Thus sayeth Zeldman:

May 18, 2000 8:28 AM

Thus sayeth Zeldman: "Lately, well-meaning readers have informed us that the status bar is sacred, and JavaScript text messages are evil ... even when they include the domain name."

I, personally, prefer a brief description of where the link is going, rather than a long URL. Just curious, what do you think? As far as I'm concerned, there is no wrong answer or opinion on this.

posted by EricBrooksDotCom (67 comments total)

I want to see exactly what the link points to, no more and no less. I agree precisely with your quote from Zeldman.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:41 AM on May 18, 2000

I think the status bar hasn't been fully utilized as an artistic medium.
posted by solistrato at 8:44 AM on May 18, 2000

I personally like both. In some cases, like with scrub navigation, the description rather than the url is very helpful. At other times, the url is good, especially if you are trying to validate a point with an article. Just like everything else on the web - different situations call for different solutions.
posted by thinkdink at 8:48 AM on May 18, 2000

Too bad there wasn't a way to automatically display the [title] of the page being linked to. Another possibility is that it could be a browser preference.

[ ] Always display link URL in status bar

... though far be it from me, with my font-sizes-set-as-px and non-liquid layouts, to advocate user control over how a site is viewed...
posted by Calebos at 8:49 AM on May 18, 2000

to solistrato's point: I tried doing a search on "status bar art" and couldn't find anything. *sigh*

Hopefully future browsers will allow us to replace the status bar with a thin strip of HTML that we could fully design. You know, maybe dump a few Flash-thingys in there for good measure.
posted by Calebos at 8:53 AM on May 18, 2000

Ed, you don't have to be all for or all against! You have made choices to use px for font sizes, and to not make your layouts fluid. Those choices do not make opinions you have about other user control issues invalid! You were probably being a bit facetious, but I didn't see a ;þ

> [ ] Always display link URL in status bar

That's a good idea.
posted by ericost at 9:00 AM on May 18, 2000

I prefer both long URL's and link descriptions. What I hate are those annoying javascript clocks, marquees, and making the status bar *blank* during a mouseover. What gives?
posted by jay at 9:06 AM on May 18, 2000

To us, this link treatment is more useful than this one, which tells you precisely nothing.

But this link treatment is the best of all (to us): Jeff Veen discusses new browsers at webmonkey.com

And really Zeldman? You believe that the URL is of NO use to the user?
posted by ericost at 9:11 AM on May 18, 2000

Oops, that first sentence is a quote from zeldman.com, like this...

<QUOTE Zeldman> To us, this link treatment is more useful than this one, which tells you precisely nothing.</QUOTE>

But this link treatment is the best of all (to us): Jeff Veen discusses new browsers at webmonkey.com

And really Zeldman? You believe that the URL is of NO use to the user?
posted by ericost at 9:13 AM on May 18, 2000

hmm... I always thought the URLs in the status bar were a power user thing - I like them and generally don't like it when people mess with them, even though the messages might be helpful. Part of it comes from being busy and not wanting to follow a poorly described link that sends you to a flash site, or a mp3 file, or a quicktime movie when you weren't expecting it.

But for the 95% of internet users, I think descriptive status bar messages are a good thing, so I don't mind if every site used them.

Besides, you can just turn them off with a simple javascript bookmarklet.
posted by mathowie at 9:38 AM on May 18, 2000

Oh yeah, Jay...scrolling status bar marquees drive me insane! I feel like the conflict between the scrolling message and the link is going to make my screen fizz out sometimes.
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 9:38 AM on May 18, 2000

In IE/Windows, you can always right-click on a link and select "properties" from the context menu to get the URL, similar to my preferred way of opening links in another window. (I'm not sure how to get this in other browsers.) There's almost always another easy way to get the information you want.

Also, I think that inserting a link in the narrative flow, without trying to describe it inline, is a useful stylistic element for many writers. That's mostly a matter of personal style, though.
posted by harmful at 9:43 AM on May 18, 2000

certain things should have URLs. but at the same time, the status bar can be almost comedic, or warning about something... aka "biggggg download: [url]" or "idiot savant: [url]"

imho, doing the javascript makes a site look more professional to me. It says to me "this person cares (or at least thinks about) about code and UI".

Then again, I abuse the window.status function...
posted by eljuanbobo at 9:48 AM on May 18, 2000

By the way, the Big Z's answers to the questions from /. are now online. Hmm, most of the selected questions seem to say more about the questioners (many of whom come across as jackasses) than the person anwering.
posted by harmful at 10:09 AM on May 18, 2000

I'm a longtime fan of the title attribute. that's where the link info belongs. leave the status bar alone, please. Important warnings ("look out -- it's a nasty word doc!") should be in plain text.
posted by anitar at 10:11 AM on May 18, 2000

Concur with Zeldman: I want the URL. I never realized why until Matt pegged it, above: I want to know the destination filetype, so I know what I'm getting into.

There're some provenance issues, too, based on the site name (is this an offsite link, and to who?)
posted by baylink at 10:13 AM on May 18, 2000

"In IE/Windows, you can always right-click on a link and select "properties" from the context menu to get the URL, similar to my preferred way of opening links in another window"

Wow, harmful, do you really expect users to do that much work?

I prefer leaving the URL in the status bar untouched for a couple of reasons: it lets you see where you are going, what type of file you are getting, and whether the destination is offsite or not. All three are very useful bits of information for me in determining whether or not to click on a link. My time and bandwidth (especially at home, on the modem) are valuable to me, and I have been conditioned not even to click on a link that I can't see where I'm going.

My preferred linking style is to make full use of the title attribute of the anchor tag. This link gives the most information in the way a user would expect it to. You can see you're where you're going and the pop-up title gives more information.

This is, of course, just my humble opinion. IANAD!
posted by daveadams at 10:43 AM on May 18, 2000

Congratulations Zeldman! Your /. answers are at once entertaining, informative, and provocative. I still don't think that all your design decisions are the "best" decisions (and neither are mine), but you are a great writer, and your input make the discussion better for all of us.
posted by ericost at 11:15 AM on May 18, 2000

ericost posted: "Ed, you don't have to be all for or all against! [...] You were probably being a bit facetious, but I didn't see a ;þ"

Yeah. :p implied...

...although I was serious about the browser option to control the status bar. Mathowie's bookmarklet does the job just fine, except you have to run it again on every page.


posted by Calebos at 11:17 AM on May 18, 2000

I personally like the way powazek.com does it- when you mouse over the link, it's got a brief description of what you'll find & also the URL of the site it's sending you to. Sort of like this link. That way you know where you're going & what to expect there. (If my quickie attempt at writing that worked, that is :)
posted by zempf at 11:20 AM on May 18, 2000

Although, the title attribute doesn't do jack in Netscape for Mac.

I think that your preference depends also on your background. I'm venturing a guess here - but I bet that if you are from more of the design side (pretty pictures, images) you like descriptions. If you are from more of a programming side (structure) you like the url.

Coming from the design side, it just FEELS like good craftsmanship to give descriptions in the status bar. Like eljuanbobo said - it seems more professional, like you didn't let any detail slide.

Personally, I generally use descriptions for pages internal to the site itself. I warn when there is a download involved, and give both when it is an external page. But again, I let the project drive the solution.
posted by thinkdink at 11:23 AM on May 18, 2000

For no more often than I want to see the URL, yes.
posted by harmful at 11:27 AM on May 18, 2000

Browsing with no URL in the status bar is like trying to parallel park with no mirrors. The URL tells you whether you're about to see a site's main page or a sub-page. You can often tell what part of the destination site you're about to see. With many sites you can tell what day the article you're about to read was posted on - maybe it's old and you don't care about it. You can tell what sort of object you're linked to - I almost never want to download PDFs or MP3s, so if I can see that extension on the URL, I can safely avoid it.

If you take the URL out of the status bar, you prevent me from seeing all this information. Even if your status text contains all of the information in the URL, I am still obliged to spend time parsing whatever unique format you chose to present it in, instead of performing the instant less-than-a-second URL scan I'm accustomed to. Sheer familiarity gives the plain old URL a marked advantage.

When I run across sites that hide the URL, I feel like the designer either thinks I'm a child who should be protected from the messy details, or simply cares more about prettiness than browsability. I don't care how clever or beautiful your design is. If it's less useful, it's less good, and that's why we call it "design" and not "art".

Please pardon my (probably excessive) vitriol; I am as enthused about this fad as I would be about resurrecting the blink tag.

