Juno - Free Email for Megahertz

The Details

As of January 18, Juno's new service agreement has been in effect. As with all service agreements of this nature, they notify you of a change, and if you continue to use the service, you are bound by it.

So what? Well, there's a new feature that Juno offers. In exchange for using their free service, you agree to let them run some software on your computer. Modeled after the distributed computing model, made common knowledge by SETI @ Home, Juno is planning to use the computers of its users to crunch data. Section 2.5 of the agreement details this below. The salient points:

• Juno makes you use a screen saver, possibly laden with advertisements, in order to run their distributed computing software. You cannot interfere with its operation.
• Juno can ask you to leave your computer on at all times so the software can crunch away. You, of course, absorb the electric bill.
• If you don't dial in often enough, Juno can call your computer and upload the data, whether or not you care. It is completely up to Juno's discretion. you could pay for the phone call, too.
• If the software kills your system, that's your problem.

But hey, it is a free service. What will be interesting to see is where people feel that free service is valuable enough to allow this software to run. And if it does, could this business model catch on. And how will people respond to the privacy issues? Juno claims it will all fall under their privacy statement, also amended January 18. Ultimately, will people care? Was there enough backlash against Yahoo! or Geocities to really impact them? Somehow I think this will really only affect the people who run SETI @ Home.

Excerpt of Section 2.5 of the Juno Service Agreement

You expressly permit and authorize Juno to (i) download to your computer one or more pieces of software (the "Computational Software") designed to perform computations, which may be unrelated to the operation of the Service, on behalf of Juno (or on behalf of such third parties as may be authorized by Juno, subject to the Privacy Statement), (ii) run the Computational Software on your computer to perform and store the results of such computations, and (iii) upload such results to Juno's central computers during a subsequent connection, whether initiated by you in the course of using the Service or by the Computational Software as further described below. In connection with downloading and running the Computational Software, Juno may require you to leave your computer turned on at all times, and may replace the "screen saver" software that runs on your computer while the computer is turned on but you are not using it. The screen saver software installed by Juno, which may display advertisements or other images chosen by Juno, is an integral part of the Computational Software and you agree not to take any action to disable or interfere with the operation of either the screen saver software or any other component of the Computational Software. You agree that, as between you and Juno, you shall be responsible for any costs or expenses resulting from the continuous operation of your computer, including without limitation any associated charges for electricity, and that you shall have sole responsibility for any maintenance or technical issues that might result from such continuous operation. [...] If your usage of the Service is infrequent, Juno's ability to obtain the results of completed computations may be impaired. Consequently, you expressly permit and authorize Juno to initiate a telephone connection from your computer to Juno's central computers using a dial-in telephone number you have previously selected for accessing the Service; Juno agrees that it shall exercise such right only to the extent necessary, as determined in Juno's sole discretion, to upload the results of completed computations to Juno in a timely fashion; and you agree that, as between you and Juno, you shall be responsible for any costs and expenses (including without limitation any applicable telephone charges) resulting from the foregoing. Juno agrees that any software, data, or other materials downloaded to your computer in connection with the activities described in this Section 2.5 will comply with Juno's privacy policies, as reflected in the Privacy Statement. [...]

Some Links

• InternetNews.com
• Cluebot.com

Canada to Force Re-registration of all .ca Domains

The Register reports that Canada is dealing with URL disputes by setting up a non-profit organization called the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) that will force all .ca domain name holders to re-apply for their domains.

This transfers the responsibility for the registry from the volunteer organization at the University of British Columbia. Part of the plan is to relax restrictions on .ca domain name registration.

"Pre-registration of existing .ca domain names is the only way to ensure that they are transitioned into the CIRA Registry before we can begin accepting new requests under more liberal rules," said Glen Bloom, Co-chair of the CIRA Board.

With a November 1, 2000 deadline, and only a 30-day grace period after that, that doesn't leave much time for the remaining 82,000 Canadian web sites to get their domains re-registered - for another $20. There is a list of certified Registrars at the CIRA web site

There is a press release on the CIRA web site that explains the new policy. You can also comment on the new Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Draft Policy through October 29, 2000.

