Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 748913" data-attributes="member: 2013">Let me rephrase...I don't care one way or the other if you do it provided:1.) I can turn it off.2.) It is off by default.&nbsp; When I first come to the site, I come &quot;un-logged-in&quot; because I am on a semi-public computer and don't want to save my login info (to say nothing of the fact that ENWorld expires logins before I can finish writing half my long-winded posts ;p) - meaning I'll have to deal with it at least once per visit to the site.&nbsp; Yuk.&nbsp; Again, it's like smoking - I don't care if you want to do it, just make sure I don't have to deal with it.&nbsp; To extend that analogy, I get annoyed when I visit Vegas - yes, I have a non-smoking room, but in order to check in and get my key - and to enter and leave the hotel - I have to walk through a lobby choked with smoke.&nbsp; Similarly, if I have to log in to turn it off, I have to &quot;walk through&quot; a virtual &quot;lobby&quot; filled with something I don't like before I can get to my &quot;room&quot; (being logged in with the bar turned off).I'm probably making smokers mad at me, but it's the best analogy I can think of... the arrangement whereby the bar only comes &quot;on&quot; if you login and turn it on is analogous to a situation where smokers can only smoke in their rooms but not the lobby.&nbsp; I never have to deal with the smoke because I don't visit their rooms, so it doesn't bother me.&nbsp; Then again, maybe I'm being selfish because it might bother a smoker that they have to wait until they get to their room... but IMO, a &quot;positive presence&quot; of something tends to be more obnoxious than the &quot;lack of a presence&quot; of something like this.&nbsp; But again, maybe it's just 'cuz I'm on the side of the fence that wants a &quot;lack of&quot; in both cases.&nbsp; Now I'm getting too philosophical... LOLThe browser change is a nice idea, but impractical - why should I adjust my browser on account of one site?&nbsp; If there is even one other person out there who feels as I do, it seems a little odd to have a website demand that people change - since it takes only one person to adjust the website but one person PER browser change to do the work by the method you described.&nbsp; IOW, which is more economical, asking you to make one small change (make it optional) or asking many people to make one fairly major change (swapping browsers and editing settings)?I appreciate your enthusiasm and programming talent and I'm sure it's a great title bar.&nbsp; But just like smoking or vile content at my gaming table, I simply don't want any, thank you.&nbsp; I'm not saying nobody can have it... just that I don't want it - and as soon as you make two people adjust to one site, you've already increased the total amount of work that goes into pleasing people RE: the bar. (hope that's making sense)--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 748913, member: 2013"] Let me rephrase... I don't care one way or the other if you do it provided: 1.) I can turn it off. 2.) It is off by default. When I first come to the site, I come "un-logged-in" because I am on a semi-public computer and don't want to save my login info (to say nothing of the fact that ENWorld expires logins before I can finish writing half my long-winded posts ;p) - meaning I'll have to deal with it at least once per visit to the site. Yuk. Again, it's like smoking - I don't care if you want to do it, just make sure I don't have to deal with it. To extend that analogy, I get annoyed when I visit Vegas - yes, I have a non-smoking room, but in order to check in and get my key - and to enter and leave the hotel - I have to walk through a lobby choked with smoke. Similarly, if I have to log in to turn it off, I have to "walk through" a virtual "lobby" filled with something I don't like before I can get to my "room" (being logged in with the bar turned off). I'm probably making smokers mad at me, but it's the best analogy I can think of... the arrangement whereby the bar only comes "on" if you login and turn it on is analogous to a situation where smokers can only smoke in their rooms but not the lobby. I never have to deal with the smoke because I don't visit their rooms, so it doesn't bother me. Then again, maybe I'm being selfish because it might bother a smoker that they have to wait until they get to their room... but IMO, a "positive presence" of something tends to be more obnoxious than the "lack of a presence" of something like this. But again, maybe it's just 'cuz I'm on the side of the fence that wants a "lack of" in both cases. Now I'm getting too philosophical... LOL The browser change is a nice idea, but impractical - why should I adjust my browser on account of one site? If there is even one other person out there who feels as I do, it seems a little odd to have a website demand that people change - since it takes only one person to adjust the website but one person PER browser change to do the work by the method you described. IOW, which is more economical, asking you to make one small change (make it optional) or asking many people to make one fairly major change (swapping browsers and editing settings)? I appreciate your enthusiasm and programming talent and I'm sure it's a great title bar. But just like smoking or vile content at my gaming table, I simply don't want any, thank you. I'm not saying [b]nobody[/b] can have it... just that I don't want it - and as soon as you make two people adjust to one site, you've already increased the total amount of work that goes into pleasing people RE: the bar. (hope that's making sense) --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification