BHIT: Web Idiots

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Ian G Batten, Jun 28, 2004.

  1. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.

    First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.'' OK,
    I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because Shockwave is
    the work of the devil, so I followed the links and installed the latest
    bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins shows
    I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and greatest.
    Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and offers
    me precisely the release I'm running.

    Clearly, BHIT care more about pushing Shockwave than pushing their
    ideas, so sadly I'll be unable to read their pearls of wisdom. It's
    sad, isn't it?

    Of course, were I a bad person, I'd suggest that as a government funded
    body their website should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act,
    and it's 99.9% certain that a site which demands Flash in order to see
    its front page isn't compliant. But making that complaint would be
    childish, wouldn't it?

    ian

    [*] Mozilla 1.6 on Solaris 10 build 55. I could put on Mozilla 1.7, or
    indeed Solaris 10 build 58. I doubt it'll help.
     
    Tags:


  2. Ian G Batten wrote:

    > Of course, were I a bad person, I'd suggest that as a government funded
    > body their website should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act,
    > and it's 99.9% certain that a site which demands Flash in order to see
    > its front page isn't compliant. But making that complaint would be
    > childish, wouldn't it?


    BHIT would probably claim that they wouldn't have been disabled if
    they'd worn a helmet ;-)
     
  3. Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.
    >
    > First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.'' OK,
    > I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because Shockwave is
    > the work of the devil, so I followed the links and installed the latest
    > bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins shows
    > I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and greatest.
    > Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and offers
    > me precisely the release I'm running.
    >
    > Clearly, BHIT care more about pushing Shockwave than pushing their
    > ideas, so sadly I'll be unable to read their pearls of wisdom. It's
    > sad, isn't it?
    >
    > Of course, were I a bad person, I'd suggest that as a government funded
    > body their website should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act,
    > and it's 99.9% certain that a site which demands Flash in order to see
    > its front page isn't compliant. But making that complaint would be
    > childish, wouldn't it?


    But people with disabilities would be using God's Gift to operating
    systems and Browsers, supporting our Great Leader from the other side
    of the Atlantic and hist Evil Henchman William Gates, wouldn't they?

    Then, the browser or whatever ID string returned to the site would
    have identified you as a Good Guy (not to be confused with Just zis Guy),
    and not one of the satanic alternative OS brigade.

    > ian
    >
    > [*] Mozilla 1.6 on Solaris 10 build 55. I could put on Mozilla 1.7, or
    > indeed Solaris 10 build 58. I doubt it'll help.


    Quite.

    --
    Trevor Barton
     
  4. On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:31:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.
    >
    >First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.'' OK,
    >I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because Shockwave is
    >the work of the devil, so I followed the links and installed the latest
    >bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins shows
    >I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and greatest.
    >Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and offers
    >me precisely the release I'm running.


    Same here, Mozilla on Linux. But it is correct, we don't have Shockwave,
    we have Shockwave Flash plugins. Shockwave is only available for Windows
    and Mac. Great innit?

    >Clearly, BHIT care more about pushing Shockwave than pushing their
    >ideas, so sadly I'll be unable to read their pearls of wisdom. It's
    >sad, isn't it?


    Very. I was looking for a laugh, instead I got annoying website
    stupidity before it even starts.

    >Of course, were I a bad person, I'd suggest that as a government funded
    >body their website should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act,
    >and it's 99.9% certain that a site which demands Flash in order to see
    >its front page isn't compliant. But making that complaint would be
    >childish, wouldn't it?


    Not in the slightest. Never mind government funding, anyone who makes a
    site/frontpage like this needs a healthy dose of arse kicking.

    Frink

    --
    Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
    See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
    Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
    "No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
     
  5. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Ian G Batten
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    >
    > So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.
    >
    > First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.''
    > OK, I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because
    > Shockwave is the work of the devil, so I followed the links and
    > installed the latest
    > bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins
    > shows I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and
    > greatest.
    > Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and
    > offers me precisely the release I'm running.


    Don't start.

    The level of competence of the web 'design' industry is enough to make
    any sensible person weep. Not one commercial website in twenty conforms
    either to the published standards or with the law on disability access,
    and in general it seems the more money is spent the worse the outcome.

    The is not something which is unique to dubious political lobbying
    campaigns.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.
     
  6. [email protected] (Doctor J. Frink) writes:

    >On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:31:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
    ><[email protected]> wrote:


    >>So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.
    >>
    >>First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.'' OK,
    >>I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because Shockwave is
    >>the work of the devil, so I followed the links and installed the latest
    >>bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins shows
    >>I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and greatest.
    >>Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and offers
    >>me precisely the release I'm running.


    >Same here, Mozilla on Linux. But it is correct, we don't have Shockwave,
    >we have Shockwave Flash plugins. Shockwave is only available for Windows
    >and Mac. Great innit?


    >>Clearly, BHIT care more about pushing Shockwave than pushing their
    >>ideas, so sadly I'll be unable to read their pearls of wisdom. It's
    >>sad, isn't it?


    >Very. I was looking for a laugh, instead I got annoying website
    >stupidity before it even starts.


    >>Of course, were I a bad person, I'd suggest that as a government funded
    >>body their website should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act,
    >>and it's 99.9% certain that a site which demands Flash in order to see
    >>its front page isn't compliant. But making that complaint would be
    >>childish, wouldn't it?


    >Not in the slightest. Never mind government funding, anyone who makes a
    >site/frontpage like this needs a healthy dose of arse kicking.


    I wasn't looking forward to the day when I would have enough free time
    to fulfil my public obligation to have a look at what my tax payer's
    money has bought me on the BeHIT web pages. I'm very pleased to
    discover that they're so stupid they've made their pages unreadable by
    me. In all likelihood, like most of the folk who do that kind of
    thing, they'll even be too stupid to ever understand how stupid it is
    to make a web site like that, so I'll never be able to read it.

    How nice to start the day by crossing off a nasty chore I no longer
    have to do!
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
  7. On 2004-06-28, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Don't start.
    >
    > The level of competence of the web 'design' industry is enough to make
    > any sensible person weep. Not one commercial website in twenty conforms
    > either to the published standards or with the law on disability access,
    > and in general it seems the more money is spent the worse the outcome.


    Oops, I'm starting.

    This is not helped by the belief that "With Microsoft anyone can do it
    without any training, cause its so user friendly. Even the secretary can
    administer a web site, as surely if you know Word you can do anything -
    lower TCO, user friendly operating system, perhaps we can use Nissan
    Micras to carry our 40 tonne loads up the M1 by the same logic, after
    all they scale outwards just like NT and you don't need expensive HGV
    qualified drivers, wibble wibble...".

    Too many developers are just used to point and drool in VB without
    any understanding of whats going on. You can't just let these people
    onto active web sites - as many of them have never heard of things
    like Cross Site Scripting and SQL Injection. "My site goes wrong when
    someone enters a single quote into a text field - I wonder why". We're
    talking the kind of people who'd email back your credit card details in
    plain text as a receipt, and the people that employ them don't know that
    there's anything wrong with this.

    Fortunately things seem to be getting better. There's so much security
    news in the news that I think people are starting to take notice, and
    Microsoft's newer development environments make it easier to avoid cross
    site scripting and SQL Injection by providing the tools to avoid them
    and making them more the natural choice to use, so the Point and Drool
    crowd are steadily being dragged into the century of the fruitbat.

    I wonder if MS's poor site security and reliability statistics are more
    to do with the attitude that anyone, even without training or knowledge,
    can run a web site using their tools than due to underlying faults in
    the tools themselves. People using Linux based tools tend to know what
    they're doing, for now, and big shops using J2EE tend to have training
    plans and the infrastructure in place to make sure someone there knows
    whats going on.

    - Richard

    --
    _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
    _/ _/ _/ _/
    _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
    _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.
     
  8. > How nice to start the day by crossing off a nasty chore I no longer
    > have to do!


    Sorry for this, but here's a link to the main page that should bypass the
    sillyness[1]

    <url:http://www.bhit.org/index-home.html>

    Mark.

    [1] You're missing out on an animation of a bike riding across the
    screen, and the following:

    "You may be aware that a Private Member’s Bill is currently passing
    through Parliament. The enactment of the Bill will make the wearing of
    helmets mandatory for all children riding bicycles. We entirely endorse
    and support this Bill as it helps ensure the safety and well being of
    children.

    It has come to our attention that we are being quoted out of context on a
    number of websites attempting to demonstrate their opposition to helmet
    wearing.

    The following links will direct you to websites, which detail the
    efficacy of helmets from independent organisations. All the research is
    peer vetted and none based on opinion from an individual or group."

    [then links to sites including BHSI]
     
  9. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 29/6/04 12:35 am, in article
    [email protected], "Simon Brooke"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > Don't start.
    >
    > The level of competence of the web 'design' industry is enough to make
    > any sensible person weep. Not one commercial website in twenty conforms
    > either to the published standards or with the law on disability access,
    > and in general it seems the more money is spent the worse the outcome.
    >
    > The is not something which is unique to dubious political lobbying
    > campaigns.


    We are currently getting bids from several design companies to redo the
    institute website. My impression is that the good people are actually very
    good. But there are a lot of cowboys out there.

    Lots of fun with interrogating them on DDA, graceful degradation, standards
    compliance etc.

    ...d
     
  10. james

    james Guest

    Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.


    I was inspired by your example and so I guessed the address to go and
    have a look. What *could* a certain Urban Cyclist-UK correspondent
    *possibly* want with the domain name bhit.org.uk? Most strange?

    www.bhit.org.uk/index2.html gives you pretty much the same browser
    experience in Moz as IE/Flash.

