water cooler today complaining that the web's days are numbered?

Re:Hopefully... (2)

DanaL (66515) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470045)

Hmmm...maybe I'll change 'incompetent' to 'not wide enough thinker'. Although I think there is a fine line between 'ignorance', 'fucking idiot' and incompetent :)

Dana

GET A NEW BROWSER (1)

petrified portman (124617) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470046)

get a better browser and a faster internet connection if you can't handle flash. if all sites were in plain text and had no graphics, there would be no need for the masses to have faster internet connections and TECHNOLOGY WOULD CEASE TO ADVANCE. boohoo, i have a 14.4 modem and slashdot.org's fancy graphics take too long to load, please make it text and take out the vowels to conserve bandwidth. not going to happen, wtf is on fox.com that you are being withheld from seeing anyway? its all shitty content about ally mcbeal anyway, but thats another storry

The crime that is commercial web design. (4)

Inoshiro (71693) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470047)

IMHO, it's not just Fox that are at fault here, it's commerical "web design" in general. Ever notice how places like PCWeek [pcweek.com] , Altavista [altavista.com] , mp3.com [mp3.com] , and many -- many -- others use pages replete with br and such to force the 640x480 look on people? Most of the time it's not even centred, forcing me to stare at the left 30% of my monitor.

There is no excuse why this should be. Give me my content, give it to me nicely, and, damnit, let me view it in my browser window at proper scaling. There was an artcle on some site about Slashdot long ago. I had to use Opera to magnify the page view 300% for it to show the "content" at a decent size in my 1024x768 desktop. When I started using Linux exclusively (with Windows as a glorfied Nintendo), the problem was exacerbated by the simple fact that the pages designed to look great at 640x480 also assumed a bunch of fonts (which I did later setup, thanks to the ttf font server in the Slackware contrib dir).

Why bother to take the time, spend lots of your company moola, only to come up with a hard-coded, useless, junky site?

Flash? Great -- what's the point? Slow downloads suck, and I'm on a cable modem! The only site I've seen to use Flash in a compelling way (in terms of "mainstream" sites), is After Y2K [geekculture.com] . With Cascading Style Sheets, it is trivial to implement really nice looking sites that scale well. Netscape, Opera, and (gahck) IE support CSS very well, as does Mozilla. With Lynx, it's a non-issue ;-)

If anyone doesn't understand what I mean, go look at my webserver (Thock.com [thock.com] ) for an example of how I write my HTML (which is all hand written, and generally tested well). I'll also welcome any comments anyone has on my HTML, I am writing an HTML primer, and related, documents for the webserver.
---

Fox.com web developer (1)

seaportcasino (121045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470048)

It sounds like they just need to fire their web developers. A web site for a company like Fox is like a brochure. Not only should everybody be able to see it, but it ought to look nice to everybody; that's what marketing is all about, appealing to as many people as possible. They should just get some decent developers and this problem won't come up!

I have an exception to that rule... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470049)

Until the man [lucasfilm.com] came down on him, The XDude [xdude.com] has the best use of flash on the web. Even in the sites transition, it is still pretty neat.

Re:This event was no doubt brought to you by: (1)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470050)

Welcome to Slashdot, 1999: Year of the Fucked Up Moderation System.

I've posted several things on this topic.

-Chris

Re:Hopefully... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470051)

...they fired whatever company they hired to create their pages in the first place.

You know, I'm begining to get really tired of rabid and hotheaded people calling for dead bodies whenever someone makes a mistake, even little ones.

Look -- they apologized. Heck, I don't even know if one could classify this as a mistake so much as a design decision. Calling them incompetant is a rush to judgement. It's rude, and it's uncalled for, it's unprofessional. It's mean spirited.

And, unfortunatly, it seems to be the norm here as of late.

Oh like Slashdot is any better (1)

indiigo (121714) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470052)

And the readability of Slashdot is any better? Green on White text? Do you know how badly that fries your eyes after an hour or so? And the clutter on the front page? C'mon, give 'em a break... they'r eusing technology and making some eye candy, let the marketing hype do it's thing...

Re:Fox.com web developer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470053)

Yeah. Maybe they should limit the size of the screens to 640x480? And how about javascript? Nuke that too. And all those images -- some people have slow modems, really slows them down. And how about those people with B&W monitors? Better get rid of the color.

You know what? I like flash. It's fun. It spices things up. If you can't view it, too frigging bad.

Re:Hopefully... (2)

SPorter (83284) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470064)

I do web stuff and a lot of clients insist on doing stupid things like Flash splash screens and stupid animated gifs. We urge them to reconsider and explain to them that we have their users' best interests (which means their best interests) at heart but they ignore us. In the end, they control the purse strings. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what happenend here.

Thock.com (OT) (1)

TheDullBlade (28998) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470065)

Aggh! It drives me bonkers! You can't click on the little buttons beside each of the links! (I know they're not buttons, but they look like them and they should be part of the link anyway)

Re:Oh like Slashdot is any better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470066)

Too true. Never mind the text color, the design as a whole isn't all that pretty. The Slashdot staff should be the last people handing out web design tips. I'm all for Flash intro screens, just use a cookie so it's only displayed to the visitor once.

Re:well, shucks (1)

billybob jr (106396) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470067)

Roblimo has considerable influence, what is wrong with suggesting a little more accountability? Slashdot isn't journalism, but he has quite a pulpit.

Who the hell cares? Not me. Who cares though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470068)

So some old dinosaurs aren't keeping up, boo hoo. What, is everyone going to want an apology from those 60 minutes fossils if they leave out Linux in some report. "Andy Rooney didn't mention Slackware vs. Corel in his piece, I want an apology." Forget them, we should have gotten sick of television organizations a long time ago. Who's still watching the stupid television anyway? Except when Nora O'Donnell is reporting an NBC story. Or when Charmed is on. But that's it.

Re:Fox.com web developer (1)

seaportcasino (121045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470069)

Not only should everybody be able to see it, but it ought to look nice to everybody

I'm not saying that you shouldn't throw in advanced features for users that can take advantage of it. I'm simply saying that they should not call the web site "finished" until everybody, even those with mosaic, 640x480 on a B&W monitor can have a good experience on it. I'm not saying "lowest common denominator", I'm saying "include everybody" and make it as nice as you can considering the limitations of the browser.

Apology accepted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470070)

Now go - and sin no more!

Re:I have an exception to that rule... (3)

Listerine (7695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470071)

My biggest qualm with the intro movies is that I usually open in new window and forget about it for 10 minutes, rendering useless the animation.

If I wanted to be force fed flashy graphics, I'd watch TV.

Won the battle, WAY far from winning the war. (2)

Masem (1171) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470072)

And before I get too far, the war is NOT to make all sites Linux-accessable. The war is to make all web sites usable under any standards- following browsing situation, from the lastest IE/NS versions, to Lynx, to blind/visually impared users, to WebTV users, to cel phone uses. HTML is meant to gracefully degrade when the browsing situation cannot handle certain elements (such as IMG on text browsers).

Key issues to do this is separating presentation from content (thanks to the use of style sheets), providing alternate content when appropriate (using ALT tags as well as the much-welcomed OBJECT tag), and in general, making sure to validate the HTML code you write (just as you would use "use Strict" in perl, or compile your programs for errors in C or other languages).

Unfortunately, I'd estimate 90% of commercial websites (and a larger percentage of personal pages) do not follow the above. The crap of HTML tag soup that FrontPage and other HTML authoring software puts out is poor quality, and while it's ok to set up the basic HTML, most good authors know they have to clean up the tag soup before putting it out. Even then, too many people try to force HTML into acting like a desktop publishing language.

What will help is the blind accessibly lawsuit against AOL. Before that was announced, I know I heard rumblings of a major suit of this nature by sight-impared people because they could not use a service provided by the gov't. Sure, it's still a long way before Joe Q's "WAY PAST K00L HOMEPAGE" is going to need to be site-impared accessible, but there's plenty of reason to make more commercial sites more accessible.

The best way for everyone on the Linux side to help is that the next time a site like Fox.com comes up where Linux users are shunned, email said site maintainers and point out it's not just Linux that is shunned, but anyone not using a "status quo" box. Sure, that might only be 5% of the potental viewing audience, but that's also 5% of potental customers. Point them to sites like www.websitesthatsuck.com [websitesthatsuck.com] which run down the bad tricks that should be avoided, and to www.w3c.org [w3c.org] which have validators and other helpful information for writing clean HTML. And the key thing to remember is that it takes more work to make a web site less accessible than it does to make them fully accessible.

Re:Why is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470073)

What, you didn't feel it was insightful? It didn't completely enlighten you spiritually and put a few hundred grand in your pocket. Ha! It seems the moderators are able to see something here that I missed... If so I want negative damn karma. Nuke it, I don't care any more. This is getting stupid.

