W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

RE: RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development)

From: <rev-bob@gotc.com>
Date: 01 Feb 2000 13:58:29 -0500
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200002011400852.SM01100@neoplanet.com>
> ** Original Sender: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
>
> At 10:59a -0500 01/31/00, rev-bob@gotc.com wrote:
> >I'm really tempted to force a copy of the RSACi ratings into the 
> >package, too - after all, people who filter based on these ratings 
> >have the option of banning all unrated sites, so it's in your best 
> >interest to provide proper ratings for your pages.
> 
> Too bad RSAC.org is IMPOSSIBLE to use. It's one of the worst sites 
> out there. Even the "Contact Us" link requires JavaScript. Clueless 
> idiots there.

This is exactly why I downloaded the relevant content (the rating level list and definitions) and 
only go by the site once in a while to see if anything's changed.  Once you register one page 
and get the specs, you can rate your other pages on your own.
 
> Hmm... after going through about 10 billion levels of frames (gack), 
> I finally reached <http://www.rsac.org/content/register/>. Why did 
> they bury it so far away? They should link directly to it from the 
> home page. Idiots.

Last time I was there, they *did* have a link from the front page. Let's see...yep, right there 
in the sidebar, not to mention the huge "Register HERE" X mark in the main frame.  This 
constitutes "buried"?

> Oh geez, even that part requires JavaScript. I hate RSAC.
> I give up. If any people block my site, it'll be their loss, and RSAC's fault.

Granted, the Javascript pseudo-links are a pain - I guess nobody told 'em how to change 
multiple frames without using Javascript, and we all know how important those multicolored 
buttons are.  Still, grit your teeth and run through the process once.  At each question, view 
the associated definitions and copy 'em off to your hard drive.  When you finally get the 
META tag, check out the embedded URL - as I recall, that points to a concise copy of the 
rating levels.  Combine that with the definitions of the shorthand terms ("what constitutes 
"strong" vs. "vulgar" language?"), and you can plug in your own ratings with a little practice.



 Rev. Robert L. Hood  | http://rev-bob.gotc.com/
  Get Off The Cross!  | http://www.gotc.com/
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 13:59:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT