The Adblock Project Forum Index The Adblock Project
Pull up a seat ...stay a while.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

sIFR blocking (script that turns text into Flash movies)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005    Post subject: sIFR blocking (script that turns text into Flash movies) Reply with quote

sIFR is probably the most obnoxious script on the planet, and I'm pissed off because there's absolutely no legitimate reason to use it; it doesn't even serve as a source of revenue. Its purpose? Get this... to make header text on some websites pretty. It accomplishes this by running a large Javascript program to replace regular text with big Flash movies that waste your CPU and bandwidth. sIFR is usually slipped into the HTML code without any respect for whether the user cares about how pretty the header text is, or whether their computer has the processing power to handle this silliness. Thanks, webmasters!

I've found this AdBlock script takes care of most implementations:

Code:
/\/sifr([_\-\d]*)?\.js/


Technical explanation: This will match sifr.js, sifr-updated.js, sifr_20050120.js and sifr20.js. It won't match my-sifr.js or sifrpoop.js. In other words, the script is very paranoid about letting actually useful Javascripts through. If you'd rather have Javascript disabled than not, use this instead:

Code:
/sifr/


Here are some fancy schmancy weblogs to test it out on:

http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/
http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/

Enjoy! If you can recommend improvements, please post here.
Back to top
SnarlCat



Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks!.. that speeds things up a bunch..

I agree -- script that has no real redeeming value..

Smack the other script out too with a slight modification to yours:
Code:
/\/sifr([_\-\d]*(addons?)?)?\.js/


SnarlCat
_________________
--
"There are 11 types of people -- those that understand binary, those that don't, and those that think they do."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marco
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a load of crap. It's the most elegant, standards AND accessibility respecting way to enhance the look of a website. You can even SWITCH IT OFF if you don't like it in a little menu in the left column of my website. Your statement makes no sense or whatsoever.

If you wanna save bandwidth I'd say switch off your images alltogether in your browser. Maybe even use lynx! Speedy browsing galore!

Marco (from one of those fancy schmancy weblogs)
Back to top
SnarlCat



Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marco wrote:
What a load of crap. It's the most elegant, standards AND accessibility respecting way to enhance the look of a website. You can even SWITCH IT OFF if you don't like it in a little menu in the left column of my website. Your statement makes no sense or whatsoever.


What do *I* gain from seeing a date string as a Flash object instead of text?

If something important was different in flash than it was in text, it might be a different story, but if I can get the same content though a path of lesser resistance, that's where I'm going..

Marco wrote:
If you wanna save bandwidth I'd say switch off your images alltogether in your browser.


With pictures, it's bandwidth and, probably more importantly, time for most people, espcially those poor souls on dial-up... so filtering out these things is important.. With the text-to-flash script and similar elements, it's time.. time-to-content.. my time and my desire to see the content of your page is more important to me than your desire to make it pretty...

Marco wrote:
Maybe even use lynx!


I do quite a bit... just so I can avoid pointless scripts like this one..

Please understand, Marco, this is not meant as a personal attack.. just trying to improve my browsing experience.. like everybody else here..
_________________
--
"There are 11 types of people -- those that understand binary, those that don't, and those that think they do."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marco
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didn't consider your reply an attack, no problem.
The degracing remark + link by 'Guest' however is a different story.

However I still think sIFR is a gracious solution. A lot of people generate images for nice looking headers which is much worse. You can't switch those off unless you disable all images including relevant ones. Also it's very standards compliant, can be disabled at will and it's friendly to browsers that don't support it.

Therefore suppressing it through AdBlock is rather harsh imho....
Back to top
Drahken



Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... I just tried visiting your blog. It continued to load for an eternity after everything visible was loaded. When it finally stopped, there was no flash or headlines or anything like that (although some white boxes did appear intermittantly in the upper left corner during the loading process). I tried clicking the "enable" link and refreshing, got the same result. Tried clicking the "disble" link and refreshing, the page stopped loading once all the visible content was loaded, and there was still no sifr stuff. In short, sifr turned out to be a complete time waster which did absolutely nothing. It sounds like an ok concept, but I serious think you'd be better off with either images or just plain text. There's no way an image (assuming it was created by someone halfway intelligent, not some idiot who uses BMPs on the web) would have taken as long to load as that sifr script (which didn't even wind up doing anything) did.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of being able to use fonts that the visitors might not have on their computers (take a look around the web at embedded fonts), but look what you can do with an image that's less than 4k:
http://allspark.net/cypherswipe/text-test.png
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2005    Post subject: sIFR Blocking Reply with quote

