Webby Award 2004 Winners Announced 284
ivar writes "Over at the official site, the 2004 Webby Award Winners have been announced. There were a few surprises given the last publicly viewable rankings - I guess they keep the last few days in secrecy for a reason." The press release announcing the winners has more detail, noting: "Reflecting the egalitarian spirit of the internet, winners ranged from Wikipedia.org (Best Community), a free, community-built encyclopedia, to the official site for the Oscar-winning documentary The Fog of War (Best Film), to web powerhouses like Google (Best Practices and Best Services)."
Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:5, Insightful)
Valid XHTML 1.1 and CSS are the way to go, no matter who or what's writing it.
Re:Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:2)
FLASH GOOD!
I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash allows for cross-browser, cross-platform web development. If I create a Flash animation I do not have to worry about how it will appear on Mac/Linux/Windows/Netscape/Mozilla/IE/Opera. It will be consistent across all platforms. The same cannot be said for HTML and CSS. Even though standards have been set, rendering software does not always abide by those standards (mainly this only applies to MS).
Long story short, and I know it's slightly OT, I think Flash is a great way to present good looking multimedia content with a (relatively) small footprint. What does bother me are websites that do flash-only, or use flash unnecessarily. You should not design an ENTIRE site in flash, and if you do you should at least provide a non-flash site for your users.
Just my $.02
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Very untrue. There is sometimes a HUGE difference between quality of the same flash object on the same computer, depending on what os&browser&plugin combo you
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I think you misunderstood my point about CSS/HTML. You said when valid HTML is "displayed on a standards compliant browser, it will be the same." I agree, but the point that I was trying to make is that IE is not exactly compliant with W3C standards. That was the only point I was trying to get across.
Out of curiousity, is there an OSS alternative for Flash? A quick Google search did not provide anything that stuck out to me, maybe a fellow slashdotter can fill us in!
Dan
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:2, Funny)
Get a divorce! Where do your priorities lie, man?! :)
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:2)
as long as there is an altenative, fine! (Score:2, Interesting)
Flash has its good points, you are right. The main problem is the accessibility of it, and the disgusting trend of providing no non-flash alternative, or simply providing a message saying "Sorry, this site requires Flash. Bugger off." This is pretty much like telling everyone who can't see the pretty pictures, for whatever reason, that they are not wanted.
Regardless, as long as there's no content expressed solely in Flash, and as long as it is used effectively it's OK. As a dialup user, it pisses me off,
OT a bit - user agent strings (Score:2, Interesting)
This seemed puzzling, until I looked at the FireSomething extension settings (which, if you aren't aware, randomizes FireFox's name) and found that my browser was currently known as "l77tspider" and reporting this information in the agent string, thus the spider-spo
All Flash apps reinvent the wheel (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash does have it's place. The Washington Post and NY Times often have nice Flash side-bars that can make an electoral map or poll results come alive. But in general, I don't think Flash enhances the web experience.
Re:All Flash apps reinvent the wheel (Score:2)
Flash has had common 'widgets' for the past 3 versions. (they have issues, particularly with implementation but that's another discussion and not a problem limited to flash)
The Washington Post and NY Times often have nice Flash side-bars that can make an electoral map or poll results come alive. But in general, I don't think Flash enhances the web experience.
I don't understand, didn't you just describe
Re:All Flash apps reinvent the wheel (Score:3, Insightful)
http://rr.com [rr.com]
Portals and other sites/apps benefit greatly from Flash due to the way the widgets and/or sections are able to pull data without causing the other widgets/sections (or the entire page) to refresh. In HTML, this would be possible via iFrames and/or DHTML, but your bookmarks issue is just as relevant in that case and th
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, personally, i think the biggest porblem with Flash is how hard it is for machines to get data from it. As soon as google starts giving me results for Flash based content, maybe i will change my mind.
