Hey again Scott, for the record, I'm actually one of these people who would prefer to read the post in the message, however, this is not something I'd ever advocate for nor sign off on, simply because I truly feel it's not the best way to manage these types of postings to these lists.
I simply will not do what I really feel is not in the best interest of this community as a whole; even if it's just a small detail like this. Small details beget large details. :) Anyway, the ratios are not necessarily wrong. We must remember that we're really not hearing from the majority here. This list is several hundred strong. :) -And growing, I might add! woohoo for us!… So since that's the case, we need to consider that others may not share interest in receiving full updates. As I've said before, sending full posts without links really eliminates the choice of those who aren't interested in reading those messages. They're simply forced to download the message in it's entirety whether they like it or not. Whereas, this current model uses less bandwidth and allows choice on both ends. I guess for now, I'm still open to discussing this off-list, but it's probably best to leave this for the moment. We're really going to stay with this model as long as it's the best one which serves the largest user base well. As I said, you're more than welcome to write me privately to continue this and I'll say the same to others as well. I definitely would like to keep up to date with user feedback on list performance. Thanks again and you know the whole weekend thing! <smile> L8rs! Cara :) --- View my Online Portfolio at: http://www.onemodelplace.com/CaraQuinn Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/ModelCara On Sep 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Scott Chesworth wrote: I see your point, just for some reason, I appear to be making the same one in reverse lol. If this is mainly about the convenience of those on flakey or expensive connections, and every maccessibility post is going to be relevant and of interest to a good number of people, plus the majority of people in this thread on their good connections so far have asked for the same thing, I'm missing the sticking point. In my mind, if the size of the email with a full content is considerably less to download than the full page would be for those interested in reading the post, and the majority of people find these posts of interest no matter what connection they're on, then surely it's a win win situation to switch to the method people are actually asking for. As much as the way it's done now was a neat idea to try out and looks quite slick, the ratios seem wrong. Sorry to harp on, just trying to get a point across because I'm soon to be part of the antique collection club. If I really don't have a point and there's no intentions of changing things, tell me to shut my face and I'll stop flogging this horse with no offence taken. A fab weekend back at ya... Scott On 9/6/09, Cara Quinn <modelc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Scott, no prob; > > :) I actually wasn't pointing any fingers on the critique thing but > rather suggesting that ppl might begin thinking in the direction you > are in the sense of what would benefit the whole rather than a few > parts. > > To address your issue, yes, if someone wanted to read the article > on a slow / 'paid' connection, that it would probably be easier / less > costly to simply post the entirety of the post in the message itself, > but if you look at this then, for the user who'd either rather not > read it, or who simply wants the quick update, they benefit as they > don't need to download the entire article and can then simply > download / delete the abbreviated version as it were. > > This gives the interested user a choice of whether they choose to > see the entire posting, and doesn't require other users to download a > larger message without a choice in the matter. -Make sense?… > > This gives everyone a choice with minimal waste of time / bandwidth… > > It really does seem like the best option we can think of, but > seriously, if ppl can come up with something better, then we'd sure > listen… :) > > Anyway, hope I've addressed everything here, and if not, then > please shout out! K?… > > Have a terrific weekend!… > > Smiles, > > Cara :) > --- > View my Online Portfolio at: > > http://www.onemodelplace.com/CaraQuinn > > Follow me on Twitter! > > https://twitter.com/ModelCara > > On Sep 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Scott Chesworth wrote: > > > Cara - Appologies if it came across as less than constructive critique > at your end, I thought I made it pretty obvious that I wasn't knocking > Josh's efforts at all. Perhaps it was the comparrison that came over > wrong, for what it's worth, it was written light heartedly at this > end. Not everyone thinks the same, hence why I kept it on list and > suggested either a poll or for more folks to chime in. > A few thoughts from the slow costly access and mobile camp, of course > they're going to be from my own point of view, can't help that, but my > thought processes aren't too outragious (most of the time): > Surely the majority of people who'd be browsing high traffic lists > like this on a mobile device would have some sort