Forum Moderators: open
There is no evidence that Google currently uses any "page quality" metrics, but it is very possible that at some time they will do so. Popups and dead links would be two possible targets of any "page quality" metric.
Assuming that Google did start evaluating page quality, what features do you think they would take into account?
-panic
I don't mind at all actually. I did learn something new today. (grin)
but an example against both would be the .doc and .ppt content we find on Google - we sure don't all have Word and Powerpoint : )
.doc and .ppt still suffer from the fact that they aren't open formats, and therefore people with non-Microsoft software don't necessarily see what you intended. OpenOffice is pretty darned good by my standards, but even I occasionally see things that must be import artifacts when I try to view MS Office docs. Things are much worse with the non-Macromedia Flash players - it's a hard job trying to implement a closed file format, so I don't blame the developers, but the results are not exactly pleasing.
By the way, if Macromedia actually goes through with making Flash an open standard (I think I've heard rumors), my objection in principle will go away. A month or three after that, my objection in practice might, too, though I suspect I'll never like it any better than I like PDF. (Yeah, it's open, but it's a pain to do anything with data from one other than just look or print.)
Having said that, I do find they can be useful for demonstrating a products use if selling that product. But then the user has the choice don't they :o)
Dave
I assume you object to use of the IE browser (MS proprietary), gif images (CompuServ proprietary), WMP / RealPlayer (MS / Real Networks proprietary), PDF (Adobe proprietary), &c., on the same grounds? Would that be a correct assumption?
Ps. Apple QuickTime plays SWF contents just fine for me.
Jordan
PS: GIF Patent expired, so not proprietary anymore.
SN
-panic
I assume you object to use of the IE browser (MS proprietary), gif images (CompuServ proprietary), WMP / RealPlayer (MS / Real Networks proprietary), PDF (Adobe proprietary), &c., on the same grounds? Would that be a correct assumption?
Nope. HTML is open and so is HTTP, so look at it in whatever browser you like, even if I think there are many reasons why your choice is a bad one. GIF patents expired, so I now allow them on my sites because the formats are open - again, view them in whatever browser, image viewer, or editor you like. I hate proprietary software, but as long as the data formats are open I don't care what software you use to view or generate data. For that matter, I have no objection in principle to an well-specified open data format for which there happens to exist only proprietary viewing software as yet, though in practice I wouldn't use such a thing myself.
WMP and RealPlayer are closed in both data format and software, so yes, I do object to those on the same grounds as I object to Flash.
PDF is a published standard, and Adobe is pretty good about sticking to it and actually making sure that open source tools exist to work with it, so it's pretty much OK by me.
Just to be clear, I think this is all important in the context of the internet and the web, where I believe interoperability is extremely important. Open vs. closed software issues are separate, and I care about your choices there a whole lot less than I care about the data formats you publish in.
I never thought about it like that, you have a rather big point there. Made by one and, even given to all, all content 'belongs' to the one who made the format. This is the first valid reason I've seen to dislike Flash. Funny - now that I think about it I've had the same thoughts as yours concerning Real content. Perhaps they're more obvious about their goal to dominate a market shared by other supports, Quicktime, etc. Flash still stands alone for what it does, but still.
That said, when an application or new format goes 'public', (or open source, or GNU), what does it's inventor get in return for his work and ingenuousity? Just wondering.
For example, you can't view dHTML or VBScript in Mozilla no matter how many dHTML and VBScript tutorials and manuals there are on MSDN--that is, unless you use a third-party plugin like Neptune.
Flash is specific content, and thus, as almost all other specific content, requires a specific view. The Flash plugin, or Director plugin from MM are two options, and Apple's QuickTime plugin is another.
Let's really keep the web 'open', and allow authors to use as much (or as little) specific content as they wish to use, and leave it to users to decide whether they want to see this content or not. :)
Jordan
Good:
Good spelling
Good content (I don't know how to measure it).
Alternative code for IMGs, Frames, Scripts, etc.
Back - fore color contrast.
Bad:
Abuse of scripting.
Code errors.
Aberrations:
Non-standard tags and technologies (like in FPage sites).
Answer time > 10-20s with a 56k modem.
A good-spelled page is easier to read, 'cos no misspelled words have to be guessed by visitors. The content quality is the most important factor. It's always important to add alternative code for users that have some features disabled.
The back - fore color contrast is very difficult: the background has to take the interest of the user but without distracting while browsing. Fore text and items must be clearly visible upon background and have to have an interesting appearance.
Code errors are hated by users. There is no worse mesage for a surfer than a code error that lets her/him out of the site (the page does not load correctly)
The abuse of scripting is only an increaser to the chance of making a bad code and to the bad consequences of code errors.
Since Internet is designed to be accesable by everybody, a page that only works in a system with certain configuration can never be a good site.
And remember: normal users have NOT high speed connections as web designers. The common configuration, at least in my town, is: Modem 28-56k, can only connect from 6pm to 8am (weekends and holidays 24h) paying between 15€ and 21€ each month, depending on compay. So a page must be small enough to be quickly shown to this kind of surfers.
Greetings,
Herenvardö
Lucky me: I live in Europe but my clients are in Japan. A broadband 500k/s costs around 25€ there. I wish someone would break the European monoply that keeps prices high for broadband... 45€ a month (same speed as above) average here.
That said, when an application or new format goes 'public', (or open source, or GNU), what does it's inventor get in return for his work and ingenuousity? Just wondering.