-Mars

posted by Mars Saxman at 11:29 AM on May 18, 2000

With IE browsers (don't know about the others): On sites where the evil webmaster (or webmistress!) has taken control of the sacred status bar, if you put your mouse over the link and click and hold the mouse button down, the offensive comments will mysteriously change into the url. It's magically delicious.
posted by the webmistress at 11:30 AM on May 18, 2000

By the way, I'm not saying you should have to get the URL that way. I'm just saying that if the degigner of a page has made that design decision, there is generally some way to get the URL if you think you need it. Apparently, some users need it more than I do.
posted by harmful at 11:34 AM on May 18, 2000

It reminds me of the injunction to make sure that you put something meaningful in the hyperlink, rather than click here. Then I read a Joey Anuff piece on HotWired entitled "Nothing Says 'Click Here' like 'Click Here'".

I like Derek's "just-in-time" approach to the status bar, because it normally adds to the information you're expecting, rather than paraphrasing it. (mathowie's dead right about file types.) I also like Lance's little icons too...
posted by holgate at 11:39 AM on May 18, 2000

I like how the second comment i see (browsing at the 1 level) in the slashdot thread was written by user "Robotwisdom." He doesn't have any problems with the design issues discussed in the interview but rather doesn't like Zeldman knocking James Joyce's grammar :)
posted by zempf at 11:46 AM on May 18, 2000

Status bar art (from the 5k).

I am on the "don't-mess-with-it" side of the fence, though I can appreciate Zeldman's actual position (not what most of you seem to think): that a consistent scheme for window.statuses will help novices to get more information which they can actually use (unlike a URL) and helps pros distinguish between onsite and offsite links.

However, I'm not so sure that novices ever notice the status bar though -- I think it is probably only pros who notice/make use of it. And for this pro, a TITLE attribute and the URL in the status bar are perfect. (TITLEs are more likely to be noticed by newbies and, y'know, that's their purpose in the HTML DTDs.)

Anyone got some emirical research on whether novices notice/use the status bar?
posted by sylloge at 12:33 PM on May 18, 2000

[Emirical research is research commisioned by an Emir, usually from the United Arab Emirates. — if only I could editthispage.]
posted by sylloge at 12:35 PM on May 18, 2000

Sylloge - neato! Must. Learn. DHTML.
posted by solistrato at 12:54 PM on May 18, 2000

"there is generally some way to get the URL if you think you need it."

That's true. My point, however obfuscated, was that if I had to go to that much trouble, I wouldn't bother with it at all. I'd just go on and never find out what was behind the link. It's not like I'd never click on a link that I couldn't see the URL to, but I'm probably not going to click if it isn't clear from other clues what I'm clicking on.

Here's how I look at it: my gut feeling is that you'll lose more clicks on links when the users can't see the URL of than you'll gain by giving a friendly description in the status bar. Assuming getting users to click is the goal...
posted by daveadams at 12:59 PM on May 18, 2000

i think if you're debating what someone does or does not do on their site, you ought to look at the site.

people who say they want to see the URL: i always include the URL, unless the link is onsite. i also include information that may be helpful, informative, or funny. that is in ADDITION to the url.

this is the fifth time i've said that.

people who say "derek does it right:" i do it the same way derek does it.

this is the first time i've said that.

is it hot in here or is it just me?

does this milk smell bad to you?
posted by Zeldman at 1:34 PM on May 18, 2000

Is this bothering you? I'm not touching you. Is this bothering you?
posted by solistrato at 1:48 PM on May 18, 2000

In my mind, this discussion has long since left the realm of Zeldman's site exclusively, and instead is focusing on the Fifth Cardinal Sin of Web Design: Screwing With the Status Bar.

BTW, that was a joke.
posted by daveadams at 1:59 PM on May 18, 2000

Which malevolent arm of DoubleClick have you sold your soul to this time?

It's a hot day and I'm not wearing socks.
posted by Zeldman at 2:03 PM on May 18, 2000

Hey, I'm not wearing socks either!