What a selfish bunch we are (1)

Trix (5592) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470074)

People are all up in arms because "Linux is excluded." Big deal. Imagine for a moment that you are blind. (If your imagination isn't that good try the following command:

$lynx http://fox.com

Try to get some usable content from the resulting screen.

THAT is the real tragedy here.

It's late (early?), I'll shut up and go to bed now.

Re:Intro Screens are useless (2)

Benley (102665) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470075)

The 30-second Flash Intro on fox.com makes more sense if you consider it this way:
Watch TV for a while. The TV format has 30-second intros (basically). It seems to work pretty well, considering the number of people that continue to watch TV.
Now when you get done watching your couple hours of television, notice at the end of some show a reference to a web address: www.fox.com [fox.com] . Hmm, why not? Go over to your computer, fire up www.fox.com, watch another 30-second intro just like you've been watching for the past few hours on the television, and lapse back into advertisement land and learn all about Ally McBeal on your new favourite website.

Or something like that.

Generally speaking, all of this requires that you _not_ be the average slashdot reader, but I think you can see what I'm talking about anyway.

if you didn't like the site why did you complain (1)

msaeger (41649) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470076)

if you didn't like the site why did you even bother complaining about it in the first place

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (1)

kman (44878) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470077)

So let me get this straight...

If Roblimo, instead of saying:

"Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com."

had instead said:

"Thanks for all the great work Fox, we appreciate your effort."

then you'd all be happy?

You're saying it's ok to post positive, feel-good commentary but negative commentary makes the Linux community look bad? Or as Amit said, the commentary has to be as "impartial as possible" ??

Give me a break. Just because Slashdot has gotten big doesn't mean it has to get impersonal. If Roblimo, CmdrTaco, or Hemos wants to post a comment in a news item then more power to them. If I don't like their comment, I'll take them to task in a comment of my own. But I won't start complaining that I don't like their comments so they shouldn't make them or be allowed to post them on the front page.

Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (1)

stoney (780) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470078)

Well, probably not every combination. I think the following would be enough:

MSIE4/Windows
MSIE5/Windows
Netscape 4.7/Windows
Opera/Windows
Netscape 4.7/MAC
MSIE 4.5/MAC
Netscape/Linux

eventually Lynx/Windows

Argh. Thats why my desk is cluttered with keyboards.

Re:Intro Screens are useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470079)

The only places I've ever seen flash used as a useful tool is www.newgrounds.com

Is it good for anything other than cheesy web games?

Appologise without correcting... (1)

redhog (15207) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470080)

Why do they appologise, while they haven't corrected the problem yet? I run Netscape 4.5 on a RedHat 6.0 system, and was unallowed to enter their site right now. It told me I needed to run a PC (I do. But not with MS Windows)... So what reason do they have to appologise, and what reason do we have to accept their appologise? None.

Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Off-topic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470081)

you haven't been here very long, have you?

Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (2)

Hobbex (41473) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470082)


I think that the the script you are discussing is not the same as the problem with the Fox page. I experience a lot of pages that pop up telling me I need to get the flash plugin when I do have it installed and working (even Macromedia's own pages do this), but most of the time you can at least cancel and see any non-flash content.

How the fox.com script worked was discussed before, and it was just pitiful (if ! win || mac && ! netscape || ie then throw out)..

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:You can view it, but why? (1)

bradipo (94457) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470084)

I'll have to agree with you on this point. While there are many types of methods for communication, usually the best one is the direct method. Using flashy plugins and other such media is more of a waste of my time than anything---especially when I'm searching for something specific. As someone else already mentioned, if I cannot get the main idea about a website in less than 10 seconds I will usually go on to the next one. Waiting for flash to do it's thing just doesn't cut it---maybe when I have my own DSL line things will change, but until then...

Re:Yeah but... (1)

dr (93364) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470085)

I still can't view it. So who cares about the apology?

I think this is a terrible attitute to take, and most definitely doesn't deserve a +1 moderated score. Reform takes time, and they gave a target date that is within reason. If they had said something like 'Wait till 2011' then ya, an attitude like that is well deserved, but they said things would be good to go within a week, which is not too bad since they are not in the business of providing web content. We can expect 1 day turnaround from companies like Netscape, Yahoo, AOL, etc... who claim to be portal, web-content based companies, but from a company who used the web as a way to transfer info, I think a week is okay.

Anyway, I'm hammered (way too many rye/cokes at the company Xmas party), and really have no time for people with:
a) no patience (expocting an instant fix to as problem)
b) an attitude that does nothing but make Linux users look like a bunch of whiners.

They are addressing the problem, which is far more than any Microsoft employee, deptarment, group, etc... has ever done.