I think there are a lot of different models here. One would be Adobe's model for PostScript and PDF - I actualy have at least three or four PDF and PS viewers on my home computer, none of which are Adobe branded. However, I'm quite aware that Adobe in fact wrote Ghostscript, an essential part of the printing system on most Unix and unix-like operating systems, and it includes at least one of those viewer programs. People still associate the PostScript and PDF formats so strongly with Adobe that I'd be suprised if non-Adobe PDF authoring tools have any percentage of the commercial market. I know Adobe sells a commercial version of Ghostscript, as well, presumably with support and branding.
HTML is an example of another model - nobody owns the format, but there are enough parties that benefit from its existence and standardization that they keep the W3C in operation. XML, MathML, and SVG all arise out of the same sort of effort. (All at the W3C if I remember right.)
No such thing exists as far as I know, but wouldn't every word processor vendor except Microsoft benefit if there was a standardised, accepted word processing document format that was rich enough to cover everything a good modern word processor does? Suddenly instead of having to have 50 different import/export filters with their own bugs, you could have one, and blame any interoperability problems squarely on your competitor. (This is a pipe dream for various reasons, but it's intended to illustrate the idea.)
<added>I almost forgot - there's a HUGE difference between "MS proprietary HTML" and HTML. Don't serve me the MS proprietary crap. I can't see it without firing up IE, and it is most certainly hard enough to get IE working on Linux that nobody who isn't an highly motivated power user is likely to try. I'm only motivated so I can make sure that my web sites are still usable in that PoS - I won't bother launching it to look at someone else's web site.</added>
You need to use specific viewers for specific (i.e., non-HTML) content in most cases, no matter how open and well documented (or closed and undocumented) the protocol is.
you can't view dHTML or VBScript in Mozilla
As far as VBScript, if it's well enough specified that someone really could write their own working interpreter that would run all valid VBS code, then I guess it's OK.
That said, programming languages and platforms are somewhat different from data formats, so the issues are a bit different. DHTML isn't just a data format.
leave it to users to decide whether they want to see this content or not.
Little blue puzzle pieces in the middle of my screen surrounded by a sea of white are low quality content.
If you look at my site, without a flash plugin, you'll see the opposite : )
The problem is that if the format of the data is closed and undocumented, you can't use the data unless you have the particular viewing program written and distributed by the owner of the closed format.
Yeah...that's called reality. Data in format X can only be viewed by viewer for X format. Doesn't matter if it's open or closed, that's how it works. You want to view this HTML here....you don't got get your electric can opener. You don't send it to QCD player. You open an HTML browser. Not a shocking concept.
BS on the first count. Use the *standard* *open* DOM and Ecmascript and you can have DHTML that works in Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror just fine [...]
Please show me how to make this work in Mozilla. I tried without success:
<HTML XMLNS:IE>
<HEAD>
<STYLE>
IE\:Coolbutton{
behavior: url(/behaviors/coolbutton.htc) ;
}
IE\:Coolbar{
behavior: url(/behaviors/coolbar.htc) ;
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<IE:Coolbar
ID = "oCB"
SIZEALL = "true"
STYLE = "padding: 5px;">
<IE:Coolbutton
ID = "oCButton1">
Button Label
</IE:Coolbutton>
</IE:Coolbar>
</BODY>
</HTML>Mabye what you mean is that with a specific dHTML layer installed for Mozilla (like DynAPI), it works? I agree, and that was my point--specific content requires a specific viewer.
Weren't we discussing page quality metrics? Quality is subjective, and content formats IM(sometimes)HO make a big difference in how *I* evaluate quality.
Quality has to be understood in the context of the type of content that is presented. But you seem to be automatically excluding some types of content from even being considered for quality, just because they don't fit with your philosophy that every kind of content must be completely 'open.'
Seems like a red herring to me. A person could (theoretically) produce the best quality music video, ever, in Realmedia or Windows Media Video. Or the best quality biography of Michael Jordan, in Windows Word Document or PowerPoint or PDF.
Little blue puzzle pieces in the middle of my screen surrounded by a sea of white are low quality content.
That is not the content, that is what you see in place of the content, because you, as a user, have decided not to receive that type of content. IMO, that's exactly the way it should be! But you can't use the fact that you don't want to receive that type of content as an argument against the quality of the content (which you haven't even seen in such a case).
Jordan
I think what we're all trying to say here is that you can use any text editor to create HTML... in other words, you don't need a WYSIWYG editor.
However, to create ShockWave Files, you need Flash. You can't create SWF's in a text editor.
-panic
>>You need to use specific viewers for specific (i.e., non-HTML) content in most cases, no matter how open and well documented (or closed and undocumented) the protocol is.
I vote for OPEN data formats: as more open is a format, it becomes easier to get specific viewers:). If you use a closed, undocumented data format, users won't find the specific viewer or they will have to pay for it:(.
Free Software & Technologies Forever! :):):)
Greetings,
Herenvardö
perhaps we should divide things between three subjects : compatibility, functionality, taste.
Whose to say that they're in different categories? If you have good taste, you'd create a site that's compatable and functions the same accross all browsers.
-panic
Greetings,
Herenvardö
Are you suggesting that most users' browsers aren't capable of displaying pages that lack perfectly written code?
If Google can crawl the pages, users can read the pages.
Google's mission is to index the Web's information, not to make judgments about the underlying code.
Greetings,
Herenvardö
