September 17, 2010

The IE logo, the blue e

The IE Blog mar­ket­ing machine spews forth:

We start­ed by think­ing about what the IE8 logo (and pri­or IE logos) mean to our cus­tomers. When we asked cus­tomers what they think of when they see our logo, we heard pro­fes­sion­al, trust­ed, and famil­iar.

Empha­sis not mine.

Adden­dum: some­one posts:

Offtopic snarky com­ment: Remov­ing the progress bar from the sta­tus bar is deranged and crim­i­nal. Please bring it back in the next release. This is why Win­dows XP and IE8 was last good pieces of soft­ware. Microsoft removes fea­tures like a fad. What a com­plete joke IE9 UI is. Trad­ing fea­tures for sake of min­i­mal­ism. Sta­tus bar can be turned on but it does­n’t have the progress bar. I feel like shoot­ing the GUI people.

Exact­ly how I feel about every browser’s des­per­ate attempts to shed every pix­el of inter­face.

Mean­while, inside the arti­cle under the head­ing “Blue e = Inter­net”:

[…] The IE logo is well known as the way to the web. Inter­net cafés around the world use the IE logo on their sig­nage to invite peo­ple in. Some of our team­mates have snapped pho­tos while pass­ing cafés dur­ing their trav­els. The IE logo is right on the front of the build­ings! It’s always fun to see that to many peo­ple, the blue e means the Inter­net.

The empha­sis, this time, is def­i­nite­ly mine.

Some­times I won­der where cor­po­ra­tions like Microsoft get employ­ees so stead­fast­ly blind to the world out­side the cor­po­rate prod­uct line. What kind of thought process gen­uine­ly leads a per­son to believe it’s good to encour­age monop­o­lis­tic con­trol of a mar­ket, espe­cial­ly when his­to­ry not five years gone tells a sto­ry of stag­nat­ed inno­va­tion and crip­pling com­pat­i­bil­i­ty prob­lems? Hav­ing deliv­ered such an appalling sev­en years of stag­na­tion to web devel­op­ers world­wide with IE6, maybe Microsoft should edu­cate their mar­ket­ing depart­ment on that peri­od so that they chose their words wise­ly instead of appear­ing as brain­less cor­po­rate blog­ging automa­ta blind to basic his­to­ry and obliv­i­ous to their tar­get audi­ence’s gen­er­al dis­like of their monop­o­lis­tic tendencies.

tldr;: Don’t post about how great it is that you ran a monop­oly to the peo­ple whose lives were adverse­ly affect­ed by it. Duh.

posted by Andrew

September 12, 2010

Sonic Colours

This trail­er makes me want to end it all. Son­ic Team will nev­er learn. Seri­ous­ly, make a 2D game. 2D! With the char­ac­ters from Son­ic 2! No more stu­pid side quests, no more ran­dom quirky char­ac­ters, no more guess­ing which direc­tion the cam­era will move in next.

The gov­ern­ment should step in and reg­u­late this company.

posted by Andrew

September 11, 2010


Holy shit, Edward O’Con­nor read my mind.

posted by Andrew

September 10, 2010

Breaking news advertisements

posted by Andrew

September 9, 2010



I am an HTML author since 1994, a JS & PHP pro­gram­mer, and a teacher in those three fields. I will use this fea­ture. My stu­dents are excit­ed about this fea­ture. This fea­ture is easy to use, clean­ly solves a com­mon need in Con­tent Man­age­ment Sys­tems and oth­er web apps, is back­wards-com­pat­i­ble with exist­ing user agents, great­ly improves acces­si­bil­i­ty by allow­ing user agents to adjust the pick­er for OS-native acces­si­bil­i­ty set­tings and tools, works in restrict­ed envi­ron­ments where JavaScript sup­port isn’t avail­able, and can be over­rid­den by spe­cialised JavaScript libraries should advanced func­tion­al­i­ty be required. Oh yes, sure, remove the fea­ture. Brilliant.

Can I file a Change Pro­pos­al to remove the Shel­ley sec­tion from the HTML Work­ing Group? This sec­tion con­sis­tent­ly goes against real-world use cas­es, wastes read­er CPU cycles with need­less ver­biage and appears to be ignored by implementers.

Every time I open my HTMLWG mail fold­er I’m remind­ed as to why the prac­ti­cal tech­ni­cal dis­cus­sion is held on WHATWG.

posted by Andrew

September 4, 2010

Hilarious: News.com.au classed as ‘adult website’ in audit of politicians’ internet use

No com­ment; the arti­cle itself is more than enough.

Both news.com.au and smh.com.au were clas­si­fied as adult sites in the audit.

“The def­i­n­i­tion of what has been classed as an adult site is some­thing we’re review­ing,” [Leg­isla­tive Coun­cil pres­i­dent Aman­da Fazio] said.

posted by Andrew