Photos of Washington, D.C. train derailment

The site's not far from where I live, so I went there Saturday
afternoon and snapped these pics:
http://cpacker.org/trainwreck

--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org

Charles Packer schrieb:


The site's not far from where I live, so I went there Saturday
afternoon and snapped these pics:


And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.



Hans-Joachim

On Nov 11, 10:43 am, Hans-Joachim Zierke
wrote:
And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.

Hans-Joachim

Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
those who don't use Javascript?
If that's the case, tell me what's needed -- either functional
requirements or actual additional HTML to use and I'll adopt it from
now on.

--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org

Charles Packer schrieb:


Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
those who don't use Javascript?

Only the pictures... ;-)

Instead of referencing the picture, which is typed in about 5 seconds,
you reference a script pointing to same picture, for whatever reason.
At least, it's more keypresses to type...


If that's the case, tell me what's needed -- either functional
requirements or actual additional HTML to use and I'll adopt it from
now on.

It looks like
a href="javascript:ShowSecondary('a7.jpg','width=640 ,height=480')"
IMG align=left border=2 SRC="x-a7.jpg" width=160 height=120 /a

Just link to the picture, instead of telling Javascript, that it should
link to the picture.

After all, you don't need scripting to provide the functionality, which
was already a standard feature of Mosaic. ... Oh, if you don't know,
what Mosaic is or has been, you're simply too young. ;-)


Hans-Joachim

Charles Packer writes:
And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.

Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
those who don't use Javascript?

It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.

In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

-Miles
--
I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono album; no rhyme
or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and then it's over. --Ian Wolff

"Hans-Joachim Zierke" wrote in message
. com...

Charles Packer schrieb:


The site's not far from where I live, so I went there Saturday
afternoon and snapped these pics:


And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.



Hans-Joachim


Everybody a critic for no damn reason. The link works.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
: Charles Packer writes:
: And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.
:
: Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
: those who don't use Javascript?
:
: It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
: firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
: is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
: javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.
:
: In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
: sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
: this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
: does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
capability, so I guess it was already there.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
:Charles Packer writes:

:And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.

:Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
:those who don't use Javascript?

:It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
:firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
:is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
:javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.

:In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
:sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
:this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
:does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
capability, so I guess it was already there.

He didn't say Java, but javascript; it's different. How exactly would
you have handled it if you'd had scripting turned off? I find IE7 too
inflexible in this regard with no easy to use features allowing one to
choose different options while actually looking at the page, as I can do
with Firefox and the no-script add-on I'm using.

The issue isn't whether client A or client B can handle scripting,
but a basic issue of proper Web page design. I have scripting turned off
by default for unknown sites. Sometimes when it appears that I've gotten
the whole page, I turn it on to see what the noscript element is
blocking. The other day, I found that it was just a tag to the link to
the page's author. Why would anyone use js for something like that?

For a while now, I've been encountering Web pages that hide basic
navigation in Flash elements. I never turn Flash on because I hate
waiting for the video elements to load that I am unlikely to care about.

How much worse will Web page design get?

"Charles Packer" wrote in message
ups.com...
The site's not far from where I live, so I went there Saturday
afternoon and snapped these pics:

Javascript, Java, vbscript, c++, whatever, makes no difference - the
pictures are so bad, distant, tiny, pixelated and heavily compressed I'd
equally believe they were pictures of a cream cake.

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:15:39 +0900, Miles Bader
wrote:
:Charles Packer writes:

:And you need Javascript for a simple link to a picture. Sigh.

:Could you clarify? Do you mean that something is not accessible to
:those who don't use Javascript?

:It screws lots of little things up. For instance, a middle-click in
:firefox will open a link in a new tab; this is _very_ useful, and indeed
:is my usual way of opening links. That doesn't work with your
:javascript. Nor does the "copy link location" menu item. Etc.

:In cases where javascript actually adds_ significant functionality,
:sometimes the loss of such "normal" functionality is worth it -- but in
:this case, using javascript seems to add _no_ functionality, it simply
:does what a normal link does, in a clunkier and more confusing way.

FWIW, IE7 handled it just fine for me. I didn't have to install any Java
capability, so I guess it was already there.

He didn't say Java, but javascript; it's different. How exactly would
you have handled it if you'd had scripting turned off? I find IE7 too
inflexible in this regard with no easy to use features allowing one to
choose different options while actually looking at the page, as I can do
with Firefox and the no-script add-on I'm using.

The issue isn't whether client A or client B can handle scripting,
but a basic issue of proper Web page design. I have scripting turned off
by default for unknown sites. Sometimes when it appears that I've gotten
the whole page, I turn it on to see what the noscript element is
blocking. The other day, I found that it was just a tag to the link to
the page's author. Why would anyone use js for something like that?

For a while now, I've been encountering Web pages that hide basic
navigation in Flash elements. I never turn Flash on because I hate
waiting for the video elements to load that I am unlikely to care about.

How much worse will Web page design get?

You tell us.