    I notice that they are still displaying the Nationwide logo. I
    thought they had pulled their suppport.

    fwiw these guys designed it (and are proud enough of their work to
    want a logo on the site) http://www.imagebox.co.uk/

    If you ever want a quote from the site to use as a tagline for a link
    then this rather sums up their pov

    http://www.bhit.org/mad.html
    "MAD riders never cycle without their helmets"

    best wishes
    james
     
  11. On 29 Jun 2004 08:39:57 GMT, Mark Thompson
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >[then links to sites including BHSI]


    Which is of course the opinions of one individual, with no
    peer-vetting :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  12. On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:59:34 +0100, David Martin
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <BD06EE06.19468%[email protected]>:

    >We are currently getting bids from several design companies to redo the
    >institute website. My impression is that the good people are actually very
    >good. But there are a lot of cowboys out there.
    >Lots of fun with interrogating them on DDA, graceful degradation, standards
    >compliance etc.


    We got the Third Degree on that from B&Q when we did their recruitment
    site. But we had expected it, so we knew more about it than they did
    and ended up showing them things they didn't know :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  13. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Ian G Batten wrote:
    > So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.
    >
    > First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.'' OK,
    > I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because Shockwave is
    > the work of the devil, so I followed the links and installed the latest
    > bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins shows
    > I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and greatest.
    > Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and offers
    > me precisely the release I'm running.
    >
    > Clearly, BHIT care more about pushing Shockwave than pushing their
    > ideas, so sadly I'll be unable to read their pearls of wisdom. It's
    > sad, isn't it?
    >
    > Of course, were I a bad person, I'd suggest that as a government funded
    > body their website should comply with the Disability Discrimination Act,
    > and it's 99.9% certain that a site which demands Flash in order to see
    > its front page isn't compliant. But making that complaint would be
    > childish, wouldn't it?
    >
    > ian
    >
    > [*] Mozilla 1.6 on Solaris 10 build 55. I could put on Mozilla 1.7, or
    > indeed Solaris 10 build 58. I doubt it'll help.
    >
    >

    Me too! I'll never know what I'm missing. Did you also notice that the
    html for even this page is invalid... no doctype! I hope they didn't pay
    for this.


    Steve
     
  14. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > So, linking from Guy's pages, I decided to go and have a chortle.
    >
    > First attempt: ``You don't appear to have the Shockwave plug-in.'' OK,
    > I've only got the Shockwave 5.0 plugin installed, because Shockwave is
    > the work of the devil, so I followed the links and installed the latest
    > bits. Shutdown the browser [*], restart, and lo, Help->About Plugins shows
    > I'm now running Shockwave 6.0 r81, which is the latest and greatest.
    > Visit BHIT again. It _still_ says I'm not running Shockwave, and offers
    > me precisely the release I'm running.


    You can bypass the rubbish at the beginning and go straight to the
    rubbish inside by going to <http://www.bhit.org/index-home.html>.

    Click on "What We Do & Why" then on "Why Helmets" and you will see
    they are /still/ making the claim:

    "Properly worn bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of
    head injury by 85% and the risk of brain injury by almost 90%, and are
    effective in all forms of crashes including those involving a motor
    vehicle."

    So there we are. Helmets are even more effective at preventing brain
    injury than they are at preventing all forms of head injury including.

    Nasty site altogether.

    --
    Dave...
     
  15. On 29 Jun 2004 02:52:00 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote
    in message <[email protected]>:

    >"Properly worn bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of
    >head injury by 85% and the risk of brain injury by almost 90%, and are
    >effective in all forms of crashes including those involving a motor
    >vehicle."


    If anyone can find a leaflet with that printed on, it would be covered
    by the code of advertising practice.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  16. On 2004-06-29, james <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > http://www.bhit.org/mad.html
    > "MAD riders never cycle without their helmets"


    Why use a standard scrollbar that any browser can understand and provide
    nice shortcuts for when you can write your own in Javascript?

    - Richard

    --
    _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
    _/ _/ _/ _/
    _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
    _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.
     
  17. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Richard Corfield <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Why use a standard scrollbar that any browser can understand and provide
    > nice shortcuts for when you can write your own in Javascript?


    Because you're being paid by the hour?

    ian
     
  18. Simonb

    Simonb Guest

  19. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Ian G Batten
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > In article
    > <[email protected]>,
    > Richard Corfield <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Why use a standard scrollbar that any browser can understand and
    >> provide nice shortcuts for when you can write your own in Javascript?

    >
    > Because you're being paid by the hour?


    I think, to be honest, its more about willie-waving than billing.
    Peurile adolescent 'look how clever I am' showing off. It's not just
    the small agencies who are guilty of this sort of thing. Take a stroll
    round some of Britain's largest and most expensive corporate web sites
    and you'll see it everywhere.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
     
Loading...
Loading...