> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bennett

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:15:42 -0500, <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> > Omniglossa is here.  I've finally had a little time to write
the
> > scripts to make it work on the web.  It's still a bit crude,
and
> > searches only work in English, but it is working.
>
> That's a very nice site indeed. I do have a few
user-friendliness
> questions.

I just hammered out the code today.    It's still pretty raw.  For
the couple hours I have into it, it's at least functioning.  I'll
be adding bells and whistles as time goes on to give it some of
the functionality the Access app has, like cross references to
Logos, Wiktionary, ULD, etc.


> Why do you enforce an ordered list of fonts? It's the sort of
> information
> where any knowledgeable user is going to have already their
> browser fonts
> configured to their taste, and any knowledgeunable user would
> not know
> what to do with the information anyway.

Yes, but I can't assume there is such a thing as a "knowledgeable
user", or for that matter even a halfway competent user.
Something I've learned after almost 30 years of dealing with users
is assume the worst.  If not for intellectual rights issues, I'd
force the fonts to ensure the user can see that needs to be seen.
A user's font of choice could just as well be something that only
has 7-bit ASCII mapped.


> Likewise, why do you enforce font sizes? I have similar
> usability and  accessibility reasons for asking.

To economize on precious screen real estate.


> The Javascript is fairly wasteful, and potentially could end
> up harming  you more than it helps you.
>
> Sure, you've spent time, brainpower, and probably money to make
your
> database. However, nobody who wants to steal your hard work
> is going to
> bother using right-click to do it, and anybody who wants a
> snippet for
> legitimate fair use is either going to end up cursing your name,
or
> changing their browser config to confound you.

I can't get rid of it too easily.  I have code, that calls code,
that calls code, ....    It's part of a generic code that every
page has.  FWIW: There are a lot of scriptblockers out there now,
if it's really that big of an issue.  Something one of your
"knowledgeable" users is likely to have.


> Anything that uses 'document.write(unescape(' could (though
probably
> should not) be considered an attempted attack, and could end
> up with your
> site being RBLed by people with far more control over the
> Internet than
> you have, and/or blocked by the security preferences of your
> (putative)  sers' browsers.

It makes it more difficult for spambots to grab e-mails addresses
that way.  Believe it or not, it does keep the spam levels down.


> That said, the actual content of the page (layout and
> security issues  aside) is excellent.

Security?   There is none.  It's open to all.  I may add some
security later should I decide to let users participate in adding
to the DB.


> To summarise my feelings: Great content, shame about the
> site. Consider
> using CSS instead of explicit styles. Please use
less-totalitarian
> styling. Try to avoid client-side scripting unless you really
> do need live interaction with the user.

I am using CSS.  The stylesheet was grabbed from another site to
get things moving quickly.  This is just something I threw
together today just to get it up and running so there are things
that are still kind of bandaged together.  I've been wanting to
post this for a long time now, but just now got around to where I
had both time and some motivation to deal with it.

> Sorry if this comes off as hostile, but there really isn't a
useful
> non-hostile way to suggest these things,

There are reasons why I do it the way I do.  I have a tendency to
keep things down to the lowest common denominator.  As time
permits, it will be cleaned up.