-dr

Re:Hopefully... (1)

pen (7191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470086)

As was commented on the "Bruce Perens to sue Corel" story, there will always be someone to apologize when someone fucks up. A big corporations's apology isn't worth an AOL CD. They have people hired just to apologize in a situation like this!

If you read their "apology", it is more or less the same thing that any half-smart person would write while trying to save his/her ass in a situation like this.

I haven't had a lot of sleep lately, so my thought2text script isn't working very well. Someone help me out here... link to the comment about the Corel story or something.

--

Maximum Compatibility of Utmost Importance (1)

Chasuk (62477) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470087)

Now that you have convinced me that every web page must be viewable by _every_ prospective user, I suggest the following guidelines:

1. For the Coleco Adam users (there were 29,629 visitors to "Coleco Adam's House" - http://www.flash.net/~coleco/main.htm - so they do exist), Opera Software needs to port a version of their browser, and ensure that it is available on 256K digital datapack tapes. I doubt that there are modems available for the Adam, but, hey, it the equal opportunity that counts, isn't it?

2. There are still CP/M users who might want to fire up MEX and peruse Fox's content, so I think that Fox, and Wired, and /., ought to make their content easily accessible to those forgotten users. Telnet and terminal access today!

3. Gopher is a protocol now seldom used, and that is inexcusable. Do Disney or Microsoft or Amazon ever consider the Gopher user when they design their sites? No! I think we should all write letters of protest about this omission. Why, neglecting Gopher users is the same as putting signs up saying 'No Blacks Allowed" or "Homosexuals Not Welcome Here " or anything else that excludes or denies!

This is just the start of the revolution. I have a Vic-20 and a TI-99/4A that glare balefully at me whenever I connect to the net (okay, maybe there is slight anthromorphism here), and I think that /. should spearhead a new Open Source project to provide Internet connectivity to those beloved platforms.

Let us all unite in this important struggle! Linux today, the HP-67 tomorrow!

slashdot and journalism don't mix (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470088)

Slashdot isn't journalism. It's not even news. Journalism would mean researched stories with a sense of accuracy without bias. News would mean something akin to fully fleshed out articles describing what's this and that about, explaining everything you need to know to understand the news, the whole story, perhaps with a few links at the bottom to cite sources or better explain details.

But Slashdot isn't either of these. Sure, /.-specific things like Ask Slashdot or an interview now and then comes close, if properly done. However, the majority of the stories posted are nothing but a link to real, fully fleshed out article. And that's what people come here for. /. picks up the stories that would most likely interest its viewers, and promotes those out of the general roar of the internet.

Yeah, the comment system, blah blah blah, Slashdot community, blah blah blah. Slashdot is links, that's what it's good for. If want something more, by all means, start a site with some journalistic undertones. /. is for something totally different though.

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470089)

3 hours reading a periodic table? Wouldn't you have memorized it by now?

Intention isn't relevant (2)

Cplus (79286) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470091)

I'm not saying that they deserved all of the nasty mail that I assume they got, but they sure learned how many people want to have the linux option available to them. Putting the word out. It was news to make a point, and I think it did. I would never say that Fox was an evil corporation (wait, aren't they all?), but they have now actually been introduced to our friendly OS and maybe the fervour with which they were flamed will lead them to our higher ground.

\/This .sig sounded funny when I thought of it\/
\/soon to be replaced by real humour\/

Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (1)

amit_kr (22877) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470093)

I couldn't agree more. I've been with /. for a long time, and am as regular as one can possibly be. However, if there is one thing that tends to put me off, that's the commentary.

Hemos: we *know* you like Biotech... and we're really sorry about the geek compund.. even the cellphone. Roblimo: yeah, the limo service is cool, and hope you get wireless worked out. CmdrTaco: did you finish Cryptonomicon? I remember you were itching to read it. JonKatz: well... *sigh*. You were the first slashbox I deactivated (CmdrTaco actually suggested it on the page, y'know)... but no fear! I reactivated you again! :-) CmdrTaco: we remember your travails through trying to manage school and run the website.

Anyways. my point is this: unfortunately, /. is now a portal, like it or not: a more geeky portal, but that nevertheless. Somewhere along the line, you've changed (and you know that) from being a personal page (Chips and Dips was it?) to something that's in the public glare, and hence you need to be accountable to what you write.

After all, it was fun when we all discovered the /. effect... and it was probably humorous when we voted Linus in as the best couple in that Finnish (or was it in Amsterdm?) ball.... without even having been there! But should we still keep on doing that?