Hello there. I'm the creator of sIFR. Here's a tip for the anonymous person who started this thread:

If you are a little more diplomatic in the way you communicate, you will get a lot further in this world. We WANT people to be able to block sIFR. If you don't want nice headlines, you don't want nice headlines... and that's totally fine with us. That's why we've built sIFR to degrade to CSS/HTML in all situations possible (no JS, no Flash, etc). We're even working with the AdBlock folks and the FlashBlock folks to bake this functionality into their extensions. So in other words, if you've decided you generally don't want Flash on your pages, sIFR, FlashBlock, and AdBlock will honor those preferences and show you the CSS/HTML fallback. The problem right now is that both of those extensions tell our script that Flash is available and ready to automatically play when in reality it is not.

Somebody even posted a link to this phpbb page on my sIFR page but I deleted it because of the arrogant and unnecessary language of the original post. Relax a little... we're all friends here.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005    Post subject: Re: sIFR Blocking Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
The problem right now is that both of those extensions tell our script that Flash is available and ready to automatically play when in reality it is not.
I'm the creator of this thread (or I'm posing as him, there's no difference... I'm going to defend the OP)

I enable Javascript because there are a select few websites that need Javascript to do something useful for me, like Gmail, and I've found it easier to trust people to do useful things with Javascript than to selectively pick out websites that need it.

I enable Flash for the same reason. I expect it to be used for watching small vector-graphics movies within my browser.

Flash intros and Flash navigation are slightly annoying, but usually I just do my best to be polite and deal with it because the poor guys who make that stuff don't know any better.

However, sIFR is a COMPLETE violation of my trust in the web designer. You know exactly what you're doing (for the reasons you said yourself; you know how to use proper HTML and CSS), and yet you're abusing Javascript and Flash to make your websites prettier than I care about. I do not want Javascript to be used for non-dynamic content, and I do not want Flash to be used for non-animated content. If you think that people enable Javascript and Flash in order to see beautifully kerned fonts then you are fooling yourself. This is the same sort of abuse of the user's trust as pop-up advertisements or Flash advertisements that make obnoxious noises. That's why I was so pissed when a sIFR-bloated website first stumbled its way into my path, and that's why I hate sIFR.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

That fine. Although I don't agree with any of that, like I said, I *want* people to be able to disable sIFR. I'm not trying to stop that... I'm trying to facilitate it.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd just like to point out that FlashBlocking sIFR doesn't help, much. Instead of revealing the underlying titles, in a vast majority of the cases, you get a ton of play buttons which COVER UP the titles. As is the case with at least one of the links listed in the first post.

It is really a stupid, pointless trick. Just ask one question, of what value is this to the end user?

Moreover, I'd like to point out that it would be far BETTER to make sIFR opt-in rather than opt-out. By the time you opt-out, you've already wasted everyone's time.

It really is no wonder that there are so many BAD web developers out there, when the "good" ones make bad tricks like this look legitimate.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I'd just like to point out that FlashBlocking sIFR doesn't help, much. Instead of revealing the underlying titles, in a vast majority of the cases, you get a ton of play buttons which COVER UP the titles. As is the case with at least one of the links listed in the first post."

Again, read my post. We're working with the FlashBlock team so that their extension degrades sIFR to plain text. This can only be done by their extension modifying its behavior. They are for it and so are we. Case closed.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
That fine. Although I don't agree with any of that, like I said, I *want* people to be able to disable sIFR. I'm not trying to stop that... I'm trying to facilitate it.
Okay, good. As long as you don't change format of your script title, I will continue to use Adblock and be satisfied with that.

(I, too, had trouble with Flashblock, which I thought would be a good way to make sIFR go away without having to do regexps. I hope you manage to work out a solution with them.)
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Again, read my post. We're working with the FlashBlock team so that their extension degrades sIFR to plain text. This can only be done by their extension modifying its behavior. They are for it and so are we. Case closed.


Read it, thanks. Everything is crystal clear! Rolling Eyes

Yay for valueless features that require workarounds for the workarounds! Would it not just be easier to recognize:
1) that people block flash for a reason (I would also wager that a vast majority of people would also block flash if they were adept enough to know what to look for)
2) that sIFR is something of little to no value to anyone other than the original designers (who by the way, are usually NOT the consumers of the content)
3) it is only because so few sites currently implement it that this hasn't climbed to one of the most annoying web tricks.

And you wonder why people get annoyed and bitter and, from time-to-time, mean?
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) No
2) No
3) And No
Back to top
Ken Cooper



Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Holland, MI USA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
1) No
2) No
3) And No


I am surprised to find you answered all three questions incorrectly. Shock
_________________
My Firefox Page
NOTE: Firefox is spelled “F-i-r-e-f-o-x”; only the first letter capitalized. The preferred abbreviation is “Fx” or “fx”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2005    Post subject: I'm not Reply with quote

Ken Cooper wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
1) No
2) No
3) And No


I am surprised to find you answered all three questions incorrectly. Shock


Really? I'm not. Web designers never cease to amaze.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Again, read my post. We're working with the FlashBlock team so that their extension degrades sIFR to plain text. This can only be done by their extension modifying its behavior. They are for it and so are we. Case closed.

We released Flashblock 1.3.1 on 2005-04-10 which recognizes sIFR enabled pages and gracefully dergades the sIFR flash to css/text

philip.chee@gmail.com
http://flashblock.mozdev.org
Back to top
another guest
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was directed here by another discussion on sIFR.

Everyone talks about the 'invasion' of sIFR in producing Flash titles, using javascript. It would seem to me, the only people who recognise this, would be the folks technically capable (and those who seem to, without pause, dish out on anyone who cannot master the intricacies of the internet. Remember that people have other areas of life they are more adept to.) other than that, you are presented with a title consisting of text - whether it is CSS/HTML or Flash. No biggie really, is it?

The only factor I can see that presents a problem is loading time, possibly 'bandwidth' and conflicts with those attempting to block the content (which is in the process of being fixed; there is something being done about it.) Does anyone have any actual figures on the loading time and bandwidth consumption with a site that uses sIFR and displays it, has sIFR and is blocked, or does not have sIFR but is the same content.

Now, onto the web and the future! I think this is an excellent idea for bridging the gap between system fonts and readily available custom fonts. C'mon guys, they even state this is a temporary solution until custom fonts are easily used by browsers (and it will happen sometime).

I personally, from a consumer, designer, and programmer point of view am getting sick of arial, helvetica, and sans-serif as the only choices. Especially for corporate customers that have a defined font in print and the 'real world' to not be able to use these truely defined fonts.

It would seem by a few posts, the lack of recognition that designers do want to use these custome fonts - and have been wanting to do so for a long time. Microsoft and netscape had attempts that weren't suitable in typical fashion there wasn't a co-operation and the two tore the idea apart.

Now, we have a gracefully degrading solution that will work for the vast majority of users and all you guys can say is this is a serious invasion of your rights as a surfer. Ever thought about the rights of the creators.

If you surfed onto my site - you are a guest, in every sense of the word, and I would like you to see the site how it is designed. Just like a real shopfront, just like my printed brochure I sent out to you (btw. you might be a conservationist and object to the printing of advertisements and the waste of paper involved).

Sure, I do not want to make it hard for you - and I want you to be able to enjoy the full experience and easily use the site's features. However, I personally am excited at this prospect, and eagerly await the versions that are slightly friendlier to users, however, I think they are doing a great job of keeping everyone in mind.
Back to top
Drahken



Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think marco made some mistake when putting the sifr on his site. As I stated in an earlier post, his site takes an eternity to load with sifr enabled (loads rather quickly when you disable sifr), but the sifr itself never shows. At first I thought this was a problem with sifr, but I've since encountered sifr on a couple other sites, and it worked great. The headings loaded very quickly, and looked just fine.

