A STANDARD MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ONE
The language of HTML is constantly evolving. Enthusiastic Web authors may
happily include brand new and improved tags within their Web pages to
produce dazzling new effects. But unfortunately, those effects may be lost
on most visitors to that Web site because their browser software does not
recognize those HTML features.
Officially, it's up to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to define and establish new
versions of HTML. Unofficially, leaders in the rush to the WWW, such as
Microsoft and Netscape, regularly come up with their own extensions to
official HTML in the hopes of improving the language. Eventually, many of
these new codes are, indeed, included in the official HTML specifications.
The amazing thing about HTML is that it seems to grow and change almost
faster than Web authors can incorporate the new developments into their
sites. Although the pressure to add new features to HTML is tremendous,
Microsoft and others in the Web-related industry are working hard to
maintain standards in the midst of the ongoing revolution.
After all, having the world beat a path to your Web page would be somewhat
anticlimactic if the page can be viewed in only some browsers.
("Colour-emphasis" added)
You can tell that this book is showing its age, by its reference to Netscape
being a "leader in the field"! That aside, however, the overall gist of what
is being said in those two quotes is still highly relevant. Read on.
When I began to create this website some five years ago, I made a deliberate
decision to spare no effort to make it readable by anybody, using
any computer running any operating system and any
browser - in short, to make it
platform independent.
(If you've seen my
home page,
you'll have already seen my comments there to this effect.)
Of course, one can only do so much. You can - as I do - insist on having
nothing but purely "raw'n'basic" HTML within your pages; but you can't have
any effect on anybody else's web page to which you might post a link (and
there are lots of outside links within my site). So, if you want to
link to other websites, you have to be prepared to compromise your
principles that far. (I've also made mention of this in my home page.)
- - - - - - - - - -
The clunky old Windows 95 / Netscape 4.01 / Internet Explorer 5.5 computer
on which I started to develop this site eventually "bit the dust" at the end
of 2007. From the ashes arose a Windows 98 machine running Internet Explorer
6. However, in common with its predecessor, it didn't have a working version
of Flash on it.
Shortly before Christmas 2008, I became a bit exasperated by the fact that
so many web-pages wouldn't load properly on my computer, apparently because
of the absence of Flash. Taking my life in my hands, I clicked on a link to
install Flash (version 9) on my machine, fearing that it might well cripple
it completely... et voilą! My machine came alive with all sorts of
groovy little things I hadn't thought possible!
Best of all was that I now discovered that I could get some sense out of
YouTube, which hitherto had only been available in our household via my
son's Windows XP machine. What fun! I could now view lots of wonderful video
clips of good old '60's and '70's music, among other intriguing things. It
was like Christmas - well, it was Christmas!
Okay, so there's a worthwhile extra feature that I wasn't going to
complain about. Since then, I've joyfully added links in new web pages (and
some of my old ones, too) to YouTube videos, when it's seemed appropriate,
either to "underline" something I'm saying or just to spice things up. Great
stuff!
So what's my problem?
Well, in early November last year (2009), the horrors happened again.
It started thus: having used the computer one morning, I came back into the
room a little later and found that something had happened to it.
Basically, it had "stopped". No sound of an internal fan anywhere, and
nothing on the screen. What to do?
A year earlier, the guys who had turned my old '95 machine into the new '98
one had also actually managed to salvage a more-or-less working '95 machine
from the ruins, and install it into an old case - so, effectively, I had a
spare computer for emergency use. So, with the emergency now upon me, I took
the HD out of the new machine, put it into the old one, and began to back
everything up onto CD-ROMs (a fairly big job) - but, before I'd finished,
disaster struck again! The HD started making clicking noises, and "dropping
out". It was clearly on its "last legs".
With a combination of "luck" and sheer determination, I did manage to
complete the backup. Then I replaced the old '95 HD and started to back that
one up too - and blow me down if exactly the same thing didn't happen
again!!!
More "luck", and more determination - and I actually managed to salvage
everything off that one also, before it breathed its last. What a
nightmare... but now at least I'd managed to rescue everything I'd done
since I bought the original '95 machine back in early 1998. Whew...
It turned out that what had gone wrong initially, in early November 2009,
was that the '98 machine's power supply had basically "conked out". The same
guys in the same shop managed, over some time and with quite a few hiccups
and setbacks, to get a working '98 machine back to me just a few weeks ago.
(Clearly, it wasn't a particularly easy or straightforward process, as some
other "glitches" showed up along the way. Thanks, fellers, if you're reading
this - I'm extremely grateful.) So now, at last, I could get back on
with things - emailing on a regular basis, maintaining my website, a bit of
programming - the usual stuff.
