Netscape redesigns.
October 4, 2000 10:34 AM   Subscribe

Netscape redesigns. Eh.
posted by owillis (36 comments total)
At least their election poll is a little more balanced.
posted by owillis at 10:35 AM on October 4, 2000

Their browser still sucks. :-)
posted by ethmar at 10:37 AM on October 4, 2000

yes, yes it does.
posted by bliss322 at 10:45 AM on October 4, 2000

Not to play too heavy-handed a community cop, ethmar, but I find it interesting that yesterday you posted a self-referential topic but quickly said that you didn't realize that it's against the community rules here to do so and that you wouldn't do it again; today, though, you did do it again. What gives?
posted by delfuego at 10:56 AM on October 4, 2000

Because in this case Zeldman did the same thing in the " is giving away domains for $1" thread. Shall I post the link?

I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that self-linking in headline=bad, whereas self-linking in response = OK. I seem to recall Webchick doing the same thing in the "Reading 'Riting 'Rhithmetic" thread as well.

In a nutshell, that's what gives.

Also, to clarify, I indeed did read the community standards, and came away with the impression that flagrant TOPIC postings that basically say "here's my site, gimme feedback" is specifically what is frowned upon.

I'll read it again. I have no life. :-)
posted by ethmar at 11:04 AM on October 4, 2000

topic thread != comment? I've posted links to my already-written comments on a thread I didn't start and didn't get maimed for it.

Is it time to start taking such observations to private mail, or leaving them for Matt?
posted by baylink at 11:04 AM on October 4, 2000

This link alone is my salvation. Who are the "some folks"? Hey, it's webchick!

I've got no beef with webchick. Just pointing out where I get my funny ideas. :-)
posted by ethmar at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2000

I always loved the Netscape aesthetic. It Just Feels Good. I don't know why, because it's not like it's a design revolution or anything. Call me a Netscape whore. I love the sexy blue-green circle-buttons and all those little arrows everywhere. It gets me right here (clutching heart).

And I stubbornly cling to their browser like so much Glad Cling-Wrap. IE just rubs me the wrong way, even if it has more perks.
posted by Succa at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2000

Delfuego: I have always figured that the rule against self-linking applies to front-page posts, not to comments in a thread.
posted by rcade at 11:52 AM on October 4, 2000

Hmm. Actually, I like the redesign. The previous iteration was way too cluttered. This is much cleaner.

But yes, their browser blows monkey chunks. *) *) *)
posted by solistrato at 12:13 PM on October 4, 2000

Ah, haven't ever delved that deeply into the self-referential link etiquette, I guess. I stand corrected, then.
posted by delfuego at 1:01 PM on October 4, 2000

I gave NNPR3 a spin this afternoon and was surprised at how fast it rendered pages. Then i was brought back to earth when it crashed on the first PDF I tried to view.
posted by terrapin at 1:07 PM on October 4, 2000

Lordy lord. I've seen better formed Frontpage code.
posted by tomorama at 1:50 PM on October 4, 2000

Netscape 4 sucks. I use it all the time. So do others. Deal with it.

Netscape 6 sucks. We can hope that when (if) a non-beta release comes out, the bugs will be gone and it won't suck anymore. When (if) it does, you will have to deal with it too.

Isn't that part of what web design is all about?
posted by dithered at 2:07 PM on October 4, 2000

Maybe, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

Standards anyone?

posted by ethmar at 2:17 PM on October 4, 2000

Ok I will kill two jumping-on-bandwagons with one post. Click here to read what the WaSP says about Netscape you'll find the link on the right hand column.

Word to owillis for inspiration.
posted by Brilliantcrank at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2000

k...I couldn't have screwed that any worse.

