By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,623 Members | 1,301 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,623 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Robot.txt?

P: n/a
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
78 Replies


P: n/a
In article <9duCb.444644$0v4.20770093@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Arthur Pratz <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?


That's "robots.txt", which might explain why you didn't have much
luck when you tried searching for it on your own.

Two helpful resources:
http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/robots.html
http://www.searchengineworld.com/cgi-bin/robotcheck.cgi

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9d***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named Find Yourself:
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9d***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com

Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.


What navigation?

<http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chowardcompany.c om%2F>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Tim
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote
http://www.chowardcompany.com


"Find Yourself" <nu**@null.com> wrote:
Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.


Why? Isn't it more sensible to read a page before following any links?
If the links were first, you'd have to scroll back to them.

Putting links at the top is also bad news for search engine results, as
a general rule. Pages found by the engine often end being presented as
just a page title and list of meaningless links, without any useful
descriptive snippet from the page.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Can you explain "UI is wrong on so many levels" in greater detail to me?
I used Frontpage 02 to create code.
Thanks for your time.
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


"Find Yourself" <nu**@null.com> wrote in message
news:br**********@news-int2.gatech.edu...
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9d***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.

Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
In article <qu********************************@4ax.com>,
Tim <do**********@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote

Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.


Why? Isn't it more sensible to read a page before following any links?
If the links were first, you'd have to scroll back to them.


What if a visitor comes directly to the page via a search engine, and sees
quickly (by glancing at the first screenful of information) that it's not
quite what he wants, but what he wants is likely to be somewhere else on
the site?

I put my navigation links both at the top and bottom of the page, for that
reason. I use plain text links to make a simple breadcrumb trail, so they
have useful keywords in them, which helps the search engines.

--
Jon Bell <jt*******@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
In article <YeDCb.447298$0v4.20820961@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Arthur Pratz <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Can you explain "UI is wrong on so many levels" in greater detail to me?
I used Frontpage 02 to create code.
Thanks for your time.
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


Before I give my answer to your question, let me point out:

makes it harder to follow discussions.
before the material you're commenting on, it
When you put your comments
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#upside

Now, I don't know what the other poster was thinking, but here's
what I suggest for your site:

There are (apparently) decorative images of chewing gum, with no
indication of what they're for or what the site is about, until (on
my screen anyway) one scrolls down. "CHoward" is not exactly a
household name. As a general rule you wants _some_ useful content to
appear "above the fold", i.e. near the top of the page.

The images don't have alt=" " attributes. What is a blind person, or
someone using a text browser, supposed to do with your site?

As far as I can see there are no links to anything in the site,
except a mailto: for the Webmaster. That last is good, and I wish
more sites had it; but having no other links is not good. If your
site is nothing but a home page now, admit that and tell people when
it will be worth coming back -- then stick to that self-imposed
deadline. Don't tell people "check back often" -- that's a dead
giveaway that getting the site done is a low priority for you.

Lose the "under construction"; it looks amateurish. Every web site
is under construction, even those that haven't been updated in five
years.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ye***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Can you explain "UI is wrong on so many levels" in greater detail to me?
I used Frontpage 02 to create code.
Thanks for your time.
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


Ok...
First, I apologize for the criticism without compliment. I actually thought
the mint/gum packages were kind of eye catching, but when I first visited
the page it took me a while to figure out exactly what you do. The only
reason I said put some navigation at the top is because in my quest for
figuring out your markets and products, I had to figure out where your
navigation was. Now I am not sure if this is bad UI or not, but I am going
to say it is since the purpose of a website is to inform visitors about the
product and other information the company wishes to convey. And as someone
mentioned, I guess the links aren't showing up in lynx and other text-based
browsers. Now the proportion of visitors that would be using this is
probably very minimal, but I would recommend placing some kind of menu
somewhere that didn't involve the heavy scripting. Just my $.02.
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Jon Bell wrote:
What if a visitor comes directly to the page via a search engine, and sees
quickly (by glancing at the first screenful of information) that it's not
quite what he wants, but what he wants is likely to be somewhere else on
the site?