I can just hear some people reading this saying something like, "What's
wrong with this bloke? Why doesn't he just get a new machine - an XP at
least - and move on?"
There are a number of reasons. First and foremost, there is my need to
operate within a DOS environment from time to time. As I've mentioned in my
Some mathematically-based computer graphics
page, I do a lot of graphics work using "old-fashioned" DOS-based programs
which, as far as I'm concerned, are vastly superior to any Windows
counterparts I've seen, in the sense of being easy to use and of allowing
"pixel-perfection" without a lot of "mucking about".
I know that it's possible to get a "DOS emulator" for Windows XP, but why
should I have to go to that much bother - especially when I'm pretty sure
that something will refuse to work properly within such a setting? I
want the real thing, because then I know it'll work!
Secondly, within a Windows 95 or 98 environment, I can have my screen
resolution set to 640×480 pixels. This is important to me, because my
eyesight is not the best and it's far easier for me to read large text than
small text, thus avoiding eyestrain. (Within XP or "higher", you have to
have higher resolution. Again, I know that it's possible to overcome
this to some extent within some applications - but such "fixes" are somewhat
artificial and involve a certain amount of fiddling around.) - And it suits
my purposes from the point of view of web-page design, because then I
know that my pages will display properly in any screen
resolution - and even in "old-fashioned" browsers, for those (like myself)
who still choose to use them, for whatever reason, come what may.
Thirdly - quite frankly, I don't particularly like the "XP or higher"
environment! Having become reasonably comfortable with what I've been using
for years, I wish to continue doing so, if at all possible. Basically, I
suppose, I'm just insisting on my right to be a "grumpy old man"! So there!
I'm realistic enough to accept that I probably will eventually have to move
to a more "modern" platform, when it is no longer possible to get hardware
replacements compatible with my existing machine when things fall to pieces;
but for now, I'm holding out, and hoping that this won't become necessary in
the near future.
In the meantime, for as long as I'm insisting on having a Windows 98 machine
- so that I can do "DOSsy" things, as already explained - it turns out that
the "highest" version of IE that I can run is IE 6, and the "highest"
version of Flash that I can use is version 9. (It also turns out that I can
run Firefox 2.0.0.20, which works quite well but has pretty much the same
limitations as IE 6 - in addition to a few other little glitches which mean
that some of my pages don't quite display properly within it, an annoying
problem which I am gradually addressing, case by case.)
The reason for taking the trouble to explain all this to you is to attempt
to obviate the perceived necessity on the part of any self-important
individuals to bother contacting me with comments such as "Why would anybody
still be messing about with Windows 98?" Of course, it's probably not
strictly necessary, because I'm sure you're much too sensible a person to do
a silly thing like that. After all, you wouldn't be visiting my website in
the first place otherwise, would you?!
All right, then, I hear you say - so what is my problem?
Well, while my machine was away being fixed, I did have some access to
another computer - and I began to notice, with some concern, that YouTube
was starting to suggest that I was going to need a new browser, as mine
(either IE 6 or Firefox 2.0.0.20) was "out of date" and would not be
"supported" for much longer. In fact, the deadline given was Saturday, 13th
March 2010.
I thought: "Uh-oh, here we go again".
Over the years since I was a "newbie", in the late 1990's, I've seen many
so-called "upgrades" to the web. It's a treadmill - you need the latest
version of Windows, or the latest browser, or the most recent version of
Flash, or whatever - just to continue to view the most recent
web-pages. Well, you know cranky old me - I see red when faced with this
kind of thing, and dig my stubborn old heels in as hard as I can. I wondered
what the effect of this most recent "upgrade" would be.
Well! As you probably know, it's caused quite a few problems - and
this time I'm far from the only person yelling about it. There are a great
many angry, disillusioned people out there who are mightily unimpressed with
what they see as a significant downgrade to YouTube's web presence.
For example, click
here
to see an absolute tirade of comments posted to a Google support page by a
growing band of fed-up people.
Click
here
to see some background to these recent events - in particular, note the
remarks about how YouTube is getting on the bandwagon to force us all to
"upgrade" to the latest browsers, whether we want to (or can) or not.
Significantly, note that even Microsoft, which would like to see
Internet Explorer 6 disappear, isn't trying to force the issue - so what's
YouTube's problem?!!
This
page makes some very interesting observations about the shenanigans engaged
in by the "big boys" who are trying to dictate to us how we should interact
with the web - and makes some telling points about how it could backfire on
them from a "hip pocket" point of view if enough people become sufficiently
irritated.
For many (most?) people, I gather that the problem is not necessarily
browser-specific, but rather a matter of aesthetics and user-friendliness.
