Weird stuff on LJ

So there's this community, ljreview, which is devoted to "objective" reviews of the quality of design and content of individual journals. Why?

A journal is an individualized form of expression, it's not a piece of performance art (except for those folks who create things like billiam of course). And, why would you want some stranger to review your journal? You aren't allowed by the TOS to make money on your journal, so it's just some ego thing?

I find it interesting that some of the journals the reviewers seem to love have horrible layouts that go against WorldWide Web Consortium standards for well-formed HTML. Itty-bitty non-resizable fonts in tiny little text boxes, with enormous background graphics? WTF?

My final point - the style used for the main ljreview pages sucks ass in the first place. Sure, it's decent HTML, but it has proprietary style codes, which only work in IE. And, who wants their damned cursor to look like a crosshair the entire time they're on a web page? A crosshair is harder to see, isn't it? Not to mention the colors and the "trendy" color-shifted scrollbar are putrid. Go look at a comlementary color chart and come back, ok? ;-)

Browser wars revisited

Checking my site logs today, I noticed that IE's share of hits has actually increased, despite the high-profile launches of Opera 6 and Netscape 6, not to mention the attention that Mozilla has been getting.

In May 2002, Internet Explorer (all versions) had 90% of the hits on my site. In July 2001 (earliest stats I have online), they only had 83% of the hits. And this is while more attention in the media is being placed on alternative browsers. It's inconceivable!

I guess it just goes to show what I've said all along - The average person is an idiot.

Thank you, please drive through.

Transitions

It occurs to me, as I see all the "Father's Day" signs about, that the day has not meant anything to me since the late 80s. This year is the last Father's Day before I'm legally a father. Weird, huh?