I put my navigation links both at the top and bottom of the page, for that
reason.
By your own argument, it might be better to compose an executive
summary of the page contents, followed by navigation links (preceded
by one which would skip to the main content), followed by the main
content itself. And then the navigation links repeated at the foot,
as you say.

My own choice, however, is to supply the link URLs in <link rel="..."
for the more discerning browsers, and the same link URLs at the foot
of the page. I don't really care for cluttering up the start of the
page itself with navigation (and then having to add that extra link in
order to achieve adequate accessibility).

OTOH there's something to be said for putting link hrefs at the end
and using CSS to propose that they be displayed near the top right of
the page. By that means, they don't obstruct accessibility to the
content, but they're in a fairly convenient place for the mainstream
browsing situation.

I never really -did- understand where the widely-observed convention
of putting links in a *left*-hand margin came from. It seems to me
to be quite a poor choice, out of all the possibilities.

(None of these comments apply directly to a page whose chief purpose
is to be a menu of links, of course.)
I use plain text links to make a simple breadcrumb trail, so they
have useful keywords in them, which helps the search engines.


Good idea. I never did get around to that yet, I admit.
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named Find Yourself:
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ye***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Can you explain "UI is wrong on so many levels" in greater detail to me?
I used Frontpage 02 to create code.
Thanks for your time.
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com
Ok...

<snippage>
And as someone
mentioned, I guess the links aren't showing up in lynx and other text-based
browsers. Now the proportion of visitors that would be using this is
probably very minimal, but I would recommend placing some kind of menu
somewhere that didn't involve the heavy scripting. Just my $.02.


Not only text browsers: include the ~15% or so that have JavaScript
turned off. With js off, there is not only no navigation, there is
also no company logo at the top of the page. Just a large area filled
with background image, then finally some gum pictures.

Prominent company name and purpose, and navigation, is too important
to rely on JavaScript.

Remember: Google can't find the navigation either.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
In article <br**********@news-int.gatech.edu> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Find Yourself wrote:
http://www.chowardcompany.com
And as someone
mentioned, I guess the links aren't showing up in lynx and other text-based
browsers.


"The links"? WHAT links, pray tell? I'm using Mozilla 1.4 -- hardly
a "text-based browser" -- and the only link I could find on the
entire page was the mailto for the webmaster.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Hi All,
I want to thank everyone who has posted.
I am learning slowly.
The site does have a JS Pulldown Menu bar on the bottom of the page.
The top of the page also has the DHTML effects.
I am planning on getting rid of the DHTML effects.
However, a plain text menu bar would be so many lines of links I didnt like
it.
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to mine.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
In article <br**********@news-int.gatech.edu> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Find Yourself wrote:
http://www.chowardcompany.com
And as someone
mentioned, I guess the links aren't showing up in lynx and other

text-basedbrowsers.


"The links"? WHAT links, pray tell? I'm using Mozilla 1.4 -- hardly
a "text-based browser" -- and the only link I could find on the
entire page was the mailto for the webmaster.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Arthur Pratz wrote:
...
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to
mine.


They don't work either.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named Arthur Pratz:
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to mine.


I doubt if anyone here ever said Microsoft did everything right. <g>

Consider: http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

If your whole site works in this viewer, e.g. it is navigable and all
the content is presented, you're on your way to a good site.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Is there a reason that you have a text only browser?
Just curious?
Mike Pratz


"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:yZ******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Quoth the raven named Arthur Pratz:
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to
mine.
I doubt if anyone here ever said Microsoft did everything right. <g>

Consider: http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

If your whole site works in this viewer, e.g. it is navigable and all
the content is presented, you're on your way to a good site.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Arthur Pratz blurted out atop a fullquote:
Is there a reason that you have a text only browser?
Is there a reason that you blunder into a usenet discussion group
without bothering to check the accepted netiquette?
Just curious?


Indeed you are.

bye
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Maybe I should of asked this question:
Do you use more than just the test only browser?


"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Arthur Pratz blurted out atop a fullquote:
Is there a reason that you have a text only browser?


Is there a reason that you blunder into a usenet discussion group
without bothering to check the accepted netiquette?
Just curious?