I still don't see the point in using sifr instead of a PNG or GIF, but it isn't the horrible beast of a script that I thought it was when that blog was the only site I had seen it on.


Edit: I just stumbled on a support forum for sifr: http://forum.textdrive.com/viewforum.php?id=20 I see it has a thread about massive load times, and one about the text not showing, both of the problems I noticed with marco's site. It would appear that it's some kind of bug in sifr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

another guest wrote:
If you surfed onto my site - you are a guest, in every sense of the word, and I would like you to see the site how it is designed. Just like a real shopfront, just like my printed brochure I sent out to you (btw. you might be a conservationist and object to the printing of advertisements and the waste of paper involved).
Problem located: The World Wide Web is not a goddamn brochure. It isn't a shopfront that you set up and make pretty for us. The World Wide Web is a network of documents, for delivering text and information. Flash movies might deliver information every once in a while, or at least entertainment. Pop-up ads do not create new information. Similarly, sIFR does not create any new information. It's merely useful to you because you want to exploit the Web as if it were a bloated copy of Quirk that everyone runs on their computer because it's so much fun to render other people's brochures for them.

Release your website as a goddamn PDF file if you're so concerned about typesetting. The Web was not created for typographers.
Back to top
another guest
Guest





PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
another guest wrote:
If you surfed onto my site - you are a guest, in every sense of the word, and I would like you to see the site how it is designed. Just like a real shopfront, just like my printed brochure I sent out to you (btw. you might be a conservationist and object to the printing of advertisements and the waste of paper involved).
Problem located: The World Wide Web is not a goddamn brochure. It isn't a shopfront that you set up and make pretty for us. The World Wide Web is a network of documents, for delivering text and information. Flash movies might deliver information every once in a while, or at least entertainment. Pop-up ads do not create new information. Similarly, sIFR does not create any new information. It's merely useful to you because you want to exploit the Web as if it were a bloated copy of Quirk that everyone runs on their computer because it's so much fun to render other people's brochures for them.

Release your website as a goddamn PDF file if you're so concerned about typesetting. The Web was not created for typographers.


A. It is a shopfront. Look at Amazon, ebay, and every other online shop. They sell products on the web, don't they?

That to me is a shopfront. Virtual, yes, but still the same.

B. It is Quark, not quirk.

I do not want to exploit the web at all, shame on you for saying so. It's not fun to render brochures (ok, it actually is) however, it is business, plain and simple. I have the right to run my business, don't I or should I ask your permission before I do something that helps my business to look, act, and feel different to the next one.

C. What would you call a bunch of documents delivering information?

Manuals, text-books, newspapers, but certainly not brochures.

Not seeing your point here. You are looking for something obviously. It needs to be presented, yes? What matter if it gets presented, how the presenter wants it too. I can see the benefit in that.

Sure it's not a "goddamn brochure" for everything. However, it certainly can be. So why it is being used as one, why is it unreasonable to make yours stand out.

It is there to look pretty as well as provide information. If you are having troubles seeing the long history of advertising and marketing, then perhaps you aren't actually watching your TV. Best to switch it off and go find a book on history. People respond to marketing, it is proven over and over again.

Is this the point where you tell us what a website actually is?

D. The internet was not created for a lot of things.

Wasn't for gaming, shopping, listening to streaming radio and watching TV channels, banking, virtual b'day cards, etc.

It's amazing how much it has evolved since its first inception. An idea, you might want to join everyone else who has evolved too.

E. I find it amazing that you can say Flash delivers information and entertainment, but can be against this.

I'm sure you also participate in many activities and sites that use a lot more resources than this.

F. Pop-Up ads do create new information, obviously, just none that you would like to see.

G. You say bloated, but I have yet to see any proof, that the amount of 'bloating' is significant.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Facts worth noting:

Making text pretty through a use of technology layers (html, css, javascript, flash) which degrade gracefully is not an abuse of the technology.

It is perfectly fine to reject the running of the sIFR script on one's own browser.

If sIFR is blocked with adblock, adblock should let the page degrade gracefully and display the text instead -- except if this would also make it so that all other pages in which ads which are blocked show the ad's text when it is blocked.

I am a webdesigner and have no use for putting sIFR on my (and my clients') sites, and I am not arguing for or against it's use, just its validity.

