Comments for Webanalogy http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy Web Design, Web Development & Related Topics for the Non-Techie Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:49:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by Scott http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-82 Scott Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:49:57 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-82 I sure am glad I am not being too paranoid here. The Firefox browser is the absolute worst. Much as IE isn't my fav it beats the data-mining-profiling snoopware integral in Firefox. I guess it should have been obvious when they chose "profiles" as a folder title. Dirty rottens.Discovered how much WAS being hidden when I noticed CCleaner coming back with a "Mozilla Firefox cleaning skipped" with no explanation. I wanna new browser choice! I sure am glad I am not being too paranoid here. The Firefox browser is the absolute worst. Much as IE isn’t my fav it beats the data-mining-profiling snoopware integral in Firefox. I guess it should have been obvious when they chose “profiles” as a folder title. Dirty rottens.Discovered how much WAS being hidden when I noticed CCleaner coming back with a “Mozilla Firefox cleaning skipped” with no explanation.
I wanna new browser choice!

]]> Comment on Google Is The New Typography Darling by webanalogy http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=72#comment-76 webanalogy Thu, 08 Dec 2011 03:53:11 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=72#comment-76 Thank you Walking Dead for expanding on the hard work behind a Typeface and adding the knowledge you have on foundries and typographers. I would modify my point but not abandon my position by any means. Because, the core of my point still holds true. In the world of mass production, there is no reason for the font Univers to cost $600, half the cost of an entire laptop, which I might add, hour per hour, took way longer to develop. And, match up font costs and time spent to the development of the javascript coding of jQuery. I don't have specific numbers, but I'm sure the developers of jQuery spent more hours working on that very complex system. and, what is jQuery's cost? FREE!!! I'm not saying that a font should be free, they are simply over priced and I guarantee there are people taking a cut on each sale who are not doing squat in designing the font. The designer of that font, if alive should be getting royalties. And I agree, font designers are getting better compensated than musicians. That is a whole other topic, but I think it is a crime and shame of what has happened to the compensation of musicians for their recorded work. They are getting both robbed by the consumer (from pirating) and their record label (giving too small of a commission). It is sensationalizing to say that Google's fonts "are crap". They are used for the web and don't have to have 10 widths or 10 variations. With 72dpi on a screen, just a couple of variations works fine. And, Google Web Fonts are at the beginning stages. You will see the selection grow and improve as time goes by. What web designers need, and Google is supplying, is the option to have more font options, which the print typography foundries are not helping with. Thank you Walking Dead for expanding on the hard work behind a Typeface and adding the knowledge you have on foundries and typographers. I would modify my point but not abandon my position by any means. Because, the core of my point still holds true. In the world of mass production, there is no reason for the font Univers to cost $600, half the cost of an entire laptop, which I might add, hour per hour, took way longer to develop. And, match up font costs and time spent to the development of the javascript coding of jQuery. I don’t have specific numbers, but I’m sure the developers of jQuery spent more hours working on that very complex system. and, what is jQuery’s cost? FREE!!! I’m not saying that a font should be free, they are simply over priced and I guarantee there are people taking a cut on each sale who are not doing squat in designing the font. The designer of that font, if alive should be getting royalties. And I agree, font designers are getting better compensated than musicians. That is a whole other topic, but I think it is a crime and shame of what has happened to the compensation of musicians for their recorded work. They are getting both robbed by the consumer (from pirating) and their record label (giving too small of a commission). It is sensationalizing to say that Google’s fonts “are crap”. They are used for the web and don’t have to have 10 widths or 10 variations. With 72dpi on a screen, just a couple of variations works fine. And, Google Web Fonts are at the beginning stages. You will see the selection grow and improve as time goes by. What web designers need, and Google is supplying, is the option to have more font options, which the print typography foundries are not helping with.