Indeed you are.

bye

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
In article <PEMCb.191407$Ec1.7073718@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Arthur Pratz wrote:
However, a plain text menu bar would be so many lines of links I didnt like
it.
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to mine.


"If Bobby jumped off the roof, would you jump off the roof too?"

Microsoft is hardly an example of good practice. If you think your
menu had too many links then deal with that design problem. Don't
just wish it away by fooling yourself into a Javascript solution.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
In article <QmNCb.191580$Ec1.7077046@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Arthur Pratz wrote:
Is there a reason that you have a text only browser?
Just curious?
Is there a reason you insist on posting upside down?
Mike Pratz


Which is it, Arthur or Mike? or Find?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
In article <QmNCb.191580$Ec1.7077046@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Arthur Pratz wrote:
Is there a reason that you have a text only browser?
Just curious?


Is there a reason you insist on posting upside down?
Mike Pratz


Which is it, Arthur or Mike? or Find?


Say what? Check the IP and news server the posts are coming from. I don't
know about Arthur and Mike, but I am my own person.
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Stan, My name is Mike.
Arthur is my father, obviosly i am using his computer at this time.
It sounds to me that your not a big fan of JavaScript.
Would you agree that there are most likely a larger percent of sites on the
web with Java or other types of code.
I find that it lets the web designer use and show there imagination better
than ordinary text.
Before you go off on me, This is my OPINION.
Mike

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
In article <PEMCb.191407$Ec1.7073718@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Arthur Pratz wrote:
However, a plain text menu bar would be so many lines of links I didnt likeit.
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to
mine.
"If Bobby jumped off the roof, would you jump off the roof too?"

Microsoft is hardly an example of good practice. If you think your
menu had too many links then deal with that design problem. Don't
just wish it away by fooling yourself into a Javascript solution.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Arthur Pratz wrote:
Stan, My name is Mike.
Arthur is my father, obviosly i am using his computer at this time.
It sounds to me that your not a big fan of JavaScript.
Would you agree that there are most likely a larger percent of sites on the
web with Java or other types of code.
I find that it lets the web designer use and show there imagination better
than ordinary text.
Before you go off on me, This is my OPINION.


Ok, you are really irritating a lot of people by posting above the
message you're quoting. Just press ctrl+end before you start typing.

Also, it would be nice if you respected people's time by spellchecking
your message, or at least making sure it's somewhat readable.

You'll find that everyone will be far more willing to help you out. Just
thought I'd clarify because other posters have tried to tell you the
same thing in snarky ways that may have caused you to you miss the point.

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a

"JustAnotherGuy" <ga*@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:br************@ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de...
Arthur Pratz wrote:
Stan, My name is Mike.
Arthur is my father, obviosly i am using his computer at this time.
It sounds to me that your not a big fan of JavaScript.
Would you agree that there are most likely a larger percent of sites on the web with Java or other types of code.
I find that it lets the web designer use and show there imagination better than ordinary text.
Before you go off on me, This is my OPINION.


Ok, you are really irritating a lot of people by posting above the
message you're quoting. Just press ctrl+end before you start typing.

Also, it would be nice if you respected people's time by spellchecking
your message, or at least making sure it's somewhat readable.

You'll find that everyone will be far more willing to help you out. Just
thought I'd clarify because other posters have tried to tell you the
same thing in snarky ways that may have caused you to you miss the point.

My apologies to all the people I have irritated.
I thank all the people who gave me tips and sharing there know how with me.
I certainly didn't want to make anyone mad.
Thanks for your time,
Mike
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
In article <br************@ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, JustAnotherGuy wrote:
Ok, you are really irritating a lot of people by posting above the
message you're quoting.
Right
Just press ctrl+end before you start typing.


Wrong. Delete everything except the specific part you're responding
to.

This isn't rocket surgery.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Just press ctrl+end before you start typing.

Wrong. Delete everything except the specific part you're responding
to.


Indeed. But he was rapidly running himself into the ground so I offered
a quick-and-easy solution--y'know, walk before you run kinda thing :)
This isn't rocket surgery.