Good flash example (Score:5, Interesting)
The local pizza delivery co [hell.co.nz] has a 100% flash site. It takes orders and everything - very slick. However, it was developed with Flash 7 and the latest plugin for Linux is 6.0.81.0. When I click my location on the map, the web browser segfaults.
This illustrates the problem. Flash makes you dependant on one company for your display software. When they don't keep up the support, you get locked out. Hell is only flash site I actually would use regularly and it doesn't work for me. So much for cross platform.
For those who don't have flash installed... (Score:2)
You're missing the point. (Score:2)
PLEASE! STOP RIGHT THERE! THAT'S THE POINT!
There is no need for animations on the web. MAYBE for scientific research, or medical use, but most of that could be done with trusty animated gifs or for real research a video clip.
Flash is used by 99.99999% of web sites because it CAN and because it look cool, not because it SHOULD. ANyone with a modicum of UI know-how and study knows how much of a shitty job most websites do with the basics, simple navigation with tabs and b
That "personal" website that one a webby... (Score:2)
Sure it's flash. It loaded pretty quick.
BUT I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. What the hell? it's intensionally obtuse, it tells me nothing about the person except he or she is a pretty good flash artist.
But pretty styleless, and an utter waste of bandwidth. It's not even remotely interesting.
Whatever.
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:2)
Except for Linux on PPC, which doesn't have a flash plugin available for it.
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
When we say "no flash!" doesn't always mean, "we don't want eye candy but get the contents right!", at least from my point of view. Flash is evil, because only HUMAN can read the content.
It'd be fun for you to learn about semantic web. It's about machines reading other machines content and fiddle with that.
I understand flash came out earlier and it's spread around the world, but there's a great alternative that just does the same thing in xml in text format, SVG.
Of course svg is only a
Re:It has it's place (Score:3, Interesting)
Flash no longer is used as a big single timeline by the majority of professionals either, the advances in ActionScript allow for a lot more linking of small
Re:Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:2)
*sigh*
Re:Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just so long as no Flash sites won. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not much comes out of flash on an webbrowser without a flash plugin loaded.
Where's Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2004 Webby Award Winners have been announced.
I don't understand. Wikipedia and Google are cool and everything... but what about Slashdot??
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, Taco, ... (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia community (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wikipedia community (Score:3, Insightful)
I would consider slashdot or something awful to have far superior communities. Sure, the idea is great (I sometimes contribute to wikipedia here), but let's be honest with wikipedia-- trolls are almost unstoppable, and many editors and admins I have met are rude and lazy, following the moto "Let the wikiprocess sort it out"-- using that as an excuse to have someone else fix it. And of course nobody does-- and when you do you get labeled "POV, troll, fanatic", etc.
Quacks, paranormalists,
Re:Wikipedia community (Score:5, Insightful)
My experience is that the people who will get into conflicts are mostly those who have a problem with our neutrality policy. They feel that Wikipedia should clearly label certain views as nonsense. Of course people can never agree on what is and isn't nonsense, so they fight all day about it. But our policy states that in such cases, what we do is attribute the claims from both sides to their adherents.
Now, there are often misunderstandings regarding that policy, such as the belief that we have to give pseudoscience "equal time" in science articles. This is addressed in some detail in th actual policy page: NPOV and pseudoscience [wikipedia.org]. And of course there are religious fanatics and other hardcore believers who find it difficult to work together and insist on the exclusion of certain points of view or on the prominent inclusion of their own in articles which have nothing to do with their belief system (e.g. religious views in scientific articles). However, as we develop and refine our policies, these cases become increasingly rare.
There is of course always conflict, and it contributes to truly adding all perspectives to an article. However, in terms of civility, Wikipedia fares much better than most other online communities, not least because we have a clear policy against personal attacks. In terms of getting the facts right, I have described several ideas in my campaign platform [wikipedia.org] for the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election.
Lord Kenneth misbehaves on a regular basis (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Lord Kenneth misbehaves on a regular basis (Score:3, Interesting)
Having members try to get me temp. banned because I reverted from a POV, biased article from a known problem user over three times in a 24-hour period (when the rule says, vaguely, "day"?)
How about being called immature for trying to get some "community support" on the same article because no one else wants to review changes, saying "let the community fix it"?
Me getting temp. banned then was justified, however, it was aggravated by the wonderful "community" you ha
Re:Wikipedia community (Score:2)
May I take a guess here... (Score:2)
I take it you mean people insulting the allmighty Mozilla? :)
Wow, is this still around? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow, is this still around? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow, is this still around? (Score:2)
BBC (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
While you're there make sure to contribute to the topics which are marked red (no explanation yet). That way the great service will become even better and we can all benefit from it.
I know of several schools in my country which instruct their students to go look for information there (in case the student knows english, not our native). I suppose it will only get better since academic institutions are beginning to refer to it.
Re:Wikipedia (Score:2)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
Once I s
Re:Wikipedia (Score:2)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:3, Informative)
As for the politics, I cannot comment as I've only contributed occasionally and anonymously. I certainly hope it's not THAT bad as other
wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia (and affiliates) should be on that list because the interface is clean. It's easy to get around and go off on tangent while searching something. It's open...and it's educational. I learned a lot of cool facts.
Like where the " All your base are belong to us [wikipedia.org] " come from. And yes, ive just proved that I am not worthy of reading Slashdot because I didn't know wtf that came from.Borderline waste of time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Borderline waste of time (Score:4, Informative)
Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ironic (Score:2)
Re:Ironic (Score:2)
Yea, I can resize the window, but it's BAD DESIGN, counterproductive and inappropriate, not unlike your comment.
Oh well, no Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)
what about porn? give me a break... (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy to see why E2 didn't win technical... (Score:3, Interesting)
Crap! (Score:5, Funny)
This year: Google wins two categories. I'm frightened.
Re:Crap! (Score:2)
Re:Crap! (Score:2)
-B
This is the best? (Score:5, Funny)
Happy Trails!
Erick
It's so 1997... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it's just me, but the whole tone of the thing leaves me with the impression that the Webby folks have an extraordinarily high (but unfounded) opinion of themselves. Reading the mails they sent, I was transported back in time to the mid-1990s, when The New Economy was going to leave the brick-and-mortar dinosaurs choking on comet dust.
I think we may have found the last few dozen people who haven't woken up from the Internet Bubble.
Re:It's so 1997... (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to be worried when a guest presenter on Good Morning America sets up something called the "International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences". Seems like these days you can call yourself anything you want as long as you're the one who gets in first.
Yours sincerely,
Bitch Sex Demigod from Hell
Re:It's so 1997... (Score:2, Funny)
Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:4, Insightful)
Somewhere near the BBC [bbc.co.uk]. I think more Americans should read what the rest of the world is saying. American media is reknowned for being amazingly biased and blinkered.
Re:Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummm, not quite. IMO the truth is far above the reach of either of them.
Re:Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Fox is probably slightly right-of-center editorially, which is a nice balance to CNN, which is left-of-center. The major networks fall somewhere in between the two. I work in talk radio -- I make no claim of being object
Re:Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Al-Jazeera as a news site nominee? (Score:2)
GoogleNews (Score:3, Interesting)
Why The Onion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why The Onion? (Score:2)
Re:Why The Onion? (Score:2)
Re:Why The Onion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever since Bush came into office, the staff of The Onion have been racing desperately to keep their parody ahead of the rapidly-accelerating absurdity of American politics. The prime example of the difficulties they have to overcome is their now-legendary headline for Bush's Innagural address in January 2001: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'. Reading the article today, the uncomfortable fact is that the jokes they ma
I'm sorry, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF is the web coming to???
Re:I'm sorry, but... (Score:2, Funny)
But I agree, what the hell is up with that site? It's really hot chicks, and their cars are stuck... you can see pictures and buy videos... here's a description of a video you can buy:
WTF?!?! If
Re:I'm sorry, but... (Score:2)
I was going to post the same thing!
