| 6:17 pm on Jan 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 7:16 pm on Jan 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your constructive comment!
All of my subscribers do not have a problem with the pop ups, under the terms and conditions they have consented to receive such advertisements. It is what keeps my service free to them.
They also have the choice of html or text, so obviously html based receivers have requested their newsletter in this way.
It is just a simple question I am asking and would appreciate some helpful information.
| 8:14 pm on Jan 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Thanks for your constructive comment!
Robert was very restrained, if anyone sent me such an email then I'd **** the ***** :)
BTW, Welcome to WebmasterWorld jon_bell
| 8:52 pm on Jan 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 9:53 pm on Jan 26, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I finally became competent in it and it's going away?????????
where did you read or hear this??????
| 12:56 am on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
jonbell, welcome to Webmaster World.
You ran into a pretty hot topic on your first post, here (would you be willing to consider those reactions as your initiation, rather than a sign of things to come?)
I've found it to be a lot more fruitful to send email users a text email with links to web pages for the fancy layouts and such. AOL hasn't even shown clickable links or graphics for many years, and most lists I see have lots of AOLers.
I personally filter out HTML email. On the whole, I feel it wastes my time, pure and simple. But I have a client who has shown solid success sending HTML compared to text. I guess it depends on knowing your audience.
I personally hope js stays around. I find I can get some great usability advantages using basic functions. I just wish there was a way to stop automatic pop-ups and still allow pop-ups that open by clicking a link. It's the opt-in principle.
| 3:59 am on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>I just wish there was a way to stop automatic pop-ups and still allow pop-ups that open by clicking a link. It's the opt-in principle.
I was recently embarassed at a client by this very problem. I recently installed a pop-up killer for IE because I got sick of seeing those ads for the X-10 camera and Orbitz. It was great.
Then I was doing a demo of a nifty ASP/JS site which required pop-ups and I got the error message instead of my pop-up. At first I didn't know what was wrong and I stumbled a bit at my demo. Then I figured it out and when I explained it to the audience we all had a good laugh.
| 12:44 pm on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
hehehe, sometimes it's nice to provoke a reaction.
The question is how many users are running with js disabled [or not even installed]? My best guess is 10% + and rising.
| 5:39 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree that using pop ups in emails is going to far. In this particular case it makes perfect sense, though... the users agree to it beforehand.
| 7:08 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> I'm not sure I understand what everyone is saying about security risks?
I think that's one of the reasons search engines don't spider and check js files. They can't risk running the code on their machines!
| 9:09 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The language, as you probably know, can't write to disk. It can't even write to memory in any useful way.
That article was about common email worms which require the user to click a confirmation box or open an attachment (unless you count that old Outlook hole) in order to work.
| 9:19 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm hoping maybe I can stop a few more people from turning it off for no reason. We designers can do good things with it :-)
| 11:49 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Specific from Netscape:
What users agree to get is not what they might actually end up getting, which could turn out to be quite a surprise for them.
| 2:49 pm on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The nummerous annoying ways people try to get your attention is a more structural problem, and not easy to solve. Be sure that all your websites have a friendly & helpfull interface, and it just might inspire other people ;-)
| 11:25 am on Jan 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the info Marcia...
| 2:19 am on Mar 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
WHY, do REPLIES have to have such bite and basically make the sender feel like sh*%. I am refering to the earlier messages in the thread.
My god, we have been given the ability to help each other here, NOT put each other down with attitude. For each person that puts up a message that's WRONG in context, that person will know something everyone else has failed to realise. Maybe we should work together not against each other. Members seem to find newgroups as a way to put people down.
Wake up and smell the keyboard...
Respect to you ALL
| 8:50 am on Mar 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Er... I agree with you that there's no need to attack people.
| 1:38 am on Mar 7, 2002 (gmt 0)|