Li'sar says: Edit Now!

[WWWWolf]

I hope no one minds a little bit silly use of the Wesnoth artwork in an effort to promote good cause and, at the same time, poke a little bit of fun at recent overly widespread web game marketing.


(Image details page)

When I saw the, *ahem*, original banner ad campaign, I thought that parody was inevitable. So, I had to figure out a good recipient - and if there's one cause worth promoting, it's Wikipedia, particularly the video game coverage (since the parody is... sort of... about a video game... in case we somehow managed to forget it in midst of all this). Since Wikipedia's own internal banner ads must use free artwork and there's few Free Software games with high quality artwork, Wesnoth was an obvious choice.

*sigh* I know, I'm not as funny as I used to be. But still.

[Ken_Oh]

Hah, you should have just used a close-up of Asheviere's chest from here.

[Araja]

I watched those ads as they changed, and everytime I saw a new design I would think "what the hell?" with progressively increasing levels of amazement that they hadn't got into trouble yet.

[Aethaeryn]

I watched those ads as they changed, and everytime I saw a new design I would think "what the hell?" with progressively increasing levels of amazement that they hadn't got into trouble yet.

Yes, interesting blog post; quite amusing.

Advertising like this is why Adblock Plus is the most popular Firefox add-on (when you go to the add-on website and sort by popularity), which is a shame for honest web developers since it cuts down on their potential revenues.

In my opinion, all ads should switch to non-intrusive text-based that blend with the website theme (i.e. not extremely bright red against purple if the website is a standard black-text-on-white-background). The odds of that happening are about the same as all television ads sticking to normal volume instead of being 3x as loud as the television show you're watching.

[Kalajel]

Hah, you should have just used a close-up of Asheviere's chest from here.

OHLOOKBOOBIESCLICKCLICKCLICK!

[WWWWolf]

Hah, you should have just used a close-up of Asheviere's chest from here.

Welllll - the video games wikiproject is quite active, so we're probably not that desperate yet. But there still could be a need for more manpower in the future. Oh yes, I can see the ads now. "Clear the cleanup backlog SECRETLY! Be enthralled by the evil queen, ifyouknowwhatImean! Click edit!"

[lmelior]

OHLOOKBOOBIESCLICKCLICKCLICK!

Your avatar is absolutely perfect for that post.

[Zarel]

Advertising like this is why Adblock Plus is the most popular Firefox add-on (when you go to the add-on website and sort by popularity), which is a shame for honest web developers since it cuts down on their potential revenues.

This kind of advertising is actually pretty tame. Not animated, no sound (I kept my computer muted so often back when I still played Kingdom of Loathing, because KoLWiki had an ad in rotation that played "CONGRATULATIONS! YOU'VE JUST WON A FREE NINTENDO WII!" every few minutes)... There are far worse ads (popunders that circumvent popup blockers...) that have caused some the rise of NoScript.

And, speaking as a Web developer, NoScript is far, far, far more harmful to the progress of the Web than Adblock is. I can live with AdBlock - I get a bit less revenue from people who weren't that likely to click ads in the first place... Sure, it undercuts my profits by a fair margin, but meh, I'll find a way to deal with it. NoScript, however... it destroys all of JavaScript, except for sites the user has allowed. My beautiful, beautiful website... and all the interactivity is gone! Gone! D:

[AI]

And, speaking as a Web developer, NoScript is far, far, far more harmful to the progress of the Web than Adblock is. I can live with AdBlock - I get a bit less revenue from people who weren't that likely to click ads in the first place... Sure, it undercuts my profits by a fair margin, but meh, I'll find a way to deal with it. NoScript, however... it destroys all of JavaScript, except for sites the user has allowed. My beautiful, beautiful website... and all the interactivity is gone! Gone! D:

Unless javascript is absolutely required, (say, google maps) your site should function just fine without javascript. If it doesn't, I'd better be interested in its content.

Usually, more attention to web-two-point-oh stuff and other eyecandy means less attention to actual content.

