[thelist] browser upgrade campaign gone wrong

sasha spam at bittersweet2.com
Thu Jan 2 19:34:01 CST 2003

On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:10:00 -0700, Tom Mallon <tom at tmallon.com> wrote:

> Hi all!,
> Here's my take: I have a bunch of pages that use applets, all of them
> will report that you can't se the page if you lack/ have disabled Java.
> It only states a fact-you can't view the page unless you get what is
> required-it does not make me rude!
> I don't much care for frames, but I have never disabled it on any of
> the five browsers on my 'puter-if I want to view the content of a
> framed page-I need to play by their rules, they are not rude to inform
> you!  It's just "the facts of life".
> Tom Mallon

So what you're telling me is that giving a rude message telling me to
download a new browser because mine "sucks" (yes, I've seen it) is more
appropriate than using a serverside include that acts as noframe content
for the iframe?

Or maybe you haven't heard about the vulnerability in Internet Explorer's
iframe that allows some of the more recent virii (klez, etc.) to spread
without the user even knowing (easily patchable, I know).

Maybe I don't like iframes because the wheel on my mouse doesn't seem to
work right inside an iframe in my browser of choice.

Maybe I don't want to download the extra html document.

Maybe I don't like java, javascript, or Flash because it crashes my

Maybe I'm using Lynx and dealing with frame/iframe content is a pain in the

Maybe I have a crappy computer that is only capable of running Netscape 4
or older (been there before).

Maybe I just like to see how incompetent some "designers" are.  Designers
are supposed to be catering to the needs of users.  Designers are supposed
to be providing alternate content, not lame error messages just because one
of their favorite tags doesn't work.


More information about the thelist mailing list