Or brain science either!
Oh, wait--was that intentional?

Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named Arthur/Mike Pratz:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:yZ******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Quoth the raven named Arthur Pratz:
If you go to a site like MICROSFT.COM, they have JS menus similar to
mine.
I doubt if anyone here ever said Microsoft did everything right. <g>

Consider: http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

If your whole site works in this viewer, e.g. it is navigable and all
the content is presented, you're on your way to a good site.

Is there a reason that you have a text only browser?
Just curious?
Mike Pratz


I've been out for the evening, but I guess you've figured out the
answer based on the rest of the posts. Personally, I use the text
browser for testing my sites. I'm also not vision impaired, and I have
a fast connection where downloading images is not a problem.

Others do not have these luxuries. My local public library only has a
text browser because they don't want the kids looking at porn. Some on
slow connections turn off images. More and more are disabling
JavaScript because of security issues, but mostly because so many
authors use it for stupid popup windows. So, to repeat, if your site
cannot display all of the relevant content and navigation in a text
browser, you have an accessibility issue. The text browser will also
give you a pretty fair indication of what a speech browser will speak.

And the Number One reason? Google doesn't do JavaScript.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
news:Y0*****************@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
And the Number One reason? Google doesn't do JavaScript.


It's also worth mentioning that link-checking software, which the
proprietors of any site that wants to be regarded as significant need to
run frequently, can't make the slightest sense of script-dependent links.
If you make external links script-dependent, they *will* go dead on you and
you won't be able to catch it (if your site is badly managed, you'll also
have *internal* links going dead). You'll never hear user complaints about
dead links that you don't catch yourself; your users will simply go
somewhere else.
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
Arthur Pratz wrote:
...
It sounds to me that your not a big fan of JavaScript.
is irrelevant
Would you agree that there are most likely a larger percent of sites
on the web with Java or other types of code.
is also irrelevant . please note java is not javascript
I find that it lets the web designer use and show there imagination
better than ordinary text.
is completely immaterial.
Before you go off on me, This is my OPINION.


With the greatest of respect, your opinion on this is utterly and completely
irrelevant.

What matters are the capabilities of the browser your visitor is using.
Information you can never know with certainty.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
As far as I can see there are no links to anything in the site,
except a mailto: for the Webmaster.


In opera 7.2, I see a menu bar with many links just above the "Mailto".

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
"The links"? WHAT links, pray tell? I'm using Mozilla 1.4 -- hardly
a "text-based browser" -- and the only link I could find on the
entire page was the mailto for the webmaster.


they're there. In Opera 7.2, in MozillaFirebird 0.7 and in Netscape 7.1 they show up eventually. The page is extremely slow loading, though.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
In article <br************@ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, JustAnotherGuy wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
This isn't rocket surgery.


Or brain science either!
Oh, wait--was that intentional?


Yup.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named Ralph Friedman:
Stan Brown wrote:
"The links"? WHAT links, pray tell? I'm using Mozilla 1.4 --
hardly a "text-based browser" -- and the only link I could find
on the entire page was the mailto for the webmaster.


they're there. In Opera 7.2, in MozillaFirebird 0.7 and in Netscape
7.1 they show up eventually. The page is extremely slow loading,
though.


You've missed the point, Ralph. There are no links showing in any of
those browsers if you disable JavaScript. This will keep approximately
15% of visitors out of the site, and, as mentioned, the Googlebot.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
You've missed the point, Ralph.
apparently I have. Serves me right for coming into the middle of a thread. ;-)
There are no links showing in any of those browsers if you disable JavaScript. This will keep approximately 15% of visitors out of the site, and, as mentioned, the Googlebot.


a valid point, although I find disabling JavaScript to be more than a touch eccentric, I guess allowing for it should be considered when designing a page.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Ralph Friedman wrote:
a valid point, although I find disabling JavaScript to be more than
a touch eccentric,
I find disabling JS for sites that I don't trust has been a lifesaver
(well, figuratively), on several occasions of which I'm aware (and
probably others that I hadn't been aware of).