I'm also not wearing shoes, so hopefully the sweat factor isn't coming into play, otherwise everyone I work with will probably become rather irate...
posted by cCranium at 2:06 PM on May 18, 2000

yes, but I'm not wearing pants.
posted by thinkdink at 2:11 PM on May 18, 2000

Harking back to Mars for a second, I've actually seen *one8 useful usage of the BLINK tag this year. It was in one of the listings at The Dead People Server; scroll down to the Sch neighborhood; I don't wanna blow the punchline.
posted by baylink at 2:14 PM on May 18, 2000

Is anybody actually bothered by people screwing with the status bar who doesn't know how to screw with it themselves?
posted by harmful at 2:32 PM on May 18, 2000

That's an interesting question. And, unfortunately, this probably isn't a place you'll find an accurate answer. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of metfilter's visitors either already know the javascript necessary, or can easily find it.
posted by cCranium at 2:56 PM on May 18, 2000

My vote is for "don't EVEN think of messing with the status bar". But then, as a user, I'm definitely on the poweruser/programmer side of the fence. Even a dynamic url, with dozens of parameters to pass to the server tells me a lot about what to expect from the document.

Except for one exception: when a link calls a javascript. Seeing "js5-18-00.A()" in the bar doesn't do me a lot of good. As long as the designer's burning my cycles with a script, a couple of lines to let me know what they want to do with my browser would be nice. But ONLY in that instance.
posted by katchomko at 3:17 PM on May 18, 2000

It is not a good idea to change the status bar because it is part of the BROWSER, not part of the website. It's not the site creator's business to go messing with browser UI elements. It's equivalent to modifying the window title (can you imagine animating titles!?)--it's for the software to do, not the website.

It is also less usable to include a description in the status instead of the page (I don't want to go read the little status bar just to find out where I'm going). If the description *is* already included in the page, it's redundant to include it in the status bar. Just leave it be.


posted by justinkramer at 3:50 PM on May 18, 2000

I believe that a major issue that has slipped here is the platform issue. Browsers behave (sad to say) radically different between the windows environment and the mac environment (my experience with x-windows is limited to playing, so I can't fairly comment on that). e.g. When you mouseover in a windows browser, it will display the ALT tag, or sometimes the window.status value. On Mac? no such luck.

I think it comes down to a point of personal preference. My preference is to use (abuse as some would say) the mouseOver="window.status... attribute.

And as been said. Zeldman/Powazek and company's method of including both seems to be a logical and healthy way of doing it.

Now if someone could create a script that let you put

window.status='[your stuff] $url'; return true

then we'd all be happy campers. less code, more happy. (sorry for combining languages there... it's been a long php day).
posted by eljuanbobo at 4:01 PM on May 18, 2000

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but what I do on some of my sites is I use description for links WITHIN the site, and URLs for off-site links. I figure within a site, a description is better or just as good as the URL, and can be more aesthetically appealing.
posted by andy at 4:07 PM on May 18, 2000

Why the fuck would anyone mess with status bars and the shit in a user's Web browser?? "Because I can" isn't good enough. Don't fuck with my expectations, folks. I am not a happy person when people screw around with the expected user interface I've grown accustomed to. Since most sites don't do anything with this, anyone who does anything with this means I spend more time trying to figure out what they are doing, no matter how well-intentioned the author might be. Leave well enough alone, please.
posted by yarf at 7:08 PM on May 18, 2000

Zeldman, you're full of crap. "people who say they want to see the URL: i always include the URL, unless the link is onsite" You do not. If you did, there would be no freakin' discussion. Want an example? May 14 you wrote about an "official confirmation" which goes to metafilter. Last time I checked, metafilter wasn't a part of zeldman.com. May 5th, "the wreckage"?? If you're not using MSIE, all you see is no link, just a description. May 3rd, "Content vs. execution" goes to creativesight.com. No mention of it in the javascript. (Sorry, again, I'm not using MSIE). Be honest, or get the hell off the Web.
posted by yarf at 7:18 PM on May 18, 2000

I hope I'm never so bitter as to get this upset over a freakin' URL, or is it the joy of terring someone done?

I'm not saying anyone's opinion is invalid (truth be told, the URL is not always visable at zeldman.com on IE5, WIN98) but I think there are more important things to devote this kind of energy to. For instance, Jakob's opinion on oral sex.




posted by Mick at 7:26 PM on May 18, 2000

I didn't see that particular Alertbox. Why isn't it listed in his top ten?
posted by daveadams at 7:51 PM on May 18, 2000

Hmmm. "Yarf" is "Fray" backwards... could this guy be Derek Powazek's evil twin, a snarling troller? Or maybe his alternate personality?

