|
Bad Web Design 101 (Abusive Javascript) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
TOHost |
The day that users start paying for the costs relating to running the gallery (which is currently FREE to use, view, etc) is the day I'll actually consider doing something about complaints like this. |
|
|
| Euphorica |
| Thats all you got? I know you have more. Common. |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
The day that users start paying for the costs relating to running the gallery (which is currently FREE to use, view, etc) is the day I'll actually consider doing something about complaints like this. |
There are other galleries out there that are free to use, view, etc.
Secondly, my ability to save the image to my HD in no way increases the costs of running the page. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
The day that users start paying for the costs relating to running the gallery (which is currently FREE to use, view, etc) is the day I'll actually consider doing something about complaints like this. |
Hm... you run it? I can understand why you're not interested in hearing complaints when you provide a service for free, but really, this wasn't meant to be a criticism of specific sites, just a rather hostile web design fad.
Are there cost savings associated with having the script? |
|
|
| Tordan |
| I think RJ is talking about the webhosting costs. The 4images Gallery prolly came with Fantastico from his hosting provider for which he might have to pay a fee. |
|
|
| Euphorica |
just right click and hold...then click ok on the pop up box and then let go of the right click ;)
simple way (which usually works. not always though) |
|
|
| Qiang |
this year so far i have experienced right-click-blocking only once. the so-called trick was popular back to the old days for the personal user.
right-click-blocking sucks nontheless. don't want people download ? don't put it there!
btw, firefox is the kickasss browser ever born! |
|
|
| Swamper |
| I'm more annoyed by sites that make you register before you can do anything. Lame. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
I'm more annoyed by sites that make you register before you can do anything. Lame. |
reinstitute 'guest' posting priviledges on TA .. :toothless
|
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
I'm more annoyed by sites that make you register before you can do anything. Lame. |
Get the Firefox "BugMeNot" extension. Handy as . |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You responding with an ignorant and irrelevant one-liner? No !
Cosmic Fur: One example off the top of my head was that "Chavs" site that someone posted. I think I clicked on the image gallery (or whatever they called it) and started seeing that stupid message. I use firefox and have the context-menu override enabled but that doesn't stop it.
TOHost (another image hosting gallery) also does this I believe. |
easy.
firefox -> tools -> options -> content -> uncheck the box that says "enable javascript"... re-visit the page... :D |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Are there cost savings associated with having the script? |
Yes. It minimizes the number of users who hotlink to images (without having to totally disable hot linking). Reduction of hotlinking = less bandwidth costs.
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
I think RJ is talking about the webhosting costs. |
I am talking about the webhosting costs. The gallery is provided for free, without charge to users. The only costs are hosting and bandwidth.
| quote: | Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
Secondly, my ability to save the image to my HD in no way increases the costs of running the page. |
No, but hotlinking the image all over the place does increase costs.
The gallery provides a way for users to download the image (via registration) - and the majority of users use IE and aren't as technically capable as those in this thread - thus the script serves it's purpose. |
|
|
|
|
