Gene Kwiecinski wrote:
>> If you are unable to read my HTML posting,
>> rendered in HTML, I felt you would be deprived
> You seem to be mistaking "unable" vs *unwilling*...
>
> I was absolutely *able* to see your initial email, but the
> blinding-white background made me feel around for the <del> key and kill
> it unread.
>
----
Sorry, but on my terminal it it was a charcoal-greyish
aqua-turquoise text against a pale lavender background. I'm sorry it
appeared wrong on your terminal. Do you have 'high contrast' turned on
in your reader's settings, or perhaps the option to ignore suggested
colors and use your own? I think that's an option in Mozilla's engine
as well as MS's.
Perhaps it ignored my colors and displayed some forced HTML default
color specific to your system?
I've also tried to make sure I have calibrated my monitor's color
and have included the latest, suggested color profiles for color -- but
I think those only apply to images. My best guess would be some setting
in your reader or even a personalized style sheet that over-rode my
my style sheet? Just guessing.
> In addition, you seem to be insisting on top-posting, despite being
> mentioned to death that this is *not* a top-posting list, and that some
> (quite many, actually) people object to it. That says quite a bit about
> you that you still insist on doing this despite others' preferences that
> you and others *not* do so.
>
Insisting? I didn't notice. Why should people care that strongly? I
prefer the most recent stuff first -- as used in the professional world,
as that's mostly who I deal with. I use an GUI do to chronic RSI
problems and having to scroll down to read actual content can exacerbate
symptoms. I wonder if those who insist on the most important stuff last
have thought about the affect their demand has on people with
disabilities?
Someone else mentioned blind people using screen readers -- they
certainly don't
appreciate bottom posting -- in fact. Since people are demanding
plaintext to support blind readers (supposedly -- most readers are smart
enough to parse plain HTML), BUT most readers can't know what to skip
over as previously read text.
I think people here should consider the effect their demands have on
other people.
If you give the reason of enforcing plaintext to make things easier for
blind people,
then I would point out -- that blind people are going to be reading a
message from top
to bottom and don't want to have to re-read all the context each time
they reread
a message. So on that issue. I think the bottom readers need to learn
top posting to be
courteous to those who start reading things from the top. You put the
most important stuff first, and the repeated, or quoted text occurs
below -- hopefully in reverse chronological
order so that they can stop once they've either 1) read enough context,
or 2) when they hit something they already have read.
By bottom posting, you are making it impossible for blind people to
follow the group discussion without rereading every previous quote
first -- and if they are following a thread, that would get VERY
irritating if not completely stop them from participating.
It never occurred to me that other people with other disabilities might
have even worse
problems than I, with bottom posting. It should be banned, as it is
"anti-accessibility".
>> I DID, despite the comments of those ignorant of email structure,
>> post it in plaintext as well as in HTML.
>>
> And yet I still was temporarily blinded by a dazzling white background,
> just so you could show off your cutesy colorful tables and all.
>
----
I'm guessing something is broken with your reader. When I configure
mine to display text only, I never see the HTML version. I only see the
plaintext in my chosen color (the blinding white -- the default for HTML
backgrounds (not what I used), I use a light sea-foam green for my
plain text background, because, I, like you, find the pure white a bit
too intense usually -- especially late at night.
>> I *felt* that those who read the plain text version were deprived.
>> (Using the hyperbole of them being in a electronic 3rd world
>> that only has tty terminals to display text, instead of monitors
>> that can display proportional fonts).
>>
>
> Hey, if you want to display html content with all the associated markup
> (tables, colors, various font-sizes/-faces, indentation, etc.),
> absolutely go ahead and do so --- *ON A WEBPAGE*.
>
> Text is for email, markup is for the web.
>
What I wrote was text. Just well formatted text. There were no
pictures, or flash
diagrams, or any of the features one would find on a web page. What you
are saying is
exactly what I can agree with -- I wrote in text -- formatted, and
proportional text -- which /scientifically/, has been proven to be more
readable by people, in general, than
monospaced text. It's a nearly 20% difference in reading speed.
People's eyes are used to seeing text 'kerned'. Seeing the 'f' overlap
the following character -- seeing text in a proportional font helps read
more quickly and (though I'm not aware of a specific study
showing it), probably aids in comprehension. Monospace fonts are
'relic' of a time
when we worked on terminals that *couldn't* display text as our eyes
have developed,
over the course of history, to read them.
> By repeatedly flouting the rules or even just conventions of a mailing
> list, you're almost guaranteeing that you'll get shitcanned by quite a
> few of the regulars who *really* don't want to put up with your or
> anyone else's "bad manners". We're civilised enough to not start flame
> wars here over it, but we *will* eventually ignore you as if you don't
> even exist.
>
-----
That would be my preference. That's all I ask -- those who don't
want to read HTML, please turn off their HTML options or ignore those
who want to post -- and officially change the rule to allow *simple*
html (no animations, no flash), not really even multiple fonts (unless
it is the subject being discussed -- then it makes sense!). I'm not one
to use loads of fonts or whatever. Simple text is fine w/me. I put the
names of the 'fonts' in their own 'font' because I thought it might give
an example - knowing (expecting) that most people would see it in their
default font, unless they had those fonts loaded. That's normal
behavior. So I actually didn't expect that most readers would even
notice the alternate fonts -- except maybe the difference between the
monospaced font I used in my _ill-worded_disclaimer_ -- which would
contrast greatly with the rest as it was written in the most commonly
found types of monospace fonts. I tried to a nice (and freely
available) font for my text that any and everyone could use/read that
looked reasonably nice.
