It disgruntles me when poor arguments are put forth. For instance, Silverlight should be avoided is an argument that relies on a very biased opinion rather than fact. The problem, of course, isn’t that the argument is being made against Silverlight but rather that the argued points are unfounded and poorly written. Below is a point-by-point analysis and counter-point piece based on what I know of Silverlight as well as what Bing can tell me.
The author chooses, of course with no evidence, to make the point that Silverlight doesn’t support deep linking. I agree that providing a uri for each page, document, video, et cetera, is an important part of what makes the web accessible. Anyone who has visited an all Flash site from the late 90′s knows why: without a Uri, users cannot gain quick and consistent access to content. It is fortunate that Silverlight provides deep linking support, otherwise I would have to agree with the author. A quick Bing or Google search could have provided the author with this information, but then again what are facts to an argument?
For those who are blissfully unaware, it is the year 2009 and I still have to click three dropdowns to see many videos on popular sites like Shack News. With the recent news about the HTML5 spec and how it could support a geo-location tag has got me thinking about the information we are willing to give and what other information would be beneficial to open up for sites.
The perfect example of this is known by any avid gamer who enjoys watching the latest trailers of upcoming games. Most, if not all, of the video sites have an age block on "mature" videos and it seems none of them are really willing to go out of their way to improve the experience. Instead users are left with clicking the same old annoying dropdowns for month, day and year so that they can simply watch a video. While some are ok, providing many items to remove the need for scrolling or sorting the year in ascending order so we can cheat, others are limited by their host control and force the user to grab and drag the scrollbar.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our browsers new some basic information about us that could also be tied into our local user account? For instance at work a browser could pull in information about myself from ActiveDirectory like my birthdate, position, et cetera. The browser itself, or the OS could provide a layer of security that disables software from gaining access to certain data I want to keep private.
My point is that within the near (5 years?) future we could possibly see an application for Facebook that allows you to see specifically where your friends are while still having to click the same old dropdowns to view a 30 second game trailer. Thanks W3C for focusing on the important stuff!
P.S. This should be bigger than just HTML5 – it would be helpful to have access to the data from any scripting language. I see a big chance here for Microsoft and ASP.NET 4 to lead the way with an open format, however I am sure that I am unaware of something that would cause such data from being available.
Is anyone else getting sick and tired of hearing the rants by people at Opera about how Microsoft isn’t doing enough for their business? I sure am and in the latest round Opera’s “chief technology officer,” Hakon Wium Lie has suggested that by Microsoft allowing the use of logos in the new browser ballot system will make users naturally gravitate towards IE because of the branding.
First off, Microsoft shouldn’t have to play nice and give users a ballot. When you load up any distro of Linux you don’t get a ballot that includes IE. Similarly when Mac users turn on OSX for the first time they don’t get a ballot with IE, Opera and Firefox. This is simply another case of the EU wanting to take down Microsoft for being successful while allowing the underdogs to run free because their products suck.
To allow Opera’s idea of no logos would be rediculous to say the least. Essentially what we have here is one company complaining that it can’t make ground in an overly saturated market because Microsoft and Microsoft alone is forcing users to use Internet Explorer. Last time I checked, there was no forcing and FireFox was making serious gains on the browser from Redmond. It seems that this latest episode is a simple case of poor branding (Opera) trying to take down good branding (IE).
Perhaps instead of complaining so much about other companies’ software packages, Opera should worry about making and advertising a decent product.
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for anyone who messes up their computer after reading this post. If you are someone who isn’t confident with computers, stop reading now.
It seems everytime I visit an electronic store such as Best Buy I see at least one person talking to an employee about what antivirus software is best for Windows. As an average user they are taught to fear for the safety of their bits and taught that Windows has some open door policy for attacks. The scariest part of this is that they buy this software without really looking deeper into why it exists. They figure it is an absolute necessity because everyone talks about it.
A lot of these people will end up on message boards throughout the internet stating the same thing: “My PC is so slow after only three months!!! VISTA SUCKS!” You would think it was some crazy epidemic; that Vista implodes (or explodes?) and becomes slow from too much use. At least I figure this is what some people think since most other material position in life has this characteristic.
The big thing these people don’t realize is that some software is worse than the viruses and spamware they thought it would block. Users across the globe install this software not realizing it leeches itself on tons of different events and processes on their systems. For instance, AVG will latch onto Internet Explorer to tell you whether or not links are safe! Thanks AVG for installing an inefficiency on my system! Similar software like Norton will attach itself to your email client to make sure that everything you do is virus free!
I have been antivirus and anti-spamware free for roughly seven years now. Once I gave up the idea that I needed extra protection I stopped having problems. Coincidental? I think not! This anti-* software is good for some things though: cleaning up a mess you make. So it stands that if you don’t make a mess, you won’t need the software.
