I'd just like to take a moment to address a UI "feature" that just bugs the hell out of me. I plan to be blunt here, but I don't really think I'll offend anyone who hasn't already offended a boatload of users already. Frankly, I had to write this and set it aside for a week just so I cool down enough to edit out some of the more colorful expressions.
The problem I have is with the loss of control experienced when viewing embedded objects in a browser. Let me give you an example. It used to be that you could log onto a website, click a link for a RealVideo or AVI file and enjoy watching the file in whatever player was designated to handle the task. You then had a fair amount of control over what you saw... you could fast forward, freeze frame, play it forward, even backward... you get the idea.
However, more and more people are designing web pages than ever before, and a good number of them (both amateurs and professionals) have discovered the EMBED tag. These odious tags require that you have some plug-in to handle a file that really has no reason to be embedded in the first place. I'll rant a little about this in a bit, but first I'm going to kvetch about the programs used to display this unnecessary and tag. You see, what bothers me most is that I have no bloody control over the content that's being displayed to me. If I'm viewing a video, I want video controls... or at least I want to be able to click on the video and GET some controls, perhaps in a floating toolbar. I think for usability the toolbar should somehow be connected to the content (in a translucent slide-out drawer, while I'm dreaming). If there's a MIDI playing in the background, there should be a toolbar available somewhere to control the stupid thing. I'd put that right next to my fictional indicator that lets me know that audio content is being played for when I've got my speakers turned off and to let the deaf know they're missing something.
I also want to be able to filter out specific types of content that might be embedded. I know a lot of you think it's very cute to stuff your favorite MIDI down my pipe to play while I'm viewing your site, but frankly, it's my bandwidth, and my computer that it's playing on, and I don't think it's cute. It's annoying and distracting, and I sometimes have other audio playing (like a RealAudio feed or digitized lectures). Besides, not to put too fine a point on it, very often your choice of music sucks. And yes, I know that if I don't like it I don't have to visit... that's exactly why I don't come back.
Plug-ins have another down side, which is simply that they tend not to be available for multiple platforms. For example, if you have an XYZ player that displays the content, it shouldn't matter in most cases that you don't have an XYZ plug-in. You should be able to display content for which you have a perfectly good player. But this isn't normally available when the EMBED tag is used (I'll mention Plugger in a bit). I'm looking at Netscape Communicator 4.7 as I write this, and if a MIME type is handled by a plug-in, then the "Edit" button isn't even accessible. Boo. Many plug-ins handle multiple MIME types, and may be better at some than others... you shouldn't have to take the bad with the good. I have MSIE4 as well, but all I can say about MSIE is that the designers evidently can't tell the difference between the Internet and television. Content is to be rammed down your throat, choice be damned. If you were to look at their options, you'd find that they must believe that web pages don't actually contain data, only metadata, because that's all you're allowed to manage. That's because to Microsoft, "Content" means "Ratings". You can change ratings and certificates all day long, but try to really manage how the actual content is displayed: it's like pulling teeth.
Here's an example: Recently I downloaded Macromedia Flash. Curious to see how the content was handled, I went to the Options dialog, as I would in Netscape. Nothing. OK, I tried the File Types dialog in Explorer. Sure enough, Flash is there, but the entry mentions nothing about what program is used to display the content. Ah! there's a directory, C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\Plugins, where you'd expect to find... you guessed it, plug-ins. Sometimes you actually do. , but did Flash go in the Plugins directory? Of course not, even though it's CALLED a plug-in. It's anybody's guess where such things get installed. If you're thinking of writing to me and educating me on where these things go and how they work, please don't bother. Actually I know where Flash is, but the average user wouldn't have a clue. And please don't think I'm picking on Macromedia; they've got a great product. But everybody handles things differently. Some content is handled by plug-ins, some by ActiveX controls, some by DLLs or separate programs... they go anywhere and everywhere. The point is, the whole arrangement is confusing, it's complicated, it's haphazard and just plain silly. Beside which, this rant concerns the user interface and I'm digressing. What all of this confusion and complication means to the user is enforced ignorance and lack of control. Details should never be hidden to the extent that they are in MSIE. They should be out-of-the-way, yet accessible, and you shouldn't have to depend on a combination of find and regedit to get at it.
Enough of that. I started this out complaining about the very fact that the EMBED tag is used at all.
Here's something that web designers should have beaten into their heads until they understand it... When designing an interface (which is what your page is), you should always attempt to benefit the target audience. However, the only people that benefit from embedded content in an HTML page are the content creators... and they are NOT the target audience. Neither are the people who commissioned the work, though some of them pig-headedly believe they are. (If you're one of them, I suggest you save some money. Create your website using felt cutouts and stare at it in your office all day long... there's no point in you being on the Internet.) The target audience is and always has been the people who will visit and browse the site. THEY are the people you should cater to, and if your site is commercial, THEY are the ones who ultimately write the checks. Giving your users no control is treating them like captives; and if you do that often enough your captives will escape to some other site and make their checks out to somebody else.
Seeing as how the people who create such offensive content
aren't about to wake up anytime soon, there exists an
opportunity for the programming community to alleviate some of the
pain inflicted by the EMBED tag by creating plug-ins and interfaces
that return to the users the control that's been stolen from
them. Here are some of the things that can be done:
End of rant. As for my suggestions, maybe you like them, maybe you don't, maybe you agree, maybe not. I'm hoping that some of the smaller and nimbler groups, like Opera and KDE take these ideas to heart. I'd love to learn that browser publishers have already taken steps to implement most, if not all, of these suggestions. But most of all, I'm hoping that content providers who use EMBED and who read this will first be offended, then chagrined and apologetic when they realize just how sadistic they've been. If I'm really lucky they'll all rush out and replace those EMBED tags with nice attractive links. Realistically, I suspect this will happen on the same day that Melinda Gates files for WIC.
--
David F. Leigh left the U.S. Air Force in 1989 to become a consulting database programmer, bringing innovative solutions to database problems in many diverse industries.