The web is anything we make it.
Back to top
Ed



Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Anonymous"]Facts worth noting:

Maybe it should read Opinions worth noting
_________________
Running: WinXP(SP2)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414
Adblock v.5 d3 Nightly * 42
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotmy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Facts worth noting:



Maybe it should read Opinions worth noting


I dunno. Most of those look like statements of facts to me.

Which ones are opinions IYO? What alternative opinions are there to the ones you think are opinions?



the only one I could see someone misinterpreting as opinion is the one about what Adblock should do. But, according to web accessibility guidelines, that is what it should do.

So, here's some theory of webdesign to support the claim that that's a fact and not an opinion:



I don't see how anyone could see the other statements as opinion in any way, shape, or form.
Back to top
Ed



Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:

I dunno. Most of those look like statements of facts to me.
Which ones are opinions IYO? What alternative opinions are there to the ones you think are opinions?
the only one I could see someone misinterpreting as opinion is the one about what Adblock should do. But, according to web accessibility guidelines, that is what it should do.
So, here's some theory of webdesign to support the claim that that's a fact and not an opinion:

I don't see how anyone could see the other statements as opinion in any way, shape, or form.


I would consider the url's that you posted to be mostly the opinion of the authors who wrote the articles, but thats just me Very Happy
_________________
Running: WinXP(SP2)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414
Adblock v.5 d3 Nightly * 42
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotmy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed wrote:
Quote:
I don't see how anyone could see the other statements as opinion in any way, shape, or form.


I would consider the url's that you posted to be mostly the opinion of the authors who wrote the articles, but thats just me Very Happy


(1a) I was referring to the "facts worth noting" -- not the articles I linked to.
(1b) The articles I linked to were meant to support the claim that the "facts" were really facts; whether or not the articles contained opinion does not reduce the effectiveness at showing that my "facts" are indeed factual.

(2) I guess you're right that the authors of the articles were just interpreting the definition* put forth by the w3; they are stating their opinion of what the definition means. You read this definition and let me know if they are interpreting correctly (do they/I have their/my facts straight).
Quote:
Graceful Degradation

Since HTML is continually changing and different browsers support different elements, graceful degradation is the key to making sure that pages are readable and accessible in all browsers. When a browser encounters tags it doesn't understand or can't display, degradation takes place. Whether this degradation will cause some of your page content to be lost to the browser, or whether the content of your page can still be accessed fully is dependent on whether the degradation is graceful.

The HTML standards were written with graceful degradation in mind - new attributes to older tags are safely ignored so that the rest of the tag can still function normally, and new tags are written with alternative display for browsers that don't support them in mind. There are many elements of HTML that can't be displayed or can be turned off in browsers that were written with the knowledge of these elements- such as images, java, and frames. Using the appropriate methods to provide an alternative message to those who can't see those elements or have turned them off is one way to design for graceful degradation.

If you design pages with graceful degradation in mind, by utilizing the built in elements of the HTML standards, and the advice provided here, you can design pages that should degrade gracefully in all browsers and are accessible.




(* yes a definition is a fact -- its created rather than discovered, but it's still a fact)
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Making text pretty through a use of technology layers (html, css, javascript, flash) which degrade gracefully is not an abuse of the technology.
As I said above, it may work well with the technology itself, but it exploits the trust of users who want to use Javascript and Flash just for necessary purposes and not for silly typesetting purposes. If you want people to turn off Javascript and Flash because that trust has been violated, well, fine, but then you have fewer tools to work with as a webdesigner if you ever really want to use those features.
Back to top
BeLeBo k



Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2005    Post subject: I'll block what I please, and modify the rest thanks Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:

post
I enable Javascript because there are a select few websites that need Javascript to do something useful for me, like Gmail, and I've found it easier to trust people to do useful things with Javascript than to selectively pick out websites that need it.


I agree. I now treat JS like JAVA: always off until a really really good reason to enable it presents itself. However I accomplish this with the nifty NoScript extension: http://NoScript.net Wink

Quote:
I enable Flash for the same reason.
I've yet to find it as annoying as most of the flash I care not to see is squelched by AdBlock+, RIP, or GreaseMonkey Smile


Anonymous wrote:
post
I *want* people to be a'm not trying to stop that... I'm trying to facilitate
it.
Then why not use some of the annoying anti-adblocking technology (that I can defeat) to detect "adblock optout": AdBlock users blocking a given sifr path so that sifr then "knows" to fall back to CSS, or text as the case may be?

This would make people like this happy too:

Anonymous wrote:
post
Yay for valueless features that require workarounds for the workarounds! Would it not just be easier to recognize


^ because they needn't block the probe-bit to control sifr they can continue outright blocking.

another guest wrote:
we have a gracefully degrading solution


CSS works just nicely already.

Drahken wrote:
I still don't see the point in using sifr instead of a PNG or GIF


Which takes more hosting space: on JS, and the text used to fetch it, or individual PNGs?


another guest wrote:

post
D. The internet was not created for a lot of things.


I believe the one you quoted was refering to the WWW, a subset of the internet per se.

rant:on While we're on the subject of "not". The WWW was never intended for analog modem access. I really wish site designers would quit pandering to a class of user who isn't terribly like to spend money. Since they're too cheap to pay for broadband thus demonstrating a tendancy not to spend they're unlikely to buy the represented product. (I'm not flaming analog modem users. Use what you like. Ignore the manual. whatever. The rest of us shoudn't have to suffer low quality jpegs. And don't go down the "broadband isn't available where I live" road. If you can see the sky outside your dwelling you can get broadband.)
rant:off


Quote:
F. Pop-Up ads do create new information
Perhaps we should have a discussion about the difference between "information" and "data". Popups RARELY are in the first category.

Quote:
'bloating' is significant.


An example of insignificant bloating would be amusing. Please do share Wink



This forum exists because of a product that sates the desire of a class of users to control their respective browsing experience. I am one of those. If it uses my hardware or bandwidth I'll manipulate it as I please. Keep your content in your format; it's yours. If you don't want people to manipulate it's display don't put it in the public eye.


Cheers Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Making text pretty through a use of technology layers (html, css, javascript, flash) which degrade gracefully is not an abuse of the technology.
As I said above, it may work well with the technology itself, but it exploits the trust of users who want to use Javascript and Flash just for necessary purposes and not for silly typesetting purposes. If you want people to turn off Javascript and Flash because that trust has been violated, well, fine, but then you have fewer tools to work with as a webdesigner if you ever really want to use those features.
Ok, I was talking about the technological ethics of this arguement, and stated facts about it.

You are pointing out an opintion about the aesthetic (or maybe interpersonal) ethics of making a web page pretty.

I'm sure you'll agree that there are uses for color, fonts, images etc. which are aesthetically (interpersonally) ethical to use on web pages -- but it will always be a matter of opinion where to draw the line where it's "too much".
Back to top
another guest
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll try and answer your questions and thoughts. I did have some trouble understanding some of your points, though others were quite valid, so bear with me Smile.

we have a gracefully degrading solution
CSS works just nicely already.


True, but to that point, you could say HTML worked just fine too. CSS can be considered the next point from HTML (I've seen more CSS sites break than HTML), so why isn't there a next point after CSS? The crux is: it is 'degrading'.

D. The internet was not created for a lot of things.
I believe the one you quoted was refering to the WWW, a subset of the internet per se.


Wasn't for gaming, shopping, listening to streaming radio and watching TV channels, banking, virtual b'day cards, etc.

All of these are presented on the world wide web and can be accessed through a browser.

Nice rant. This is true and one of the things I stated (I think) different sites have different purposes. Different purposes need different application and execution. If a site was for video and music, you'd have a fair point in assuming the only users who would be using it are broadband users (no! this is not definitive).

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the difference between "information" and "data". Popups RARELY are in the first category.

Please do discuss the difference between information and data. The dictionary has trouble... and data is described in the "information" definition Smile perhaps it's white or multi-grain bread... but it's still bread.

I'd say the, it's nothing you'd like to see still acts best, as it would appear you have dismissed the popups "information" that is presented as data, as nothing at all Smile

'bloating' is significant.
An example of insignificant bloating would be amusing. Please do share


You say bloated, but I have yet to see any proof, that the amount of 'bloating' is significant.