[Zarel]

Unless javascript is absolutely required, (say, google maps) your site should function just fine without javascript. If it doesn't, I'd better be interested in its content.

Usually, more attention to web-two-point-oh stuff and other eyecandy means less attention to actual content.

Oh, of course. JavaScript is never absolutely required (not even in Google Maps - try going there with JS off, it works just fine), but it does make an interactive website significantly better (say, Google Maps). If you were interested in a website's content, then you'd be fine with JavaScript off, whether at Google Maps, or one of my own websites; the only websites that require JavaScript are the badly written ones (and the ones with video, like YouTube).

The bigger problem is, without JavaScript, you're missing a lot of more interactive features, or other distinguishing features designed to make your user experience better (say, an automatic username availability checker, or a button that lets you insert an image to phpBB, or keyboard shortcuts, or Lightbox, or IPB's Quick Edit feature, or Facebook's/Gmail's IM feature, etc).

[AI]

Google maps was a bad example. IM is indeed a much better choice. (though I've seen it done (approximated) in plain HTML)
The only reason HTML 4 (5 has <video>) requires javascript for video is a patent.

Unfortunately, numerous FOSS sites have 'upgraded' their interface lately, leaving them unusable without javascript. Though none are as bad as one website that requires XSS (!!) to pass your order to their payment system provider. (or whatever that's called)

[Zarel]

Google maps was a bad example. IM is indeed a much better choice.

No, it isn't...

(though I've seen it done (approximated) in plain HTML)

Exactly.

The only reason HTML 4 (5 has <video>) requires javascript for video is a patent.

Exactly.

In terms of NoScript, video isn't that big of a deal, since it's pretty obvious "Turn on JavaScript to see the video" "Oh! Temp allow." It's the sites that can be used without JavaScript that suck.

For instance, what if you had NoScript, and you went to Google Maps. You'd be getting a vastly inferior experience, but would it ever occur to you to turn on JavaScript?

Unfortunately, numerous FOSS sites have 'upgraded' their interface lately, leaving them unusable without javascript. Though none are as bad as one website that requires XSS (!!) to pass your order to their payment system provider. (or whatever that's called)

Yes, and these sites don't suffer, since NoScript users will simply temp allow them.

It's the legitimate and well-made sites, such as Google Maps, that people will visit, and never know that their experience could be so much better.

[xbriannova]

You think the advertisements are bad? Wait till you actually try the game. The people inside are all perverted sex maniacs. For every five minutes, there's always someone asking whether there's a girl who wants to 'get it on' . There's always someone asking for free sex . Then there's the gameplay- Its so freaking slow and straightforward with little thinking involved.

The only reason I tried the online game is because I was extremely bored and depressed over some real life issues. I quit a few hours later. Even if I want to try again, I can't and boy am I glad. The reason's because there's some bug that jammed the game at the loading screen. Don't play that trash guys. My rating? 0/10. I admit I was hooked for a little while but ultimately, Evony's hardly worth your time.

[Zarel]

You think the advertisements are bad? Wait till you actually try the game. The people inside are all perverted sex maniacs. For every five minutes, there's always someone asking whether there's a girl who wants to 'get it on' . There's always someone asking for free sex

Perhaps this wouldn't happen if the advertisement weren't intentionally designed to be similar to a sex ad...

[AI]

Unfortunately, numerous FOSS sites have 'upgraded' their interface lately, leaving them unusable without javascript. Though none are as bad as one website that requires XSS (!!) to pass your order to their payment system provider. (or whatever that's called)

Yes, and these sites don't suffer, since NoScript users will simply temp allow them.

Actually, I don't allow slashdot and wesnoth-umc-dev is seriously considering dumping sourceforge over this and similar things.
It's only stackoverflow (which actually uses javascript in mostly-sensible ways and has a good interface) that I've perma-allowed

It's the legitimate and well-made sites, such as Google Maps, that people will visit, and never know that their experience could be so much better.

The small "your web browser is not fully supported Read more" text with link to explanation works perfectly fine. Google isn't the only one who thought that might be a good idea.