Say that again ...
"will replace our base journalese with highfalutin Latinate verse, which forces readers to re-read every sentence at least three times to extract any meaning whatsoever."
You mean we don't already ?
The yardstick for how the popularity of websites is measured has changed, as analytics firms scramble to reflect how pages are now frequently updated piecemeal and "live" by the host, rather than loaded wholesale by users. Nielsen Netratings, one of the top firms which make a living by telling advertisers and publishers what …
This post has been deleted by its author
OK, so how does Nielsen measure time spent on a site? Can't be done from the server logs, because HTTP has nothing to say about what happens after a page is served.
I reckon they can only extrapolate from their panel data, which is indeed just as is done to measure TV audiences. That being the case, the tabbed browsing problem presumably disappears, because Nielsen panellists have software installed on their computers to measure usage. My guess is that this software is a browser plugin, which ought to be able to work out which tab is in the foreground.
I'm not going to download no plugin that'll help them, that's for sure, not if I know what it does.
And what about people who have several browser windows open at the same time ? I'm not talking about tabs, but about whole windows. Some people have multiple screens where they can do that.
As always, measuring virtual eyeballs is not an easy task.
I wonder if it's possible to write a Flash application that checks if it's focussed and phones home with all the info? Thinking of some 'hidden' flash applet that monitors what's happening in the browser.
Also you used to measure the time spent on a site by measuring the time between clicks - subject to filtering out long times. Obviously the last page can't be checked as you don't know when someone's left the page.
"I wonder if it's possible to write a Flash application"
Please do. All sensible surfers will be using firefox and the flashblock extension anyway. On most web sites, flash contributes mainly annoyances which you're better off without -- and any site which doesn't have a non-flash alternative means of viewing any of its *important* content is very seriously breaking the disability discrimination act.
Flash does not mainly contribute annoyances: poorly concieved or executed content does that, just like badly written code or awful .midi files. The major community video sites typically use Flash player to display video with no complaints.
Also, Flash has had accessibility / screen reader support since Flash MX (Player 6), I should know, I've built fully accessible flash applications that work like a charm in JAWS (tho they were a bit of a pain to develop!).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021