>
> "My, my, my. Me, me, me. To Hell with everyone else, look at *my*
> beautiful cutesy html email!!!"
>
Excuse me, but I emphasized 'me' and 'my', because it was 'my' email.
Not yours. You don't have to read it. You can write the way you want
to -- and I would only expect that you offer me the same freedom for me
to write the way I want to. Are you saying it's only your way or not at
all? If you don't want to read my email(s), that's fine. I'd prefer
you just NOT read my emails, and NOT complain about them, and let me and
anyone else who wants to post in HTML, or in any non-spammy way they
want! Why must you require conformance to your world view?
>
> Just because it *can* be done doesn't mean that it *should* be done.
> The first hordes of AOL LOLcats started embedding graphics into email
> and turning what should be a f'n *webpage* into mass-mailed emails.
---
We are on the exact same page here...even email from my parents
who use yahoo get ads embedded for them at the end of every email. I
don't even use a .sig by default. You'll find me standing right beside
you if people start spamming the list -- I'll just mark their emails as
'Junk', and eventually my spam filter will take care of the rest. No
problem. I'd expect no less of anyone who finds my emails patently
offensive. If you see any pictures of things in my email that are
unrelated to the list content -- exactly and precisely, I'd personally
ask you slap me up the side of the head and remind me of my stupidity.
In the 99.999% of the case, I wouldn't use any images. One exception
might be mathematical formulae -- if I talked about wanting _g_vim being
able to display mathematical formula as on
_this_[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Formula]_page_ (text equivalent
of an HTML link?), but that would be a special case situation. Wikis
seem to provide a good balance on readability and HTML features -- you
don't see pictures of your sightseeing trips or whatever. you just get
the facts.
> I
> don't really care about your last sightseeing trip or to look at 30
> pictures of your kids/grandkids, so sending me such an email even once
> is to get you *instantly* shitcanned. I've done so, and explained why,
> usually months after the fact when ostensibly after a bunch of emails
> sent to me went unanswered, and I was asked "Why don't you reply to my
> emails?". "Hey, I didn't want to waste time DLing huge emails of
> nothing but pictures, so I killfiled you..."
>
----
Your problems with what you think I would send are in your head and
are your mental trip -- your "fantasies". They have nothing to do with
reality, so don't act like I'm responsible for inflicting something on
you that's all in your head.
>> Perhaps that decision needs to be re-examined?
>>
>
> I would prefer not to.
>
> What you call "beautiful fonts", *I* call garish multicolored email that
> just hurts my eyes. The same argument you're making now, "I spent so
> many hours formatting it beautifully so that you can all admire my
> handiwork!" is the same argument to be made later when some ass-hat
> *does* decide to send .swf files, videos, M$Word files, .pdfs, whatever.
> No, nuh-uh, not gonna happen.
>
====
You live in a black and white world, my friend. You can allow
simple HTML and markup without allowing flash, or videos or
whatever. Besides, pdfs? Those are also, Often, just text. MSWORD
files? Now days...just XML -- more text but with tags. But I don't
want to have to use any added software when reading emails anymore than
you. I'm paranoid about opening anything that requires a special reader
or opening attachments. I've had triple layer security on my systems
for years and only recently backed off two 2 layers as my software
firewall became incompatible with WinXP (starting in SP2) if I wanted to
use 'some' apps. But I've rarely really needed it -- it was mostly a
convenience to make me aware of outbound attempts by local software (Not
that anything can go out directly -- I sit behind a proxy and a firewall) .
>> And -no-, I'm not saying you open the door to flash-enabled players or
>> embedded music, or animations. Well, I could see embedding a video
>> of how a user wants a Vim feature to work or even a 'howto use VIM',
>>
===
I didn't say it was a *good* idea -- but many help websites allow
uploading pictures or other attachments to enable users to actually show
what their problem is. It would be useful, perhaps if any picture over
"x" size would be displayed only as an attachment, then we could choose
to view it or not -- though usually vim has no need for such, so I can't
imagine it being common place and be 'on subject' for the list
content. But I'm NOT willing to say it can NEVER be appropriate -- as
you are comfortable with. I'm not comfortable with black & white
thinking nor absolutes. They are "not human" and "inhumane".
>
> See? *RIGHT NOW* you opened that door just a crack, and look at the
> cockaroaches swarming their way in. "No I'm not saying to... but now
> that you mention it, it *can* be a good idea..."
>
> Put it on a webpage, post the url, and let whoever's interested take a
> look, instead of *forcing* it on everyone. Those of us who *choose* not
> to can then simply skip it.
>
>
Marketing people (and I) disagree -- having to wait to bring up my web
browser is too much effort. I wouldn't bother. If it's inline. It
wastes zero time. But ask me to go look elsewhere -- out of the flow of
my email reading -- forget it. It won't happen.
That doesn't mean I see a need for such things on this list, as a
general rule.
P.S. I didn't bottom (or top) post -- I responded interspersed, as you did.
I hope you won't take offense at me following your example.
As for the whole flamage of my use of HTML, I hope mostly over -- and it
is isn't entirely inappropriate to discuss list 'boundaries' and the
reasons for them.
It's simple to say "stop" discussion, when one, as a moderator,
approves of the status quo and wants to silence dissent. But it's
certainly dissuading any open or frank opinions.
And, NO, I don't consider myself a troll -- I don't go around trying to
cause trouble, I assure, you I am only writing what I believe in sincere
earnestness.
If you don't believe me, email me off list and we can arrange a phone
conversation (assuming you are earnest in discussing any of this or
assess my honesty) to discuss any of this. I don't consider myself
unreasonable in any event, but I don't, "automatically", roll over in
the face of those who are.
Linda
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