]]> Comment on Google Is The New Typography Darling by Walking Dead http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=72#comment-75 Walking Dead Thu, 08 Dec 2011 02:34:18 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=72#comment-75 Peignot may be dead, but he sure as hell didn't create any of the digital font files you're using today. If you do a little research, you'll find that Matthew Carter, still alive is responsible for that. I'm sure he's still getting royalties, or at least got paid a nice lump of money in the beginning. And if you dig a little deeper, you'll find that Peignot is not the original designer. He based it off of Nicolas Cochin's work from the 18th century. So the concept of the true 'designer' can often be blurry, and has been the case long before digital type. Regardless of that example, there are a lot of very talented, and hard working designers out there today. It is not uncommon for someone to spend one, two, even ten years working on a typeface. Do they not deserve to get paid for their hard work? Foundries today play more of a marketing role, much like the relationship of the record label to musician. The designers are getting compensated with royalties, usually much better than musicians. And for the original, deceased designers, they were most likely compensated at some point down the line. They were either an employee of that foundry, or conscious of the fact that the foundry would take the rights to the design. Free and open source fonts have their place. There is some good stuff on google, but most of it is crap. Most of them are one weight with no italics. Compare that to the average commercial typeface with 5 weights, separately designed matching italics, small caps, opentype features and impressive character sets. You end up with around 5,000 unique glyphs that all need to be thought about and cared for. I challenge you to design and build a quality typeface and see if you still feel the same way. Peignot may be dead, but he sure as hell didn’t create any of the digital font files you’re using today. If you do a little research, you’ll find that Matthew Carter, still alive is responsible for that. I’m sure he’s still getting royalties, or at least got paid a nice lump of money in the beginning.

And if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that Peignot is not the original designer. He based it off of Nicolas Cochin’s work from the 18th century. So the concept of the true ‘designer’ can often be blurry, and has been the case long before digital type.

Regardless of that example, there are a lot of very talented, and hard working designers out there today. It is not uncommon for someone to spend one, two, even ten years working on a typeface. Do they not deserve to get paid for their hard work?

Foundries today play more of a marketing role, much like the relationship of the record label to musician. The designers are getting compensated with royalties, usually much better than musicians. And for the original, deceased designers, they were most likely compensated at some point down the line. They were either an employee of that foundry, or conscious of the fact that the foundry would take the rights to the design.

Free and open source fonts have their place. There is some good stuff on google, but most of it is crap. Most of them are one weight with no italics. Compare that to the average commercial typeface with 5 weights, separately designed matching italics, small caps, opentype features and impressive character sets. You end up with around 5,000 unique glyphs that all need to be thought about and cared for.

I challenge you to design and build a quality typeface and see if you still feel the same way.

]]> Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by JDF http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-48 JDF Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:38:39 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-48 RE: firefox 5-It doesn't get any better Yes, the browser is firefox,but I prefer to call it foxfire. You know what foxfire means according to the dictionary? It means decaying plants and trees caused by fungus. While this product isn't decaying due to fungus(is it?), it's decaying due to lack of thought put into the product by increasingly terrible features. It is a poor excuse to come out with new versions when all they do is take simple features and make them more complicated and less usable. This used to be my fav browser, no more. It really stinks. Not just the fact that in the past any new install would delete my huge collection of bookmarks, but now it is nearly impossible to save tabs. When I am able to save them, they disappear. Now they are magicians? Get a new job, people at foxfire. It doesn't seem like they can stay in business. Who is the CEO anyway and how do I contact it? I have to get a new browser. RE: firefox 5-It doesn’t get any better
Yes, the browser is firefox,but I prefer to call it foxfire. You know what foxfire means according to the dictionary? It means decaying plants and trees caused by fungus. While this product isn’t decaying due to fungus(is it?), it’s decaying due to lack of thought put into the product by increasingly terrible features. It is a poor excuse to come out with new versions when all they do is take simple features and make them more complicated and less usable. This used to be my fav browser, no more. It really stinks. Not just the fact that in the past any new install would delete my huge collection of bookmarks, but now it is nearly impossible to save tabs. When I am able to save them, they disappear. Now they are magicians? Get a new job, people at foxfire. It doesn’t seem like they can stay in business. Who is the CEO anyway and how do I contact it? I have to get a new browser.

]]> Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by David http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-46 David Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:49:03 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-46 Remember folks, FF4 needs 512mB of RAM and 200mB hard drive space (I think it is), with all them tabs open how much RAM dy'a think you have left? I have only used FF4 for about 10 minutes and I've gone back to FF3.6, like many other I am thinking of ditching FF entirely along with Thunderbird. I just don't seem to trust them anymore! Why does FF4 phone home 24/7 and FF seems to be hand-in-hand with Google, I've come to the conclusion that no browser is 'free' for nothing, another reason was after reading this article in the Register-: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/19/firefox_data_snoop/ and is this damage control exercise, http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/05/13/mozilla-firefox-data/ Either this is worth thinking about or I am paranoid - remember Phorm? Oh, and FF4 and Chrome users BEWARE, there ARE serious flaws in webGL, again see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/chrome_firefox_security_threat/ disabling webGL in both browsers seems like good advice. So we started of with 512mB RAM and about 200mB hard drive space.... with all the updates and fixes dy'a think these will get any bigger? Why is it the FF4 uses such a big resources, earlier build didn't nor does anyother browser I can think of right now..... lol and we moan about Internet Exploder. Remember folks, FF4 needs 512mB of RAM and 200mB hard drive space (I think it is), with all them tabs open how much RAM dy’a think you have left?

I have only used FF4 for about 10 minutes and I’ve gone back to FF3.6, like many other I am thinking of ditching FF entirely along with Thunderbird. I just don’t seem to trust them anymore!

Why does FF4 phone home 24/7 and FF seems to be hand-in-hand with Google, I’ve come to the conclusion that no browser is ‘free’ for nothing, another reason was after reading this article in the Register-:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/19/firefox_data_snoop/ and is this damage control exercise, http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/05/13/mozilla-firefox-data/

Either this is worth thinking about or I am paranoid – remember Phorm?

Oh, and FF4 and Chrome users BEWARE, there ARE serious flaws in webGL, again see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/chrome_firefox_security_threat/ disabling webGL in both browsers seems like good advice.

So we started of with 512mB RAM and about 200mB hard drive space…. with all the updates and fixes dy’a think these will get any bigger?

Why is it the FF4 uses such a big resources, earlier build didn’t nor does anyother browser I can think of right now….. lol and we moan about Internet Exploder.

]]> Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by webanalogy http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-45 webanalogy Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:08:58 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-45 Thanks LLH, for being a part of the discussion. I would try Chrome, as Kerry suggests, you might like it better than Internet Explorer. I can see now, I'm not imagining these problems with the new version of Firefox. Thanks LLH, for being a part of the discussion. I would try Chrome, as Kerry suggests, you might like it better than Internet Explorer. I can see now, I’m not imagining these problems with the new version of Firefox.

]]> Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by LLH http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-44 LLH Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:28:40 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-44 I couldn't agree more with you and Kerry. I am quitting Firefox. The only thing this version does is crash and freezing all the time! I miss the refresh button as much as you do. So I am getting back to IE for now, a lesser evil for me to get away from the most terrible browser in human history. I couldn’t agree more with you and Kerry. I am quitting Firefox. The only thing this version does is crash and freezing all the time! I miss the refresh button as much as you do. So I am getting back to IE for now, a lesser evil for me to get away from the most terrible browser in human history.

]]> Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by webanalogy http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-41 webanalogy Sun, 22 May 2011 04:20:05 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-41 Kerry, I should give you some sort of door price. You are my first real person to comment on my blog. Thank you! You are so right, I did forget to mention the crashing issue. When I had several tabs open at once, Firefox 4.0.1 would first slow down, and then crash. I didn't let that happen too often before I cleared all of my tabs and was running the browser with fewer tabs. But, along with all of the other problems with this version, I realized I should not have to change my browsing habits just because my browser is acting up. I might try Chrome, but am happy with my solution—I downgraded to Firefox 3.6.17 and like this "old" dependable friend. Firefox 3.x is a great browser. The permeating browser and application developer's ethos—that you have to keep changing something when it already works great—is a flawed approach on many levels. Kerry, I should give you some sort of door price. You are my first real person to comment on my blog. Thank you! You are so right, I did forget to mention the crashing issue. When I had several tabs open at once, Firefox 4.0.1 would first slow down, and then crash. I didn’t let that happen too often before I cleared all of my tabs and was running the browser with fewer tabs. But, along with all of the other problems with this version, I realized I should not have to change my browsing habits just because my browser is acting up. I might try Chrome, but am happy with my solution—I downgraded to Firefox 3.6.17 and like this “old” dependable friend. Firefox 3.x is a great browser. The permeating browser and application developer’s ethos—that you have to keep changing something when it already works great—is a flawed approach on many levels.

]]> Comment on Firefox 4.0.1 is a Terrible Browser by Kerry http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-40 Kerry Sun, 22 May 2011 03:19:10 +0000 http://schildbachdesign.com/webanalogy/?p=64#comment-40 I was a long time Firefox user (10 years) . I agree with you, but you didn't mention the crashing issue. I just uninstalled it after many crashes and now I'm using Google Chrome. I really don't care that much for it either but at least it works. I was a long time Firefox user (10 years) . I agree with you, but you didn’t mention the crashing issue. I just uninstalled it after many crashes and now I’m using Google Chrome. I really don’t care that much for it either but at least it works.

]]>