So this long-winded prose is simply to establish my credentials, and say that hey! Sorry friends, but you no longer can decide on what commentry to post... it *has* to be something that is as impartial as possible... most importantly because the news stories are as important as the comments (notice irony)

So Hemos, Roblimo (CmdrTaco: you do well but can't pass without blame)... please avoid expressing your personal opinions in the posts! the idea of allowing the first post is actually a pretty good one.

And this here is a flamebait: guys! resist the temptation to appear smart in front of the /. readership! Someone out there can do better analysis, and may not share your views! Should the archived article really be frozen with your views on it?

amit

Re:Hopefully... (1)

Euro (40585) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470095)

...they fired whatever company they hired to create their pages in the first place. I don't think it was an attack on the linux community in the first place, it was merely incompetance.

I don't think the company that created the site is to blame. People who ordered the site just wanted all kinds of Flash-y multimedia junk to attract the masses. Basically, if the people ordering the pages want something, then it is created, no matter how incompatible or non-standard it is. Money talks.

The saddest thing in commercial web-content creation is the fact that the design decisions of web pages are often done by people who don't have the faintest idea about what's feasible, not to mention accessable.

I think it mainly boils down to the fact that some marketing people (shudder!) tend associate web pages with commercials: the flashier (no pun intended) it is, the better.

Please give Fox a break... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470097)

I know that a lot of people think that the intro screen is a waste -- no content and long time to load... but maybe this will help drive up demand for high-speed internet connections and a better faster internet. In addition, people will see this as an example of bad web site design -- if you're going to have flashy graphics and stuff, at least make it worthwhile for the users.

It certainly would be faster if we still had text mode consoles and xterms for accessing web pages (like lynx) but I am certainly glad we have graphical browsers and a fast enough internet connection to look at pages with graphics like Slashdot. When graphics and animation are done right (and also with a fast connection so you're not just sitting there waiting) it can be better than just text.

Not all web pages have to look fancy but I can't wait until I can instantly download a 1600x1200 15 minute video about a car I want to buy.

This event was no doubt brought to you by: (4)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470104)

The liberal adherence to, and application of, the Linux Advocacy HOWTO [linux.com] . Know it Live it Love it And you'll see more positive results like this.

a fix is better than an apology (2)

jetpack (22743) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470105)

It's all well and good that fox.com has apologized, but I'd prefer the apology to be accompanied by a fix. I'm no webmaster but, unless their setup is truly bizarre, deleting the check for browser and OS should take about 20 seconds. What exactly is their problem? I am not booting to winbloze just to have the experience of viewing there site. My uptime is too important to my ego :)

Multimedia is so fun! (2)

vedge (97920) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470106)

Today's web pages are so full of animations of anykind. What are there goals anyway: sale things on the web or inform people. You can't go on those sites without being invade by publicity. I think this is sad. They want to reach the mass so they build the latest plug-in technology running on the latest browser on the world #1 selling OS (not the best). The first thing we know is that those pages do not have any valuable information on it...

Hopefully... (2)

DanaL (66515) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470107)

...they fired whatever company they hired to create their pages in the first place. I don't think it was an attack on the linux community in the first place, it was merely incompetance. No one should be *forced* to download a plugin to view your site, suggest it, sure, but offer a link to a page that doesn't have Flash (especially since Flash is usually used only on the entrance page anyway!)

And why would you want incompetent people to design your site?

7 days to edit some javascript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470108)

And if the web page isn't ``quite ready to be released yet'' why was it, erm, released?

Good advise... (1)

metacosm (45796) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470109)

My mother had some simple advise, the best way to apologize is to change your actions, which Fox.com has yet to do. The day I can view thier site, I will accept thier apology.

Intro Screens are useless (5)

Galois (37155) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470110)

We used to have a Flash intro screen on our site. We even won Macromedia's Site of the Day. Most of the user feedback we got from users was about the Flash Intro - it was actually turning lots of people away.

Now, the first thing I do when I see a Flash Intro is look for the "skip intro" button, or hit the back button as fast as possible.

Flash can be a very usefull tool when used properly, and a time soaking intro is not a proper use. Sites start to loose eyeballs if everything isn't loaded in 5 seconds, so what on earth makes anyone thing that a 30 second intro is going to do any good.
- daniel

Re:Yeah but... (2)

mintech (93916) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470111)

I think the important thing is they are trying. Only if they would speed up and get the site up quicker, and it's a very simple mod so it shouldn't take more than a day. Oh well.

Bad Flash Diagnostics (5)

MoNickels (1700) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470112)

I just want to comment for the umpteenth time in the umpteenth place: web designers should not be using the canned Javascript code that is supposed to diagnose whether a user has Flash/Shockwave installed. It comes with the entire range of Macromedia Flash/Shockwave products and is available in various places around the web

That diagnostic code is faulty. It does not work properly. It misdiagnoses. It's wrong. It comes up with bogus download-the-plugin messages and/or shuts out zillions of users (like me) who actually have the plugin. It makes you look like a chump and your site look half-assed.

What you should do, if you're using Flash/Shockwave in your site design, is leave out the diagnostic code and let that dumb little you-don't-have-the-plugin icon show up for the tiny handful of users that don't have it. You can offer those three or four people a link nearby for a non-Flash/Shortwave version of your site. Dump the diagnostic code.

It's so strange to me that a site which spends thousands to look good doesn't test the project on every platform, every browser. Lame.

Intro screens were once useful, but not anymore. (3)

SeanNi (18947) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470113)

Rather than looking to TV for an example, look to "normal" (ie: non-web) computer programs. Most have a splash screen of some sort, consisting mostly of the program name, a copyright notice, and some fancy graphic.

Most people don't complain about these. Moreover, they actually have a purpose. They are there to "hide" the program start-up. Most programs take a second or 2 (or in the case of MS' programs, a minute or 2 (sorry, couldn't resist)) to load up, into memory. Rather than sit there, loading, and doing nothing visibly, leaving the user to wonder, "did I actually click the icon? does the program actually work?", the splash screen provides some sort of feedback to inform the user that something is, indeed happening.

And this is a Good Thing (TM). One of my biggest pet peeves about XEmacs (an otherwise nice program (no flamewars, please!)) is that it doesn't do that. It just sits there and loads in the background, and I never know whether it's loading or not, for the first several minutes.

So the natural impulse to most web designers, when creating a web site, is to treat it as a standalone program. For the most part, I think this actually works. Except for a few things, like the splash screen.

Since the splash screen takes just as long to load as the normal starting page would, it becomes useless. Moreover, you can tell when the main screen loads. Even if, for whatever reason, the main page takes a while to load, you can still tell when the process has started. You can still tell when the site exists. So the splash screen becomes pointless. Redundant.

In fact, if -- as is apparently the case here (I haven't actually checked the site out myself) -- the splash screen takes a long time to load, it is counterproductive. It re-introduces the very problem it was designed to solve.

But most web designers, for whatever reason, don't realize this intuitively. The splash screen seems just as valid (especially when they are designing it on a local system) as it would have been on a standalone program.

So it becomes up to us ("us" being the web-browsing public) to inform them that their lovely splash screen is, in fact, detrimental to fluid browsing.


Just a few thoughts of mine... don't kill me over them :-)
--
- Sean

Re:Hopefully... (2)

platypus (18156) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470114)

I can assure you that _this_ kind of publicity will cause at least a major slap in the neck of their web-company. If fox is hard, they fire the company, if they are cute, they'll get their web-page for free or very cheap for the year or so.
There is major competition in the web-designer business (a company I work for had to compete for a client against a "free webhosting + design for the first year" offer from a rival), and cute clients know that. So they will use every failure you make to get something cheaper.
Some clueless people seem to have nothing else to do than to write email to companies about their websites (why do you use cookies? your background is too bright! your pages load too slow! why can't I...? why don't you...?) and everything gets forwarded to the webdesigners who then have to investigate why some asshole on the other end of the world has a shitty provider/browser/ broken os/14.4k modem and whatnot and reply with a sensible answer. But the same company would eventually fire you if just wrote a fully navigator 3.0/ie 3.0-compatible page without frames+plugins+javascript, cause they all use a fast connection with newer browsers and compare your design with the overloaded ones you can see everywhere.
In this case the complaint was rightfull, but I wouldn't be surprised if that exact design was demanded by fox.

Fox site greatly improved... (1)

fxf (83956) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470115)

I tried the Fox site after reading the article: it seems changes have been implemented already, but i'm not sure they are for the better: instead of getting the polite suggestion that I should have chosen my operating system more discriminately, I am now simply blown out of cyberspace since Netscape dies on me each time I try

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470116)

True. You do have to remember, these /are/ fox viewers who are accessimg this page.

What takes them so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470117)

I don't understand how it takes almost a week to implement the changes. I could do it in less than 5 minutes. Rename the old index.html to something and then make a new index.html which tells the user to choose [ Flash-enhanced ] or [ Normal ] viewing experience. Assuming of course that the whole site is not covered in Flash (yeeecchh!).