Taken me a bit out of context, but hey, you obviously like to laugh so let me tell you an amusing story.

Joe Blogg had a website that used sifr to present headlines. He estimated that the extra data was 1kb to provide his fancy title (no idea, but since it's a story I'll continue).

Jane Blogg had a similar website but was against sifr and it's obvious abuse of web technologies. She still liked the idea of a fancy title and seeing that images were in common use, decided to create a graphical title. This graphic was 21kb.

In my opinion the 'bloating' of 1kb compared to 21kb is insignificant. Still bloating but if you blink, you might not even notice.

A simplistic story but hopefully the drift is caught. Besides how many grains of sand do you hold in your hand? finished counting yet?
Back to top
Victim
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005    Post subject: I've been exploited... Reply with quote

This forum is exploited my trust as a user because it is blue when I'd really like it to be green.
Back to top
Marco
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny thread. Kinda pointless I think. I for one don't really care about people blocking sIFR. I personally think sIFR is an excellent piece of software to nicely enhance websites. Sure, CSS works too but larger fonts look like total crap in al operating systems that don't have ClearType or something similar installed. This is the case with all win9x versions, Windows NT and Windows 2000 because Microsoft refuses to make it available for such operating systems.

I agree that my old site was loading too slow. The template has been replaced by a new one several months ago. It's still using sIFR but it's not loading slow anymore, at least not on any machine I tried it on.

I don't really care about people disabling sIFR but I think it's kinda stupid. Same goed for disabling javascript. On my blog you can't even send in a comment or a trackback with javascript disabled because I use it to protect myself against commentspammers. Sure it could all be disabled but that would really be partying like it's 1993 and for my blog it would mean being spammed into oblivion as well. No, thanks.

Blocking unwanted ads is good, refusing flash used in a non-abusive manner or blocking javascript seems like utter nonsense to me.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're nonsense.
Back to top
Drahken



Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marco- Your new template is much better than the old one. The new one actually loads fairly rapidly (whereas the old one never did load the sifr stuff, it just hung there indefinitely). However, I would suggest changing the loading order of the sifr headings and the header/banner at the top of the page. The header takes about 30 full seconds to load on dialup, and the sifr headings don't appear until after the header does (even though the text on the page loads immediately).

With sites like marco's redone one, and other fast-loading sifr pages, I don't see the problem with sifr. It's a frivolous extra to make a page look better. If you like it, fine. If you don't, fine. Either way, it's nothing to get worked up over.
On pages like the way marco's used to be, where it tries to load for an hour and never does, then sifr is a pest. On his new page and ones like it though, it's no more offensive or obnoxious than the animated smilies on bulletin boards.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

SIFR is crap, I hate it Evil or Very Mad
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005    Post subject: Re: sIFR blocking (script that turns text into Flash movies) Reply with quote

Code:
/\/sifr([_\-\d]*)?\.js/

Code:
/sifr/


Are these filters still up to date?
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont see a difference with that script enabled whatsoever..
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005    Post subject: Re: sIFR blocking (script that turns text into Flash movies) Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
Code:
/\/sifr([_\-\d]*)?\.js/

Code:
/sifr/


Are these filters still up to date?
They ought to be. If they aren't working for you then some Web developer has read this page, really hates people who want to get rid of sIFR, and changed the name so that the fonts WILL show up pretty.

I am glad to see my thread is doing well. Some guy on another website wrote this:
Quote:
In conclusion, i dont blame those who hate sifr technology, in fact i blame those newbies/amateurs tech junkie who jumped ont the latest available technology with little or lack of understanding in design/graphic fundamentals.

Allow me to rehash what I wrote above. When you write a webpage, these should be your unmalleable Laws:

1. A web page must not annoy a reader, or, through inaction, allow a reader to become annoyed.
2. A web page must obey the orders given it by readers except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A web page must protect its own content as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Presentation does not show up here. You can put it at #4 if you like.

Also, the person who wrote the above message seems to be upset that many people are posting as Guest in this thread. Keep in mind that when there is a Name field on a forum and someone opts not to fill it in, that is a choice, not stupidity.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group