Click here to read what the WaSP says about Netscape you'll find the link on the right hand column.
posted by Brilliantcrank at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2000

Anytime a non-beta browser is released, it is out there and it is up to us to cope with it. In a perfect world, all browsers would stick to the standards. It's not and they don't. We can try to improve future releases but we can't do anything about past releases.
posted by dithered at 3:20 PM on October 4, 2000

I sent a letter to netscape trying to get them to give up the browser industry or at least make it better.
they send me a message saying "If I can help you in any way, please call me"
that letter I wrote was like 2 pages too
posted by starduck at 3:43 PM on October 4, 2000

>I've got no beef with webchick. Just
>pointing out where I get my funny ideas. :-)

Good thing you don't have a beef with me, ethmar.
I'd have to get involved in this thread. (vbg :-)))

According to MetaFilter's linking etiquette blatant self promotion is bad. Anything that provokes discussion is good.

posted by webchick at 6:03 PM on October 4, 2000

The question here, webchick, is, of course, when is linking to something you wrote "blatant self promotion", and when is it "provoking discussion" -- and note that those two aren't mutually exclusive, even if you leave out discussion about the breaking of the rules.

I don't know that even Matt has decided *exactly* where the line belongs -- we *are* talking about the evils of zero tolerance in another thread, aren't we? -- but I suspect that the flood tide has forced it further towards hardline deprecation of the practice, regardless of where it happens.

What we're *really* talking about here, of course, is the difference between the judgement of the writer v. a third party about the interest of the material...
posted by baylink at 6:58 PM on October 4, 2000

Hmm ... interesting point made by baylink. I'm not a metafilter regular, so maybe I'm a good third party. :))

Seems like there is a discussion about what makes a good discussion already on metatalk. Rules are hard to make, so it seems like a combination of rules and looking at results is what works the best. Lots of people commented on the post webchick did and how interesting the resulting discussion was, so it seems to have worked out for the best

And, as to our regularly scheduled programming ... the big problem I have with Netscape when they went from Netscape to Netcenter is I can't find the one thing I actually care about: Netscape software and related information. Seems a bit weird that they would make it hard to find their software, but then this is the company that overlooked the fact that they had an installed base until it was too late.
posted by CarlMalamud at 7:45 PM on October 4, 2000

From the "walk-down-memory-lane" and "let's-get-this-thread-back-on-track" departments:

I personally think that Netscape should revert to their original design. MOZILLA RULZ!
posted by webchick at 7:47 PM on October 4, 2000

I think I'll remain calm, reserve judgement, and hold my breath for good things from NS6 and Mozilla (and the million Mozilla/Gecko spin-offs). What's going on at Mozilla is undeniably good and probably worth waiting for... even if they did have been working on the damn thing since 1906.

Additionally, the ForumZilla project from Zapogee has good implications as well...
posted by Dean_Paxton at 7:58 PM on October 4, 2000

on webchick's self linking: she just might be too self absorbed. of the 122 posts made to the j. neilsen thread, 24 - nearly one fifth of the total posts were posted by her. either people did not understand her point the first time she made it, or, she needed to harp it some more. her coauthor carl malamud made 8 posts to that thread, bringing the total of authors self linking and then clarifying by posting a grand total of 32 posts. (by comparison, jakob nielsen, who started the whole thing by not mentioning blogger or manila by name in his essay refrained from saying anything. meg and eve made 1 and 3 posts, respectively. dave winer showed up 8 times. stewart (sylloge) made 7 posts - which were by far the best parts in that discussion. zeldman made 12 posts, one of which was to defend derek powazek, because someone - for what ever reason, had to drag derek into that discussion. the co authors, webchick and carl's 32 posts out number the 29 posts made by other involved parties. i would hate to speculate, but, maybe this prompted stewart to wonder who had the most "last words" in the various threads in MeFi.)

personally, i don't mind anyone linking to their own sites.

on netscape's redesign: the site looks rather busy. the tabs and the arrows next to the business center looks a bit off target and confusing. while the arrow next to fun points to request a quote, selling online and specialized goods, clicking on the tab takes you to the correct place, further down on the page, the "fun" section.

on netscape, the web browser: enough has been said. i am afraid, i have nothing new to add. please forgive me.
posted by tamim at 12:12 AM on October 5, 2000

Oh...come on. :-)

It's called "having a discussion." Perhaps we should count and see who contributed the most ASCII characters next? :-))

I would talk more about it here, but the point would be better served in this MetaTalk thread.

posted by webchick at 5:07 AM on October 5, 2000

Webchick wins on ascii characters (15980) but Zeldman is definitely a close second with (13916). Perhaps we should take both of them out and shoot them? Seriously folks, the only thing that matters is the quality of the discussion not meaningless statistical analysis.