I don't really care whether you consider me eccentric or not: we might
be a minority, but there's still enough of us to make a difference,
I'd say.
I guess allowing for it should be considered when designing a page.


Nobody says that you _have_ to be nice to Googlebot. There are plenty
of other pages for it to index ;-) so in the end, that's up to you.

Sure, in some legislations there'd be accessibility requirements to
consider too. If you want my authoring advice, then it would be
clear. But I do use a few facilities myself (which have given me
reason to trust them, and configure them as exceptions) where JS is a
requirement, even though I'd recommend against authors doing that in
general.
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
I find disabling JS for sites that I don't trust has been a lifesaver
(well, figuratively), on several occasions of which I'm aware (and
probably others that I hadn't been aware of).


Humor me a bit here, what are the concerns with having JavaScript enabled?

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
This isn't rocket surgery.


Just Usenet surgery...
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a

"William Tasso" <ne****@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:br************@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
Arthur Pratz wrote:
Before you go off on me, This is my OPINION.
With the greatest of respect, your opinion on this is utterly and

completely irrelevant.
Well, not so fast. His opinion will lead him to not get good searches on the
big engines, and will shut off many visitors from using the site, but if he
values creative design and using the latest tech over accessibility, that's
a valid opinion.
What matters are the capabilities of the browser your visitor is using.
Information you can never know with certainty.


That matters to you, and to me. We should be tolerant of those who'd rather
be flashy (pun intended) than accessible.

Let's all take a deep breath... and let it out...
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
In article <br************@ID-162574.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Ralph Friedman wrote:
a valid point, although I find disabling JavaScript to be more than a touch eccentric, I guess allowing for it should be considered when designing a page.


You're entitled to your opinion. I think running with Javascript is
just asking for trouble, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

However, it is a matter of /fact/, not opinion, that search engines
like Google don't run Javascript. A page author who requires
Javascript for navigation thus ensures that the pages won't be
indexed.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
In article <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
But I do use a few facilities myself (which have given me
reason to trust them, and configure them as exceptions) where JS is a
requirement, even though I'd recommend against authors doing that in
general.


Me too. For Mozilla users, Preference Bar extension
http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
allows turning Javascript(1) on with one click for such trusted
sites; putting
user_pref("javascript.enabled", false);
in my user.js file ensures Mozilla starts up again in safe mode even
if I forget to turn JS off.
(1) And setting other preferences, even those not in the Moz UI.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
I think running with Javascript is
just asking for trouble, and I'm entitled to my opinion.


I see that opinion expressed often, but I never see a reason given for why it's done.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
Tim
On 14 Dec 2003 19:29:41 GMT,
"Ralph Friedman" <ro*********@tneyvafbsgjner.pbz.com> wrote:
Humor me a bit here, what are the concerns with having JavaScript enabled?


Research into browser exploits, and security flaws for the grotty
details, but even without those things you're subjected to pages which
pop up unrequested windows, pages that open two more windows when you
close one (giving you exponential problems when those other windows do
the same thing). Damn fool scripting that dead-loops, or is just too
CPU intensive, and brings your PC to its knees. Scripting in MSIE
(where they lump Active and JavaScript into the one control) that can
seriously damage your computer's health. There's a large list of
reasons not to allow it unless you have to.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
Tim wrote:
Research into browser exploits, and security flaws for the grotty
details, but even without those things you're subjected to pages which
pop up unrequested windows, pages that open two more windows when you
close one (giving you exponential problems when those other windows do
the same thing). Damn fool scripting that dead-loops, or is just too
CPU intensive, and brings your PC to its knees. Scripting in MSIE
(where they lump Active and JavaScript into the one control) that can
seriously damage your computer's health. There's a large list of
reasons not to allow it unless you have to.


I've never disallowed it and never experienced anything of what you describe above.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Ralph Friedman wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
I find disabling JS for sites that I don't trust has been a lifesaver
(well, figuratively), on several occasions of which I'm aware (and
probably others that I hadn't been aware of).


Humor me a bit here, what are the concerns with having JavaScript enabled?