I knew someone that nice must have a dark side...
posted by wiremommy at 8:36 PM on May 18, 2000

yarf has posted four comments, two of them on this thread.

in his most recent comment, yarf began: "Zeldman, you're full of crap."

and he ended: "Be honest, or get the hell off the Web."

yarf, whoever you actually are, it would not hurt you to be polite.

for four days, people i don't know - and who don't know anything about me or what i do - have been flaming me rather unpleasantly. in some forums, that comes with the turf. i did not think that was true here at mefi.

i don't know why you're so enraged, or why you would burn cycles seeking "evidence" that i was "lying." i tried honestly to explain what i do. i don't ALWAYS think about it, and i don't have rules. much of the time at zeldman.com, i am writing something quickly at 3 a.m.

if you look long enough, you will probably find spelling errors, as well as contradictions. if that's how you want to spend your free time.

when i was ASKED about this status bar business the first few dozen times at slashdot, i looked back at what i had been doing, and tried to honestly answer the question. i hadn't really given it much thought before the question was asked.

it was offensive to have my entire body of five years' work online reduced to a defense against three or four "usability sins" i had supposedly committed. it was offensive that many people did not bother to even look at my work. they glanced at a splash page and one page of text, and on the basis of that, many of them got on a soapbox to discuss their pet peeves as loudly and as disrespectfully as possible.

think how you would feel if your entire body of work (whatever that is - i don't know who you are) were reduced to 500 rants based on the viewing of two pages.

then you try to answer the questions meaningfully. you don't rant back - that would be stupid. you don't roll over and die. you engage a mostly hostile audience to the best of your ability, trying to have an intelligent dialogue and even be light about it.

then you try to get some work done and live your life.

and THEN you come to your home away from home, your peaceful and intelligent little sanctuary at metafilter.com.

and find someone ELSE you don't know calling you a liar and telling you to "get off the web."

gotta tell you, yarf, whoever you are, i really didn't need that.

before you rant, THINK.

had you asked your question privately - or had you posted it here with a bit less inexplicable rage - i would have been happy to discuss it further.

i create the way i create. don't like it, don't read it. want to discuss or debate it, be civil about it.

as it stands, i've had a bellyful of this topic; and the whole idea of talking about one's work - let alone defending a small, technical aspect of it - has become distasteful and depressing to me.

in my book, the subject is closed. debate it without me.
posted by Zeldman at 9:20 PM on May 18, 2000

I'm amazed actually. I sent a response to all this really silly crap on Slashdot:

here

And I even admitted that I thought my comment would be moderated down.

The crux of my argument was that not everyone gets everything. Really. Seriously. Honestly. Many programmers have a very certain and specific mindset, many UI people have another. To think that you're some ubergod who can understand all is really foolish.

So I tried to explain this on Slashdot, to the best of my feeble ability. I tried to say that we all have different opinions, that some people just don't have much that's GOOD to say about web usability. That's ok. That's not a bad thing.

Guess what happened?

I was moderated down.

So thank Matt, for not pulling this on here. Granted, Zeldman got angry (deservedly - very very very) at some of the stupid posts on here - but they had equal ground - we all saw each other..

err.. maybe i should take this to metatalk..



posted by jbeaumont at 9:37 PM on May 18, 2000

Wow, this topic sure got large in a hurry. This is my first visit to it, and there are fifty posts.

If anyone's still listening, I generally prefer to have a URL in the status bar, since often status text doesn't tell me things that I couldn't figure out from the link context. If a site uses status text, and I want a URL, all that's necessary is one right-click on the link.

On my site, I only use status text in one place, the links to other weblogs, and I try to get the best of both worlds. After a few seconds of pointing to the link, the status bar changes from the custom text to the regular URL.
posted by Nikolai at 9:47 PM on May 18, 2000

Holy fuck! This is a lotta messages! A mamma mia!
posted by premiumpolar at 10:27 PM on May 18, 2000

Zeldman, I will always love you :) Seriously though, I respect you more than any other web guy I can think of.
posted by premiumpolar at 10:31 PM on May 18, 2000

Please stop feeling that you have to defend yourself and your choices on your PERSONAL web site, Jeffrey. This all boggles my mind when I think of all the tips you've shared and the projects you've founded and the goodwill you've fostered and all the time you've donated and all the people and causes you've nurtured, supported and helped out along the way (not to mention all the emails you've answered from sometimes annoying people like yours truly). I'm just disgusted.
posted by the webmistress at 10:53 PM on May 18, 2000

1.
I stumbled across Jeffreys site as a failing software engineer, thinking about a career switch to webdesign.
What I saw fundamentally changed how I looked at the web, and how it was designed for.