For me, however, it is mainly about browsers - because, in spite of
YouTube's claim that I'll still be able to view their material in IE 6, it's
not entirely true. Sometimes it works OK - but not always.
Now, many videos which used to load properly simply present me with a
featureless black rectangle, with no buttons to click on and no rotating
"loading" symbol in the middle - and something tells me that the problem is
going to get worse as the new "improved" pages begin to proliferate. (The
same thing happens with Firefox 2.0.0.20.)
From my perspective, YouTube's requirement for newer browsers, with all
their much-vaunted extra gadgets and gizmos, does nothing to improve the
actual viewing experience - which, it seems, appears unchanged if it occurs
at all - but, instead, simply makes it less likely that it will occur at all! How
pointless is that?
For example, in
this
page, just a few days ago I posted a link to a YouTube video of Elvis
Presley's delightful old song "Wooden Heart".
(
Here's
that link again, if you're interested!) It worked perfectly then - but
within a day or two, it had developed the problem described above. The link
can stay, even though I can't get any sense out of it myself for the moment,
because I'm sure that many people can; and also because I'm hoping that,
with enough of us bringing pressure to bear, the problem will be sorted out
so that we can all enjoy the video again - even those of us who, for
whatever perfectly good reason, choose not to (or are unable
to) "upgrade" to one of these newer browsers. (There are links, in some of
my other pages, to other YouTube videos which exhibit the same problem and
which can also stay, for the same reason). In the meantime - basically, it's
just a blasted nuisance.
In the meantime - will you get involved? Join me - and many others -
in trying to reclaim the internet for the people who really matter, by
which I mean you and me - the original "You" in "YouTube"!
UPDATE, 6th April 2010 (later on the same day)
Well, I've just sent off my response to YouTube's
survey.
It's perhaps somewhat more vehement than I'd originally intended, but if
you don't indulge in a bit of straight talking sometimes, people don't
know what you think. (I wonder if they'll really take any notice of it?
Hoping...)
Here we go:
Extremely dissatisfied
A few times a week
In summary: the complete lack of respect for your users.
Allow me to elaborate:
The Internet - including the WWW - is not owned by any one single entity,
or even a few such. It is a World-Wide phenomenon (those two W's being the
first two in the acronym "WWW"), and it is the property of every single
person in the world. It therefore follows that no one person or
organization has any right to foist upon the rest of us any particular
view of how we should interact with it.
Over the years, we've seen developments in web browsers, starting with
such simple software as Lynx, moving through Mosaic and various versions
of Netscape and (later) Microsoft's Internet Explorer, and more recently
the newer browsers such as Firefox. Some of these developments have been
good and worthwhile; others have been - at best - questionable.
We've also seen the ugly trend toward web-pages which insist, often in
arrogant and quite insulting terms, that the user's browser is "out of
date", "no longer supported" etc. and that the user "needs to upgrade" to
a more "modern" browser, or something along those lines. Well, YouTube has
now joined that long list - and has trumped all earlier offenders with its
extremely rude "There must be 50 ways to leave your browser" routine! How
dare you!!!
In Technology Review, July 1996, the WWW's founder, Tim Berners-Lee, said:
"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a
Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when
you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network."
(See
http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
to read more.)
Please visit
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/youtube-to-kill-ie6-support-on-march-13.ars
which documents these events. I'd like to make two points based on
comments within that page:
1.
Even though Microsoft would also like to see IE 6 disappear, it "refuses
to force anyone to upgrade ... and says the decision is ultimately up to
the user." If Microsoft, in all its might, isn't prepared to go to the
extreme of trying to force us to "upgrade", then why is Google/YouTube
arrogating that right to itself? Having come to the web even later than
Microsoft did, do you seriously think you can get away with adopting that
approach?
2.
That web-page also contains the following statement:
"Users on these browsers will still be able to watch YouTube videos, but
additional features that Google plans to roll out may not be supported in
these older browsers."
(which is simply paraphrasing statements made by YouTube in the lead-up to
all this).
Well, quite frankly, it's not true. By my own choice - for reasons of
personal preference and complex technical requirements which need not
concern us here - I have IE 6 and Firefox 2.0.0.20 installed on my
computer; and - increasingly - I'm finding that pre-existing YouTube
videos will *not* load correctly, but instead present me with a dead,
featureless black rectangle with no clickable buttons and no rotating
"loading" graphic at the centre. Effectively, you have alienated me and my
computer - and many others and their computers - from the YouTube website.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a huge blunder on YouTube's part.
On
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google-Phaseout-of-IE6-support-will-remain-limited-to-Google-Apps/1265053594,
the following comment appears:
"IE6 may still be installed on as many as one-third of PCs worldwide..."