Well you welcome comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470118)

The Bad:
The color scheme is horrible. Red, Blue, and "Slashdot Green" do not go very well together on the left. The buttons on the left clash even more.
The weird multi column layout is unsettling. You have three distinct columns with no real reason for the third column with Search, Internet and Software. I would place navigation on the left and information on the right.
With all the noise about professional designers hardcoding their sites to 640x480, I decided to change my resolution to 640x480 and check yours out. In netscape it does not render correctly. The buttons and text in the middle cloumn "drifts" into the "Slashdot Green" navigational field.
As the previous poster said, make the red diamonds part of the link.
Be careful of the information buttons at the button. Many people don't give a flying flip about what webserver is serving the pages and would rather not load even a 2k gif proclaiming it.
A quick look at the source revealed several no-no's. TT tags with blank space used as spacers for text. Inconsistant P tags. Pick either closing every P tag or leaving them open, don't switch up.

The Good: Good content based site. The information is clearly accessible with a minimum amount of hassle.

Summary: Good site, good info, need to overhaul that design.
As for that 640x480 "look" there is a solid design reason for using it. As cited in a study in one of my HTML manuals (id need be I'll look it up) the reason you want narrow columns is for readability. People like their eyes to go down a page and not have to scroll side to side with their eyes as much. Same reason newspapers are in columns instead of stories running the entire width of the paper.

Re:It needs some work anyhow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470119)

Where does one find the flash plugin for netscape for Linux ?

what about the visually impaired? (1)

Chakotay (3529) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470122)

The visually impaired use browsers other than Internet Explorer 4.0+ or Netscape Navigator 4.0+ - they use specialized text-based browsers, that won't be able to access Fox' foxy site. Or what, for example, about a browser like Opera? Those should also be quite capable to access the site.


)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (1)

kevin lyda (4803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470124)

and of course there's something to be said for being able to use web sites when you can't even see...

Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (1)

quasimoto (111111) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470126)

So fox is the victim? They got what they deserved by releasing trial-ballon beta software and letting the user debug their code. The last time I let the user debug a section of an user interface (process control system) I had to run and take the phone off the hook. Gee, so did they. Either the coder types don't care or they did not read the code. This stuff ain't compiler design, just put a pretty screen up.

It's one thing to error in front of a few thousand peers, but to error in front of the TV kind of people - deadly. -d

Web design incompetence (1)

The Original Bobski (52567) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470133)

The problem has nothing to do with plugins, it is the Javascript a the begining of most pages that specifically excludes any operating system that is not Windows or Macintosh.

who the hell cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470134)

what does this have to do with anything?

nobody cares! big deal!

some site somewhere else probably excludes linux, too. better go find them now and get the witch hunt going before everyone's spirit dies down.

*grmbl*

Fox Should Go Open Source (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470135)

Let's sieze the moment and demand that fox--web page and all--embrace open source. The community should be able to contribute diff patches to Simpsons scripts. I want to be able to download and edit my own version of the local affiliate news feeds. I want to remotely log into the freaking water cooler where the employees take breaks.

Re:who the hell cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470136)

and remember to cost them lots of money and bad press, and then turn around and say their product wasn't good in the first place. Go Linux advocacy, go go go!

Re:good move (3)

jfunk (33224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470137)

they could have just said "ah, screw it, none of those nerds ever watch TV anyways"

I think they know the demographics for shows like "The Simpsons," "Futurama," and "The X-Files."

Keeping us nerds out wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do, and despite shows like "World's Scariest/Funniest/etc foo," they probably are somewhat intelligent.

Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (1)

vaxer (91962) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470138)

Every platform, every browser? Good God, man! Do the math on that one someday!

You can view it, but why? (1)

yarmond (114187) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470139)

I don't understand why anyone really wanted to go to the Fox.com website in the first place. It is a perversion of HTML. The page consists of nothing but a bunch of Flash 'movies' that act as menus. Why not just use standard href tags?

Also, the site seems to be designed specifically with only broadband users in mind. I feel sorry for anyone trying to use this site on a 56K modem or paying by the MB.

There's hardly a text link to be found. The only way to get to a new page is by clicking in one of the Flash movies or on a picture that has no alt text. Perhaps this will change in light of the AOL suit...

I, for one, am thoroughly unimpressed.

Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (4)

davidu (18) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470140)

Roblimo, Ok, so Fox did something wrong...big deal...they fixed it...and in good faith. Why do you use Slashdot.org as a soapbox to give your un-needed commentary?