Tell me that isn't some veiled golden-showers weird sex foot-fetish thing... it sure looks like it.
Re:I'm sorry, but... (Score:2)
A portrait of you and Stevie Nicks [johannas-art.com]
I think it's confirmed now. All freaks on planet earth have their own web site.
Must-have Fuzzy Logic ref. (Re:I'm sorry, but...) (Score:2)
wtf? how did gravity win an award? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://art.teleportacia.org/exhibition/GRAVITY/
peoples voice winner under the net art category. wtf is this site supposed to be/do?! its a stupid rocket ship. a bad one at that.
I think politics are involved. (Score:2)
LK
Submitter is confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at this earlier webbie... (Score:5, Funny)
blakespot
Wikipedia.org is NOT a community! (Score:2, Interesting)
Sadly this is the end result of the mailing list [wikipedia.org] system and also of the concept of a "banned user [wikipedia.org]" (whatever that is, since they always come back).
A recent user (whose name should not be pronounced any more, but who is not a banned user) recently gave as one of the reason for leaving the fact decisions were increasingly taken over irc discussions. The media
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:3, Insightful)
And in case you're wondering, I'm not American, I'm a New Zealander. Not all RKBA supporters are American.
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting argument - yes, guns are less effective nowadays against Government violations because of the size, funding levels, & armaments of the Government agencies.
However, all the evidence suggests that guns are excellent tools of self-defense against private criminals - see Gun Facts [gunfacts.info] for the proof.
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:5, Insightful)
cities in america such as new york and washington have amongst the HIGHEST rates of gun murders and assaults in the world.
america is riddled with guns and riddled with gun violence. new zealand is NOT riddled with guns and, coincidentally, NOT riddled with gun violence. hmmm..
look at the school shootings in the US. kids carrying guns to school, guns they have often sourced from their own homes, ie; guns that were intended for self-defence as you describe.
do you really think you'd hold the same view if that was your reality?
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:2, Interesting)
We do have the problem of robbery with a deadly syringe though still a cricket bat has a longer reach. Though I wonder, what bring a person to think they need a gun to protect themselves? what have they done personally to have to worry about this? Or why do they suffer from so much
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:2)
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:3, Insightful)
however, as in my example above, the problem is accentuated by the fact that guns have in some cases been accessible to children, which is a result of people having guns in their homes.
if the guns weren't available, then they would not have been an option in those cases.
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:2)
firstly just to clarify, i'm saying people shouldn't be able to own guns for self defence - police, sports ownership, etc. is a different issue.
NZers can indeed own guns. however from what i've read, the criteria and rules of gun ownership is strict and i haven't read anywhere that you have the right to own a gun in NZ for the purpose of self defence (correct me if i'm wrong).
Even if that is wrong, take australia then as an example. tight gun control laws, no guns for self defe
Re:Is it just me, or do people here abuse moderati (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it just me, or do people here abuse moderati (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly do you think you are right about? Google won an award for building the world's most useful website. This fact is completely independent of the fact that they refuse to take ad money from gun makers. Why should something so irrelevant as their ad choices determine whether or not they are eligible for a Webby?
In short, you have failed to consider the possibility that you were modded troll because your post was a troll. i.e., you used a completely unrelated news item to shout about some random pet peeve of yours. That's a troll, isn't it? If not, it's at least off-topic.
Anyway, it's moot now, since your post is now at +5. Congrats on successfully gaming the system...
OT anti-gun rant (Score:2)
You have put yourself in a kinky position, yes.
But if you hadn't given anyone with hands guns in the first place, the criminals you want to defend yourself against, may not have had guns now. And you wouldn't need yours.
People so coward that they will rather kill another human being, than taking a punch themselves, shows a good correlation between cowardness and bad ethics. That's my opinion at least.
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:2)
Who needs to wake up here?
Re:Google? Best Practices? (Score:2)
Obligatory Eddie Izzard Quote... (Score:3, Funny)