Now, why might that be? Could it be that, quite frankly, people are sick
and tired of having to get on the latest "upgrade bandwagon" just to suit
the self-styled "movers and shakers" of the Internet?
The clear implication is that YouTube thinks it can force vast numbers of
people to change their way of doing things, just because it decides to do
so, whether people like it or not, and whether or not they have perfectly
good reasons to keep their systems as they are. What arrogance!
YouTube needs to realize that it does have competition. Granted, up until
now, YouTube has led the way in the field of video streaming; but I
venture to suggest that this could change quite rapidly if enough people
become alienated by this present ugly trend. In the current economic
climate, no business can take it for granted that it will continue to
exist and thrive indefinitely - especially if it treats its clientele with
disdain. The old adage: "The consumer is always right" is well and truly
back - and a good thing too!
I would not like to see YouTube die. In its time, it has brought a great
deal of pleasure to a great many people, and (as mentioned) has led the
way - until now. I'd like to see it continue to thrive - but not at any
price.
Other disgruntled people have made comments about various aspects of the new
screen layout and function, many of which I agree with [especially the way
users' comments about particular videos are now (mis)handled]. But the
most fundamental problem is the obvious contempt with which YouTube has
now begun to treat its support base, trying to lay down the law about how
we shall use our computers and how we shall interact with the Internet -
and that is quite simply unacceptable.
The solution is simple. Just admit that YouTube has taken a very dramatic wrong turn, and put things back the way they were. If you really *must* have a version to suit the latest thing in whiz-bang gimmick-packed web browsers, new versions of Flash - or *whatever* - then at least give the user the choice of the old system *as well* as the new. But don't try to force us into any particular mould, or the results could be a disaster. As I've said, YouTube is too good to lose - but that could be the result if you don't start to listen to and respect your public, *right now*.
A parting shot: I have been contemplating posting some of the videos from
my own website
(http://www.madteddy.com)
to YouTube. Since this fiasco, I've put that idea on hold. Frankly, why
should I bother, if I can't even look at them there myself?!
To sum up: please, put the "You" back into "YouTube"!
Sincerely,
Mad Teddy
madteddy.com
Not applicable! It's a disgrace - please fix it! Just put it back the way
it was!
Yes, specifically:
Please see my comments under "What, if anything, did you find frustrating
or unappealing about the beta YouTube watchpage? What new features or
capabilities would you like to see on the watchpage?"
Dysfunctional
Well, there you have it! That's what I think about the way YouTube has
gone, and now I've told them.
If you'd like to get involved also, feel free to adapt anything I've said
there for your own answers, if you feel similarly. Please don't just
plagiarize - that would probably do more harm than good. Let's not give
them any excuse to simply write us off as just a bunch of cranky spammers.
Meanwhile, you'll always be welcome to visit my pages, where you can
be assured that neither you nor your computer will ever be expected to jump
through a whole series of ever-changing, arbitrary, aggravating hoops in
order to access my material.
Hallelujah, that'll do ya!
... Who Tube ???
This page added on 6th April, 2010 (two days after Easter)
Please - read the following two quotes very carefully:
... and ...
Both these quotes are from the book "HTML Complete", written by various
authors and published in 1999 by Sybex. The first quote is from page 10, and
the second is from page 39.
(I've told this story, very briefly, in an earlier page,
Strange days indeed...
- scroll about a third of the way down that page to see it, if you're
interested).
I also like to do BASIC programming in a simple,
non-cluttered DOS environment. - And, with a Windows 95 or 98 machine, it
is possible to get into a genuine DOS environment - or even to boot
straight into DOS without having to go through Windows first, if that
appeals (and it does, sometimes!).
>>>
So - what can we do?
<<<
Here's
the link to the "YouTube User Feedback Survey" in which we can have our
say. I'm planning to send some choice remarks up the line very soon, but I'm
going to think very hard about exactly what to say before doing so. After
all, the intention is not simply to "let off some steam" (which I suppose
I'm already doing right here), but to try to convince them - from the
standpoint of logic and reason - that they've made a colossal mistake, and
to try to persuade them to restore things to the way they were, rather than
to simply put their backs up. Stay tuned; I'll post my comments here also
when I've decided what to say.
How satisfied are you with beta version of the YouTube watchpage?
Typically, how often do you use YouTube?
What, if anything, did you find frustrating or unappealing about the beta YouTube watchpage? What new features or capabilities would you like to see on the watchpage?
What do you like best about the beta watchpage?
Did you experience any problems or difficulties with the beta watchpage in
the last two weeks?
If you could describe the beta version of the YouTube watchpage in one
word, what would it be?
Return to Unequivocal ursine utterances menu