I plead you to join the revolution. Educate yourself a little into how attacks happen and how you are protected by Vista itself (ie. don’t turn down UAC). Don’t click oddball links that promise you something and be concious when you are using the computer. Use things like common sense and good judgement. If a long lost buddy is sending you an email with a program in it, think twice about opening that attachment. Join the millions of people who don’t run anti-* software because they don’t need it. Join us in not dishing out millions of dollars to companies that “protect” us only to be strapped into their system.
Dear Guy In Front,
No not you, the other guy. The one that decided to stand in front of fifty people waiting patiently for their train’s track number to come up on the TV screen. You who came late to the station and quickly came to the conclusion that you would never be able to read the numbers from within the group. You who decided that getting the track number was so important to you that you had to sacrifice fifty peoples’ views of the monitor. Thank you for not standing still either! Your gentle rocking back and forth both made me sea sick and made me angry as the ten people in front of now had to start counter swaying just to see the monitor. Thank you for giving the people behind me a conversation starter into just what a jackass you are, causing the inevitable laughter between people within earshot. Thank you for also talking on your blackberry VERY LOUDLY so that we may know you are an important business man with a schedule to keep. As if without you the trains wouldn’t exist at all. Thank you for disregarding the unspoken rule of a the 10-15ft arc, the unwritten rule of make sure the person behind you can read.
Here is to you jackass of all he stands before. Here is to you making our days seem just a little crappier.
One of the biggest problems I have with the video game industry is the lack of innovation. Time and time again I see games getting awards for something that is a cheap trick, a reinvisioning of an old tactic to fool the player into thinking something deeper is happening. This happens because someone in the company, or perhaps the collective, decides that it would be cheaper and cost effective to go the simple route. Rather than drive innovation, companies employ plays from a 30 year old playbook.
For this rant I need a target to examplify my point and for many reasons I am choosing Left 4 Dead. It urks my nerves the amount of people that think this game is a divine representation of what games could be. They throw so many undeserving awards at the game it is as if it is because Valve had something to do with it. There are many cases being made for the game but I will only focus on two: cooperative play and randomized levels.
People are claiming that Left 4 Dead is the best and most innovative cooperative game to come ever. They are pointing fingers at the situations it imposes on the players which force teammates to come to the aid of others. For instance there is an enemy that can wrangle a player, pull them away from the relative safety of the group and put them in a state where self defense is impossible. This requires the other players to drop what they are doing and help the teammate being attacked. Another example is how the death and revival system is implemented. When “killed” a player is put into a last stand position that allows other players to revive them. If revival fails, the player is put into a closet in the map for retrieval, generally after a group of enemies has been slaughtered.
The problem? This has been done before! Left 4 Dead is forcing situations that would naturally arise if the AI should have. Ever play Ghost Recon (1) coop on the hardest difficulty? Ever been in a situation where you or squadmates are pinned down? I have countless times, after all it is the reason they call it cooperative play. Coming to the assistance of teammates is part of the formula! Forcing the issue through specific enemy abilities is a horribly cheap trick.
What about the randomization? Surely it is a innovative feature that hasn’t been done before! After all, both enemy locations and guns are randomized. Hell, even what enemies appear is randomized! Sadly, this has been done before and the randomization has a very low upper bound. What I mean by this is that with any sort of randomization like this has specific locations or enemies that may or may not exist. You know going into a level that a certain amount of objects in the game may or may not exist.
It quickly turns into a game of asking “will object A be there?” rather than “what will be next?” This “innovative mechanism” has been used many times in the past, such as in Diablo II: Lord of Destruction. When you dive into the Worldstone Level 2, and 3 in Hell difficulty of D2:LoD, the enemy locations and types are randomized. The problem is the same though: there is a known set of enemy types that can or cannot exist. You will quickly run out of new, unexpected types very quickly. This isn’t innovation! This is faked non-repetitiveness, a cheap trick to make you, the player, think that the game is more than just a set of pre-defined levels.
So what is my point? Innovation should be driving new game development, not the idea of making money. Instead of the pathetic implementation of randomized objects, L4D could employ algorithms that teach the zombies to use portions of the environment as weapons. For example a tank that is spawned near metal piping learns it can use the piping as a weapon after a player accidently blows it up. It then knows that piping is a weapon and learns to rip the piping off the wall. If this is extended to a majority of the objects in the world you quickly create an environment that is completely open. Yes, the developers should be afraid of the game breaking itself but it is a risk, a necessary learning step in the name of innovation. Gamers aren’t going to care if the game originally breaks itself because they will be too frightened of what the enemies will learn next! Imagine facing a large enemy that all of a sudden sees a pile of enemies it previously disposed of, picks them up and starts chucking them at you. Now imagine facing him again; you are expecting the same thing to happen right? Except this time instead of throwing them he swings them at you because he saw you wield a bat. He has learned through example and now you are screwed. Using a gun could mean him using a gun, each tactic you use will be used against you. The world now becomes almost real…
So if you are a game developer remember immersive gameplay is created by creating deep and rich worlds, not by faking them with cheap tricks. Also remember Left 4 Dead isn’t the only case of this, I am just using it as an example because it is the perfect example. Almost every game suffers from this to a certain degree.