[thelist] More Smart Tags

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Mon Jun 25 11:42:10 CDT 2001


> From: "Bruce Heerssen" <bheerssen at visualbridge.tv>
> 
> I would argue that smart tags do indeed change the content of the
> site. The argument is semantic to be sure, but valid none the less.
> Smart tags make an addition to the site. An addition that the author
> may not approve of. But I think you can never really seperate
> presentation from content because the presentaion is part of the
> content.

i still see it as meta-data... it should be opt-in, like bookmarklets 
that look stuff up on dictionary.com or google, but i still see it as 
clearly sitting outside the site...

> Sites like the pornolizer (which I've never actually seen, sounds fun
> :) clearly do not change the content of your site because the user
> never actually goes to your site to see that content in it's original
> context. The difference here is that you have to go to those sites and
> give them a url to 'translate'. This clearly falls under parody and
> fair-use, 
>  IMO. There is no ambiguity as to the authenticity of the content.

heh, oddly, i've had a few clients say they're site was hacked only 
to find out someone had forwarded them a pornolizer URL... IOW, it 
all depends on the perspective of the user... to most, yes, they'll 
see SmartTags as part of the content, and that sucks, but it really 
isn't...

>  With 
> MS's smart tags, third parties may change the (apparent) content of a
> site without the site owner's knowledge or permission, and (possibly)
> without the user's knowledge or permission. The user is not
> necessarily given a chance to view the site author's work in a context
> chosen by the author.

i agree that the method of determining URLs sucks, and that they 
should be disabled by default so coders don't have to insert 
proprietary meta tags...

> >where is HTML clearly covered by IP?  this isn't part of my point,
> >but i'd like to see some documentation on that since everything i've
> >seen says HTML is too generic to be covered by IP...
> >
> I think that Martin is referring to the content of a website rather
> than the structural markup. I could be wrong.

i'm hoping he's talking about the whole thing...

> >and those aren't links, those are highlights inserted by the browser
> >with meta-content... yes, it's reserve from which it draws the URLs
> >is unfortunate in its MS-ness, but hey, what did you expect?  
> >
> And the difference to the user is? None. Therefore the content is
> altered in it's orgininal context.

perception is one thing, but the content is not altered... replace 
every instance of SmartTag with ThirdVoice and we have the exact 
same discussion here... in this case, however, the user is less 
likely to know that it's not content from the site...

it will suck, but i think we need to see it for what it is, especially if 
we plan to fight it...

> >would Netscape not use Netscape sites if they didn't have to?
> >
> Of course they would. And MS should continue to link to MS sites in
> it's browser, but not on the page. There's nothing wrong with
> branding, per se, but keep it where it belongs and make damn sure that
> it is clearly recognizable as such.

only time will tell...

> Agreed. Although I do wonder about the possibility of abuse, 
> particularly by smaller players.

probably high...

> Fugly may not matter for every site, but for some, such as art sites
> and designer showcases, it clearly does. Having their sites marked up
> with ugly add-ons could significantly detract from a site's visual
> effectiveness. As you know, it is entirely possible to design sites
> that are attractive in very nearly every browser ever made. And
> anyway, ugly is relative.

exactly... it's a hard conversation to have...

> Usability is an issue, though not much of one, I suspect. I have yet
> to see anything in the documentation that implies that impaired
> functionality would result from the use of smart tags.

there wouldn't be yet, but i can see newbie users confusing them 
with hyperlinks, or with Word's method of highlighting potential 
spelling/grammar errors... "hey, they misspelled 
antidisestablishmentarianism... losers"

> Finally, I don't see this thread as MS bashing. Just normal outrage at
> an invasive technology from a company known to be less than even
> handed. I hope that MS is paying close attention to this thread and
> others like it. Perhaps they will find another way to do this.

feh, they don't care...





More information about the thelist mailing list