Roblimo writes: Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com. (Free clue for Fox: start by dumping the flashy splash page. All it adds to the site is download time.)

Don't take this as a flame, just a comment. I think your opinion should be heard, just maybe in the comments section. This way, we can seperate news from opinion...an important thing for any journalist to do.

One idea that might kill two birds with one stone is to automatically give the poster the chance to do the first post. This would eliminate some first post babies...but then we would see the wrath of the "I am 31337 HaX0r, SECOND POST!!!" hehe...

Like always, just my $.02,

-Davidu

Re:Still get Refused ;( (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1470141)

Hello? Think McFly, think!
Did you read the article. No fix until the 17th.

Why continue bashing them ? (4)

hernick (63550) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470152)

I mean, why the inflammatory phrase like "now if they made the site worth viewing..." ?

We now know that they made an honest mistake: their web programmer simply used a pre-made script to detect the OS, that unfortunately locked out linux users.

Now, they've apologized and promised to correct the situation, and even given a reasonable timeframe. I don't see why people should be angry at Fox anymore. They're trying to make a good-looking, user-friendly website.

I expect the target population of that web site to be more likely to stay on site longer if the site looks good. For many people, having a really bland site, yet full of information that is easy to access, is a turnoff.

Not everybody on the web is a geek. Not everybody likes bland webpages. Not everybody can see a site like http://www.linuxhq.com/, which is perfectly structured but even at first glance incredibly boring. Some people need graphics, animations and sounds to keep them interested.

I don't see why we should expect media companies to target their site at geeks. I'm sure many of us would like a Fox site that gives us the schedule in a nice HTML compliant table with no formatting tags, and a brief technical description of each show separated by paragraph delimiters, but that's not going to happen. That's not what the target audience wants.

And why, of all companies, continue to be angry at Fox ? Most companies wouldn't even give the courtesy of an answer, never mind giving a timeframe for the problems to be fixed.

Technology (1)

mrbeaner (123122) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470153)

That makes no sense. Why would you not want a a company to use technology? Yes, they should have a a script that detects if you can view their spiffed up page or not. But other than that, I'm all for bigger and better web pages. I have a fast connection, and so do a lot of people. Boring pages (surprise) bore me. I like things to move, have sound, video, etc. Stop with the text only boring crap.

Re:Thanx for your commentary Roblimo (Off-topic) (3)

Marvin_OScribbley (50553) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470154)

Wouldn't it be great if front page stories could be moderated?

Now if they made the site worth viewing in the first place, everything would be groovy with fox.com.

Score: -1 (Flamebait)

Heh.

The Net's S-N ratio is dropping (2)

Gurlia (110988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470155)

The Net's signal-to-noise ratio is rapidly dropping... not that it was that high anyways, but look at how much bandwidth is wasted on unnecessary Flash plugins, "cute" animations, "cool" special effects... especially on lame commercial pages so poorly designed all you ever see is ads, hype, and garbage, but it's next to impossible to find what you want. Ugh.

When I visit a website, I want to see what they got. Not the silly flashy stuff (unless the page is dedicated for that purpose) but the real stuff they have to offer: useful information, their products, etc.. Who cares about all that bandwidth hogging eye-candy anyways?! Where's the beef? I wish more web designers would knock this into their heads: put your products up front! publish your useful information up front! (if you have any, that is). Sites that contain endless animations usually are so poorly design it's next to impossible to navigate and find what you want. And too often than it ought to be, that is usually a sign that they have (almost) nothing of value to offer.

Sorry for this rant. I'm just so fed up and turned off by flashy commercial sites that I can't help it...

Re:Bad Flash Diagnostics (2)

cheese63 (74259) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470156)

It's so strange to me that a site which spends thousands to look good doesn't test the project on every platform, every browser. Lame.

Well, the way I see it, and I'm could be wrong, but Fox has a fairly large website. When you spend all that time developing (content), you make mistakes. Now, although they were a company hired to do that, they're just human beings. Human beings screw up. Sometimes you look at something that looks fine to you after weeks/months of work on the same project. They got the message, and said they're fixing it. It was a mistake. Leave it at that for now.

Re:Why continue bashing them ? (1)

donfede (6215) | more than 14 years ago | (#1470157)

I second this post (and the previous one).

Your negative comentary probably makes the linux community as a whole seem ungrateful, especially since FOX apologized and commited to making changes. You have a privelage and a responsibility with your ability to write comments on the front page of slashdot.

Please re-read/think your comments before posting them.

Federico

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>