of data plan in > place, or risk bankruptcy. Seeing as how not every platform is as > slick and quick as the iPhone though, wouldn't it make more sense for > those people to receive a couple of extra kb of text in their email > per day at most rather than launch their browser, wait for a whole > webpage to download on what could likely be a flakey connection, then > take on the frustration of navigating the content (no disrespect, it's > a well laid out site, my point is that mobile browsing in the main is > fairly horrible). > For the pay-per-minute folks or similar, again, sticking in one app > and downloading an email with the full content as a couple kb of text > verses firing up their prefered choice of browser and downloading a > whole page of HTML would save time and money would it not? > All I can say is that, although it's from my own point of view, I'm > moving to a new pad next week and will be getting my net access from a > horrid mixture of those two options, and the above makes more sense to > me as I'm fast approaching the week or so of access-less trauma lol. > Plus, I'm not sure if you've made it through the whole thread yet, but > you seem to have quite a few people not minding the updates, but > prefering the full content. Clearly not everyone is as grouchy as us > troublemakers that started the debate, but that part of it doesn't > seem to be going away. > > Scott - I get why you forward your posts linked to stay on the right > side of people's terms and conditions, but seeing as all the posts I > can remember have been written by a contributor to maccessibility.net, > I'd hope they have permission to republish there own stuff. > > Hopefully this doesn't tread on anyone's toes too hard, just my 2 > cents worth. > > Scott > > On 9/5/09, Cara Quinn <modelc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Once again you all really do need to remember here that just >> because those of us here in America seem to have basically fast, >> free- >> flowing internet access, that's just not the case in all areas of the >> world, or even in this country. (US) >> >> There are many people whom pay based on bandwidth used. So, each >> additional minute they spend downloading email is more money they >> spend out-of-pocket. >> >> This isn't even touching on the vast audience on mobile devices… >> >> Quite simply put, this model of posting with a summary and link >> really is the best balance we know of, currently, to work well for >> everyone. >> >> Honestly, since when is it so very difficult to click on a link?… >> >> As I said, this is not some push to get traffic to the site. this >> is simply meant as a quick, courteous way of posting good, relevant, >> timely info that everyone can benefit from, in a way that they can >> easily work with. I hope this makes sense… >> >> Just as a side note here, you all really should know (not to put >> poor Josh on the spot here :) ) but Josh has really out done himself >> here with the Maccessibility network site, putting extreme amounts of >> hours / effort into it so that your user experience really can be >> superb. And, I for one, think he's done a fab job! >> >> So once again, might I simply ask that we consider contributing >> suggestions / critique in a positive way, and perhaps share >> suggestions with Josh and I, which you feel might actually benefit >> the >> larger user base, rather than just yourself or a small group?… We'd >> definitely appreciate feedback in this way. >> >> Thanks for reading and once again, do have a lovely weekend!… >> >> Smiles, >> >> Cara :) >> --- >> View my Online Portfolio at: >> >> http://www.onemodelplace.com/CaraQuinn >> >> Follow me on Twitter! >> >> https://twitter.com/ModelCara >> >> On Sep 5, 2009, at 1:22 PM, ben mustill-rose wrote: >> >> >> If the email contained the full text of the article I probably >> wouldn't have minded so much. If a user is going through a list of >> there emails and only reading the ones that interest them, assuming >> there not interested in yours, its not going to take any more time to >> skip over your email if the full text is included as apposed to it >> not. As it stands, I see this purely as advertising for your network >> since i'm going to have to visit your site just to get the full >> story. >> >> No hard feelings intended. >> >> On 05/09/2009, Larry Wanger <lsw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't mind the updates from the Mac site but would rather get the >>> full posting rather than just a half paragraph. I know that one >>> reason >>> updates come in this way is to encourage people to visit the actual >>> site. But, I think its an extra and unnecessary step myself. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Maxwell Ivey Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello; I get a lot of email daily from the several lists I'm >>>> subscribed to. I don't personally have a problem with the news >>>> updates as long as they are really news. I think the more >>>> important >>>> question with this one is does this mean they have or plan to fix >>>> the >>>> regular facebook so mac users can start enjoying it again? I >>>> understand the iphone is the current wave and all, but I hope that >>>> doesn't mean the people at facebook have forgotten about how >>>> unaccessible their site is with a mac. Let me know if you have >>>> heard >>>> or experienced anything different regarding this issue. Thanks, >>>> Max >>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Scott Chesworth wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I don't mean to come over as unsupportive Josh, because I'm 110% >>>>> behind what you do with lioncourt and maccessibility, to the point >>>>> where soon after Christmas when my schedule will have changed >>>>> significantly I'd love to start contributing myself or at least >>>>> figure >>>>> out some way of supporting more actively. >>>>> >>>>> Having said all that, that wasn't the reply I expected James and >>>>> Ben >>>>> would get man. The kind chap who offers me very competitive deals >>>>> on >>>>> Viagra usually slightly less than once per day isn't of dissimilar >>>>> mind when it comes to the actual principal here. It doesn't say >>>>> anywhere to my knowledge that this list doubles up as a kind of >>>>> newswire, so perhaps this would be a good point to have one of >>>>> Cara's >>>>> polls... she loves 'em! If it turns out that myself James and Ben >>>>> are >>>>> grouchy old men so be it, but if not then perhaps you could tweak >>>>> the >>>>> automation to deliver automatic posts to the most relevant list? >>>>> My >>>>> personal gripe here is that even when I don't pass over one of >>>>> these >>>>> automated posts, I only get a snippet of the story. As long as >>>>> the >>>>> subject lines are well thought out, which so far they always have >>>>> been, I'll know whether I want to read a news story or not - >>>>> having >>>>> to >>>>> load the extra page seems superfluous. >>>>> >>>>> Again, no treading on toes intended, I just think they have a >>>>> point >>>>> where the principal is concerned here and wanted to add a bit of >>>>> weight. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> On 9/4/09, Josh de Lioncourt <overl...@lioncourt.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> iPhone discussion has always been welcome here. :) The other list >>>>>> is >>>>>> more strictly focused on the iPhone, but we would have to also >>>>>> ban >>>>>> iPod, Airport Express/Extreme, and all sorts of other things from >>>>>> this >>>>>> list if we banned iPhone discussion. After all, the iPhone is >>>>>> used >>>>>> in >>>>>> conjunction with your computer, one of those computer types is >>>>>> the >>>>>> Mac. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cara and I discussed posting the news updates to this list. They >>>>>> have >>>>>> pretty much always been posted by someone, usually me, manually. >>>>>> We've >>>>>> automated the process to give ourselves a little less work. Since >>>>>> the >>>>>> updates average less than a message a day, we feel they are of >>>>>> use >>>>>> to >>>>>> more people than to whom they are an irritation. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can also filter those messages, if you wish, using your mail >>>>>> client's message rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 4, 2009, at 12:02 PM, ben mustill-rose wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why am I getting these? When the 3gs first came out, I seem to >>>>>>> remember that Cara was quite adamant that discussion of it on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> mv >>>>>>> list was off topic so she created a new list for it. Surely, >>>>>>> things >>>>>>> like this would fit in better on the other list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry if I spelt your name wrong btw Cara. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/09/2009, Maccessibility <nore...@maccessibility.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FaceBook iPhone Application Updated With Accessibility Fixes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The FaceBook.com iPhone application has been updated to version >>>>>>>> 3.02. The >>>>>>>> update focuses on VoiceOver compatibility, and accessibility >>>>>>>> fixes. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> rapidity >>>>>>>> with which the developer has addressed the accessibility issues >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> extraordinary, and we applaud FaceBook for this response. >>>>>>>> The application is exceptionally usable now, with only a couple >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> unlabeled >>>>>>>> controls which can be quickly [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can read the rest of this news item at: >>>>>>>> http://www.lioncourt.com/2009/09/04/facebook-iphone-application-updated-with-accessibility-fixes/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Mac-cessibility Network >>>>>>>> "...it's all within our reach..." >>>>>>>> http://maccessibility.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Kind regards, BEN. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email: bmustillr...@gmail.com >>>>>>> msn: benmustillr...@hotmail.com >>>>>>> web: http://www.bmr.me.uk (under construction) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, BEN. >> >> email: bmustillr...@gmail.com >> msn: benmustillr...@hotmail.com >> web: http://www.bmr.me.uk (under construction) >> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
