On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:36:41 +0200 (IST)
Adir Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Black listing" a site will most likely publish it (wait until your list
> is found in some newspaper..), and will not help with reducing the problem.
Someone already suggested a fix for this problem --
A list of buggy sites along with *non-buggy* sites
So the publication (even on a newspaper) would help contrast the two lists.
> Do you think that the webmasters and the owners of the site will care? As long
> as it brings them 90% of the population (sad, but true), they won't
> (necessarily) care much about your list.
The important factors are the owners. Such a list may have an impact if we
can have a big list of comparable sites ("buggy" vs. "non-buggy").
> 1) You will have to prove that for a specific site - ANY browser, from ANY
> version which exists over there in Linux cannot see the site properly.
No. Just that it's standard compliant or not. If it doesn't display on
Linux browsers due to bugs in the browsers -- so be it!
Any report on the list should be *linked* to a detailed description which
would be helpfull to site webmasters. These details should not be
listed on the main page as they are of no interest to non-tech people.
> 2) You will need to update your list whenever there's a change.
No! (cf. 1.)
> 3) Vicious owners can sue you for some kind of "hotzaat diba", just
> because you "black list" them. Nobody said that you wouldn't win (about it
> not being "hotzaat diba"), but I am not sure that you would want that
> headache.
This issue should be handled properly (as it becomes popular technique):
- The front page should start with a good explanation about the
motives (standard compliance etc.) and non-inflamatory intentions
of the list (and obviousely should apply these rules).
- The list should display a clear message about the method used
to categorize the sites ("buggy" / "non-buggy") and about
manual methods to correct "unjustified" categorization (from
the point of view of the site owners).
> 4) You won't contribute eliminating the problem. I believe that I have
> already mentioned that.
It won't eliminate the problem, but I believe it would help and would give
good point of reference (especially when you list "non-buggy" sites as well).
> Instead, you can do the following:
> 1) Be nice, and politely tell them that their site doesn't support...
This is always true, but if for each complaint you could attach the list URL
I thing it would be more effective.
> 2) Suggest to help them to make their site compatible with Linux. If they
> are not going to care about this, you will have to do that free of charge.
> Once again - your responsibility. And I am not sure that you would like to
> do that free of charge.
The price is not the problem. Many site owners don't bother to look at your
suggestion even if it contain specific and easy to apply fixes.
As an example let me remind an example of "pushing" mail messages to cellulars
(IIRC it was mailpush.com on behalf of Cellcom). Although several members from
this list explained to them the bug in their system (They replied any message
-- even with Precedence: junk/bulk) and gave the fix with examples, the company
refused to hear the voice of reason and kept flooding the list with messages
directed to unknown subscribers (lucky for us, I don't hear this company name
any longer, seems Justice Prevails after all :-)
> 3) Here is an idea: Create a group of "Windows-to-Linux technicians",
You fail to understand that the problem has nothing to do with Linux.
It is about professional web development (or rather its lack).
You cannot offer professional services (even for free) to people who
don't care (eat iz workeng oon MY compooter! de grafix iz grit!)
> 4) Don't black-list anybody. Nobody owes you anything and nobody has to
Let's start with state (tax payer funded) sites. They *do* owe me something.
Also they are more important as most of them don't have competition.
(can you pay your bills in another municipality site :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
this is not true." --Robert Wilensky, University of California
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