BTW, looking at Tamim's post, there are 13 lines analyzing infractions of perceived non-value, 4 lines on-topic, and 2 off-topic. :))

And, one of the things you'll notice on that thread is words like "too self-absorbed" don't show up. Perhaps having a strong moderator isn't a bad thing? Maybe it keeps the discussion civil and on-topic?

In any case, this definitely belongs on the metatalk thread if it belongs anywhere.
posted by CarlMalamud at 6:06 AM on October 5, 2000

I felt kinda guilty posting to as many threads as I have in such a short span of time.

Now I feel better, sorta.

I side with Webchick (who I don't have a beef with) and Carl (who won't put my shrine devoted to my evil dog in the doggie blog webring. Gimme a break Carl! I'm trying to teach him to type, but his paws are so durn big!) Self-linking in the interest of stirring up conversation is no vice.

I assumed (correctly I think) that Zeldman linked to his own "rant" concerning his battle with since it was easier than re-hashing the whole sad tale in MeFi-land.

Just the same, I'm making a conscious effort to find alternative sites to get my point across, when that linking bug strikes.

On topic: Netscape's site redesign is somewhat of an improvement, with the removal of the annoying pop-up windows that have effectively killed my interest in setting foot into their site ever again.
posted by ethmar at 6:30 AM on October 5, 2000

>Just the same, I'm making a conscious effort
>to find alternative sites to get my point across...

((Yes. Not to be self-absorbed, but I link to 7...count 'em...7 sites by other individuals in that thread. Curse the linking bug and the wretched soul who taught me to author hypertext! Hee hee :-))

In other news, MOZILLA STOMPS IE! Mozilla RULZ!!!!!!
posted by webchick at 6:58 AM on October 5, 2000

And this just in: Opera still costs money.

>Mozilla RULZ!!!!!!

Yeah, maybe Milestone 18 will clear up the "multiple FONT tags" problem.
posted by ethmar at 7:13 AM on October 5, 2000

(( Mozilla RULZ!!!!!! ))

ethmar, consider my tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek with these declarations, and consider "Magic Pooty" an esteemed member of the doggie blog webring. :-)))
posted by webchick at 7:34 AM on October 5, 2000

Aw shucks. :-)
posted by ethmar at 7:53 AM on October 5, 2000

I lose. I went to Netscape's redesigned site, voted for the White Sox, hit "back" and got a stinking pop-up box touting NN 4.75.

I'm never going back there again.

posted by ethmar at 7:56 AM on October 5, 2000

to me there are two aspects to the netscape re-design...

one) i find it a large improvement over the old design - the content grouping is suddenly clear, the color usage has greatly increased legibility, and it just looks nicer & fresher than before (which is a very personal opinion, but...)

two) but it now looks like every other damn portal site on the net - CNN, BBC, MS, etc, etc. Is everybody using the same design template these days? Is there only one way to do information-heavy sites? Or do people just take the easy road, and stick with what already works? Booring...

As for the whole browser debate, well, visitors to K10k already know what I think of Netscape... We've already decided that when/if Netscape 6 comes out, we'll give it a whirl, and if it's great, stable and useable we'll do a specific version of the site that's optimized for that browser (and kill all support for Netscape 4.0+ browsers).

If not, we'll simply stop supporting all Netscape browsers at the site, because i don't have the energy to keep on dealing with the hideously frustrating bugs in NN 4.0
posted by mschmidt at 2:01 PM on October 5, 2000

But then you'll look like a goof that can't write HTML to save his life. If there's some way to clearly express to your average AOL-style user that it's not your fault that NN4 can't display a page without all kinds of hand holding and redundancy, I'm all for it.

Baaaaandwidth! Baaaaaaaaandwidth!!
posted by ethmar at 2:14 PM on October 5, 2000

it's easy... well, sort of easy - do what zelman does and re-direct people to a page that explains to them what's wrong...

we've already got the page lined up - we just need the excuse to use it :)
posted by mschmidt at 6:34 PM on October 8, 2000

« Older Private school ejects Sailor Moon fan   |   A large collection o' more on the CueCrap. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments