1. A web page must not annoy a reader, or, through inaction, allow a reader to become annoyed.
2. A web page must obey the orders given it by readers except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A web page must protect its own content as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(Presentation is not one of the laws. It must obey the laws.)

1/2: Agreed.
3: Maybe I don't really understand what you mean... How ( other than with the happy fun legal note thingie ) would a webpage go about protecting it's content?

> Maybe I don't really understand what you mean...

It's a funny funny reference.

Although you could read it as saying something about security.

> It's a funny funny reference.

After reading that, and rereading the original post, and thinking a while about it, I actually got it.

I'm slow -.-

3) needs to be reworded so that it actually says something important about web design

I don't think web pages should act. Fuck these stupid JavaScript and Flash and animated GIF and blinking text and AJAX fads!

>>6
common responses to this:
http://aasted.org/adblock/viewtopic.php?t=1687

Imo, Javascript is something to use as a last ressort, if there is really no way to accomplish what you want to do in pure html / css.

As for Flash: Look at this wonderful demonstration of what NOT to do - http://tinyurl.com/b6hp2

>>8
I agree re: JavaScript. >>6 was HaHaOnlySerious. Most of the time, I use a browser that supports none of the things I listed.

>>7
I'm not sure what your point is there. Was I supposed to be convinced, on the basis of one of those responses, that the technologies I enumerated are in fact super spiffy? I didn't find the sIFR advocates' arguments convincing at all. 'Twas interesting reading, though.

> Was I supposed to be convinced,

No.

>>1
I got it when I got to "through inaction". Should I be ashamed?

>>11
No. Memorizing sci-fi > memorizing internet