2.
Jeffrey gets browser makers to listen.
He fights for web standards.

3.
This guy has done more for the web than most of us could even imagine. To snipe at him a la Yarf smacks of ignorance and ungreatfulness.

I know that I speak for a hell of a lot of folks when I say - "Jeffrey, you're a great bloke, and your work rocks."
posted by tomcosgrave at 2:44 AM on May 19, 2000

Links that open a new browser window without warning or link to something other than a webpage. Irritating. Isn't it just common courtesy to let it be known that a link is more than link? Maybe it's just me...
posted by macewan at 2:49 AM on May 19, 2000

OK, just read the last few postings. Slamming Zeldman? Please.

"... smacks of ignorance and ungreatfulness" is right on target!
posted by macewan at 3:04 AM on May 19, 2000

Mac - I did say " a la Yarf". Read more of the thread...and read Slashdot as well.
posted by tomcosgrave at 4:54 AM on May 19, 2000

Indeed.

I've capsulized (as I so often do from reading MF threads) what exactly it is that I *do* think about URL's in the status line and it is this:

The reasons I prefer to see the actual full URL are noted above... but they're mostly power user reasons.

So, the question is: what percentage of surfers are power users, and is that bloc important enough to cater to at the expense of novices, *who might not notice the status line changing, anyway*.

Me, I think not. But I'd also vote for "put another check box up there on the page, like the 'open new windows' one, that can be checked to 'display raw link URLs', and is memorized by cookie".

That's not all that hard to do with tools like HomePage and Dreamweaver these days, is it?
posted by baylink at 7:27 AM on May 19, 2000

And to what extent do what we want all users to become power users. To me, it seems like we should be striving to train up all newbies so that they can make sense of the URL, not hide it from them because they don't understand it. I think there are plenty of places to put "meta" information about a link without hiding the URL in the status bar (see above).
posted by glish at 8:38 AM on May 19, 2000

Wow - how did a technical discussion digress into attacks? I say we all need to be a little less negative, please. Zeldman is STILL one of my heroes - I learned SO much from him.
posted by thinkdink at 8:40 AM on May 19, 2000

Jeez-US...I created a monster.

The only reason I started this thread was curiosity. When I read Zeldman's Daily Report, it really struck me as he was now wondering if it was a bad idea with the status bar.

Well, let's look at the big picture....

300 or so mindless idiots on slashdot, compared to 4 million or so visitors whose lives were changed on zeldman.com....

It must have been hard as hell this week to read so many harsh comments at one sitting...well, from where I sit they were such a small minority of the web. Petty little children that wouldn't know what to do without their precious little WYSIWYG...and I think jealousy was a major factor too.

Well, this one lonely voice here says: "I learned more about web design sneaking a peek at JZ's source codes than most guys learn in six months of school."

He handled the slashdot questions like a pro! Answered the technical ones very knowlegably (is that a word?), and the juvenile ones came with a few hidden bitch-slaps just like a Junior High School Principal would have to...yet stayed above them, without sinking to their petty-ass level....

As far as I'm concerened:

1) I *like* the status bar a la Zeldman/Powazek
2) I *like* seeing a webpage load (snap) as fast as Zeldman's
3) I hope Zeldman will continue to grow as an artist, but not change 'cause some bitter little troll has an axe to grind.
4) Choice is not "Cardinal Sin"

Breaking into song: "Did you ever know you were my heeeeeerooooo....."
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 9:00 AM on May 19, 2000

I second everthing Eric posted above.
I *really* hope comment's like yarf's don't become commonplace, send him back to slashdot with all the other foul mouthed amateurs.
Yarf out, yarf out!
posted by Markb at 9:31 AM on May 19, 2000

I was agreeing.
posted by macewan at 9:46 AM on May 19, 2000

okay, admittedly, when re-reading my comments, they were a bit over the top. i was just expressing my anger about a specific issue and instead directed it at a specific person. the issue is what makes me mad, not zeldman himself, to whom i now apologize. it is your personal site, and it is obviously yours to do as you please. but the thrust of my argument remains -- mess with the expected behavior of my web browser and invite users' wrath. it's that simple, personal site or no.
posted by yarf at 9:01 AM on May 21, 2000

We forgive you Yarf
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 12:46 AM on May 22, 2000