Within my own personal experience I can point up two particular
instances, not to mention others where I was uneasy about what had
happened, but don't have enough detail to tell the tale. These are
quite some time back now, and fortunately only involved Windows-based
deskop machines, so the place where the serious work is done (which at
that time was Digital Unix, now it would be Linux) was unharmed. But
they were close calls, and you can see other loopholes of a similar
nature at CERT and suchlike sites, some as recently as the last month
or two.

In one, due to mistyping of a URL, I happened upon a compromised web
site which promptly attempted to use Javascripting to install a
"premium rate dialler" on Windows for me. Fortunately, the desktop in
question is connected to Ethernet and never gets within reach of a
modem; but other folks are known to have racked-up hundreds of quid of
phone bills on such scams. And, as they did indeed /make/ those calls
- whether intentionally or not - the telco is going to bill them, and
deny any responsibility for the scam (see uk.telecom passim).

Another managed to install something that kept retrieving random
popups. Again JS was implicated, along with other vulnerabilities of
that particular browser.

Conclusion: I don't need to execute untrusted code retrieved from
random web sites. If a site makes itself entirely dependent on
javascript for navigation, then the site has even less sense than I
gave it credit for when I decided to visit it. The best move is to
leave.

As I say, I don't mind making an exception for cases where the site
offers some genuinely useful function, and I have reason to trust its
motives. But otherwise - no thanks: "default deny", as our campus
security expert expresses it. There are better (and safer ;-) ways to
have fun.

cheers
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a

"Find Yourself" <nu**@null.com> wrote in message
news:br**********@news-int2.gatech.edu...
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9d***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.


Wow, I'll say. Even at 1280 x 960 I have to maximize my browser to get the
full benefit of the display in one screen. And not even just on the gateway
page.

Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.g la.ac.uk...

Conclusion: I don't need to execute untrusted code retrieved from
random web sites.


Can't you just restrict the execution of code that tries to run ActiveX
controls?

Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a

"Ralph Friedman" <ro*********@tneyvafbsgjner.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:br************@ID-162574.news.uni-berlin.de...
Tim wrote:
Research into browser exploits, and security flaws for the grotty
details, but even without those things you're subjected to pages which
pop up unrequested windows, pages that open two more windows when you
close one (giving you exponential problems when those other windows do
the same thing). Damn fool scripting that dead-loops, or is just too
CPU intensive, and brings your PC to its knees. Scripting in MSIE
(where they lump Active and JavaScript into the one control) that can
seriously damage your computer's health. There's a large list of
reasons not to allow it unless you have to.


I've never disallowed it and never experienced anything of what you describe
above.

You've never had pop-up ads??!!

Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
You've never had pop-up ads??!!


both Opera and MozillaFirebird (my everyday browsers) make it simple to control pop-ups.
--
Regards,
Ralph
~~
Jul 20 '05 #48

P: n/a

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:br************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Find Yourself" <nu**@null.com> wrote in message
news:br**********@news-int2.gatech.edu...
"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9d***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com
Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
top.


Wow, I'll say. Even at 1280 x 960 I have to maximize my browser to get the
full benefit of the display in one screen. And not even just on the

gateway page.

I view the site at 800X600.
I would say that's about what the average monitor is at no?
Mike
Jul 20 '05 #49

P: n/a

"Arthur Pratz" <AP****@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9d***********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
Do I really need one for my site?
If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
Thanks for your time,
Mike Pratz
http://www.chowardcompany.com


Mike,

A few unsolicited comments.

1) It takes me about 5 minutes to load this page on dialup. Kinda on the
slow side. Background image alone is 120kb. That's just too big.

2) I'm sorry, but marquee is just annoying. It makes the company look like
it's being run by a bunch of 14 year olds.

3) Never heard of the font Maiandra GD, and I'd bet most users don't have it
installed.

4) Look at the labels on the product. This company has a nice old-fashioned
style to it. Why not lose some of the high-tech stuff and keep it simple? I
think it would load quicker, and sell a lot more gum.

5) When the screen has finally loaded, it's an attractive screen, but I have
to scroll before I can do anything. Try to incorporate the links higher up
on the page.

Other than that, I do generally like the page.
Jul 20 '05 #50

78 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.