Saturday, May 21, 2005

"Effing Unreadable" Award

I am forced to inaugurate a new award for illegible web sites, after two Washington State media sources adopt micro-fonts.

Criteria for the "Effing Unreadable" are ...

1) screen fonts of 10 point or less
2) fonts won't resize in the client browser (The first 2 winners won't resize in IE 6.x)
3) client reading glasses don't ease the pain of trying to read what the web site has posted in micro-font.

If you're over 40 with declining vision (requiring reading glasses, or other assist), these web sites are not "user friendly".

The first winners are The Stranger.com and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. There is little satisfaction knowing these two organizations are politically polarized, since they have both decided to put a "Go Away!" sign on their web sites, to an aging populace that needs reading glasses to function. Both the "progressive" and "conservative" ends of the political spectrum have decided to disrespect a whole new demographic - the visually declining. The market place means little to these folk.

I guess that's why I've become Libertarian in my latter days (now 48, and counting).

See award photos in the messages below ...

[ Update: a reader directed me to an IE 6.x setting - Go to Tools, Internet Options, click Accessibility button, check mark "Ignore fonts sizes specified on Web pages". Now you should be able to fiddle with font sizes in the browser. But the layout may become very strange regarding alignments. My awards still stand since the vendors force a default micro-font that makes me dig deep into settings so I can read their great wisdom. A pox on their design defaults. ]

###

Evergreen Freedom Foundation ( effwa.org ) is the co-winner of the first Smash Mouth Politics "Effing Unreadable" Award for illegible web site. The Stranger.com is the other winner (see other message) Posted by Hello

The Stranger.com is the co-winner of the first Smash Mouth Politics "Effing Unreadable" Award for illegible web site. Evergreen Freedom Foundation is other co-winner (see other message). Posted by Hello

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Is it safe? (said the dentist)

[ homeland security ]

Two major events occurred recently that highlight the sad American response to perceived threats. In both cases the sad American response is to "feel better" about the situation without really making any significant improvement in security.

"Feeling better" is a childish substitute for learning from history, when trying to develop an effective public policy.

Part One: "Run Away, Run Away !!!"

Security at America's capitol ( DC ) appears to have been planned by the authors of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". This marvelous comedy ( the movie, not the guv'ment; although it's sometimes hard to tell the difference ) has several scenes where the Grail questers respond to threats by screaming in unison, "Run Away, Run Away!!!" and then doing what they scream.

With a new, massive Homeland Security bureaucracy this was the best they could do when a small plane violated the security airspace around Washington, DC.

Why is it more safe for everyone to run OUT INTO THE OPEN?

As a lay person I've come to realize that security is based on a priority of responses based on the engagement of the threat.

There used to be a time when the threat of a flying bomb caused us to build and occupy reinforced bunkers. Civilians in WWII London built their own below ground bunkers in their yards if they couldn't get to the underground mass transit tunnels.

What happened to all those nuclear bunkers, for congress critters, from the cold war?

If they lack the bunkers, might it be a good idea to retreat INSIDE the buildings with the most inert mass (heavy stone)?

This would seem to me a better priority than running into the open before the approaching predator has struck. I'm sure many predators would appreciate their prey exposing themselves, so the predator could change course and not have to fight past any substantial barrier, to kill the meat.

[ May 21, 2005: even if the congress critters were running outside to get into bunkers, this doesn't seem such a hot idea. These teens figured out a neat scheme to kill their fellow students - don't you think the adult predators could use the same tactic? With all the billions of Federal debt spending your children will have to pay for, might a few secured tunnels be better than an open air sniper arcade? ]

Once a predator has struck his select prey, a stampede (to the next available defensive position) becomes appropriate, as a second priority. Once the predators of Columbine High School had penetrated INTO the first defense (school building), a student stampede AWAY might have saved many - yet they did just the wrong response, locking themselves into the building, becoming a captive buffet to the predators who could crack the shell.

But maybe I'm objecting to the "Run Away!!!" scheme too much - if our reps can be picked off easier, we'll have the term limits many have been calling for, to improve our Republic.

Part Two: Identify the Innocent ( all others lie )

In close conjunction with the "Run Away!!!" security paradigm, Congress adopted Real ID (isn't that a GREAT "feel good" name? You haven't been "real" until the guv'ment told you) which creates a de facto national / universal Federal ID - the particular State ID forms may vary, but it's all linked to a central Federal database.

Of course it's all to improve YOUR security.

Again, as a lay person, I've learned these things about a central, mandatory guv'ment ID ...

1) The Nazis made everyone carry "papers" in the Motherland and the occupied territories, yet the armed resistance still persisted, blowing up or otherwise destroying stuff the Nazis didn't want destroyed. If the Nazis couldn't stop armed violence against the state with universal ID, why do we think the glorious American guv'ment can do any better? Just because we're the "good guys?"

2) ALL the Sept. 11 terrorists had US guv'ment issued identity papers - they may have stayed beyond the time limits specified in the documents, but they had the paperwork to prove it.

Guess what, boyz and gurlz, Real ID will just raise the price, or change the tactics, predators use to get that same ID that says the guv'ment recognizes them. "Sleeper" predators will work very hard to have a "clean" identity outside the US, then get the appropriate American papers.

Or save the hassle and just idle across our southern border with enough portable funds to do their damage.

Have you EVER heard of people "branding" the predators to protect the herds? No, it's always the herds that get branded so their owners know who belongs to which owner. Predators don't apply for valid ID; or do so under false, "clean" identity - the wolf wears the most attractive sheep skin.

Here's an idea: all the DC critters can run outside and wave their Real ID as the predators home in on the meat outside of it's shell.

A final movie allusion: Homeland Security has become the "dentist" from The Marathon Man who drills into the protagonist's tooth marrow (with no pain killer) while repeatedly asking, "Is it safe?" The protagonist has no idea why he's being tortured, or being asked "Is it safe?".

Homeland Security is drilling deep into my family's funds, and I have no idea how they are keeping me safe. What I'm seeing doesn't convince me.

At least the threats are color coded - that "feels good". Maybe that would help in Israel, color code the Palestinian threat?

Maybe Feng Shui could have saved the Titanic? What's that saying about "rearranging the deck chairs?"

###

Ignoring market demographics

You may wonder why this topic is posted here.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation touts itself as a defender of market place solutions rather than government dictates ( coercing virtue ), and I do agree. For one year I was an EFF subscriber.

It would be nice if EFF would pay attention to market demographics when it designs its web site ...

I sent this message ...
___________________ May 11, 2005
As a 48 year old who now uses reading glasses I am getting very tired of web sites that have unnecessarily small text that cannot be resized by the browser font adjustment.

Your 10 point or less font size is difficult to read. What I can't read easily, I don't contribute to.

Get a clue that not all your readers are 20 - something with the vision of eagles.

For all it's many other deficits, www.thestranger.com gets its display correct.

[ May 21, 2005: within days of my commendation of The Stranger as an example of a legible web site, The Stranger must have hired the fellows from effwa.org to inflict their design standards on another market demographic. Now The Stranger web pages suck as bad or worse than Evergreen Freedom Foundation. So I have awarded both my new "Effing Unreadable" Award for illegible web sites - see my 2 messages with photos above. ]

If you want people to subscribe to your organization, make your service accessible to an aging population with declining vision.

I won't be considering sending any $$$ until you improve your web site display.

Your "multimedia" specialist and assistant are earning degrees at media schools whose customers will always be younger than 30? Someone is not paying attention to American age demographics.

Getting old sux big time. Don't aggravate nature's failing by catering to a minority demographic - those with youthful vision.

West Seattle

###