It seems that before this new organization was set up, only federal companies or trademark holders (of the domain name) could register. The old policy, "Framework for the administration of the .CA domain name system" was put together by the Canadian Domain Name Consultative Committee. This report is from September 15, 1998.

You Call That Web Site Testing?

I received this spam (scroll to bottom) the other day from a company claiming to audit web sites. Unfortunately, I have no idea what they could actually audit since accessibility, usability, and compliance are not even remotely demonstrated on their own site.

So I offer up this email to you folks (with names changed to protect the offenders) in case you get the same spam. If your boss hears of this and wants to use it, or a client thinks it's worth purchasing, steer them away.

Validation can be done by the W3C validator for free, accessibility features can be tested by Bobby for free, load time can be done with a stopwatch (and that nifty IE5/win add-on that shows all the images and d/l time on a page - try it, or ImageReady, FireWorks, or many other utilities), links can be checked (and should be) by a human or any number of shareware or online utilities (search on "link checking" at download.com for some samples), and usability can be achieved through some pretty simple testing (I refer you to Jakob Nielsen, or an evolt article). You don't need to pay people without a clear understanding to do it for you.

Ultimately, as developers, we are all responsible for testing our own work. Having another set of eyes review it is good, but paying someone to do it is often pointless. Few organizations can stay on top of the technologies if all they do is test, and cultivating in-house talent is always more valuable.

And the worst thing you can do is spam a company who performs very thorough audits with auditing offers, especially when the spamming site indicates a capability on par with some low-level interns.

So I offer this poor soul up for sacrifice on the altar of evolt.org, and hope that my message can only help them see the error in their ways, and help others who neglect to test their own sites with some simple tips. Have I received a response from them you ask? Not yet. Will I? Probably not. I never do...

--------------------

K,

I reviewed your web site to take a look at the services you offer, in particular the web site testing and validation, and was surprised to see that your own site is brimming with errors.

You note that the average Fortune 100 company web site (what about the others?) contains 13 HTML coding errors, when your own site, according to the W3C HTML validator, contains 40 basic errors including improperly nested tags, unclosed tags, unquoted attributes, two body tags, and even the most basic - a missing document type declaration at the start of the document. As a result, I only checked it against the HTML 4.01 Transitional specification since there is no clue what version of HTML the page is supposed to be beyond the use of a number of deprecated and proprietary tags and attributes.

In addition to that, and not covered by a software validator, are many elements that are barriers to accessibility. Section 508 of the Workforce Investment Act, enacted on August 7, 1998, requires government sites and government funded or related sites to be accessible to all users. It is conceivable that future case law will make this apply to many public sites as well (consider the AOL class-action lawsuit by blind users). Given this, your site lacks the most basic features for disabled users such as 'alt' attributes in its images, and HTML 4.01 and Web Accessibility Initiative accessibility features in your form elements.

From a usability standpoint, the lack of clear page headers and consistent navigation are just starters on the interface problems with the site. It does not work very well on most of the 80+ browsers on which I perform testing, and its page sizes go beyond the oft-cited 8 second rule, by as much as 41 seconds on a 14.4kbps connection.

I would go on, but if you have the staff to audit sites with the skill level you claim, you might want to turn them loose on your own site. As it stands, your own site does not demonstrate that your organization has the capability to perform audits to the level that we require.

Thank you for your time.

Adrian Roselli Vice President, Interactive Algonquin Studios http://algonquinstudios.com 716.842.1439

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K Foo [kfoo@foo.com]
>  Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:25 PM
> To:  info@
> Subject: Web Site Testing Services
>
> Algonquin Studios,
> With the emergence of e-commerce sites and  the growth of
> business performed over the web, it is critical  for
> companies to have their web sites tested extensively.
>  According to a study by ParaSoft, the average Web page
> operated by a  Fortune 100 company contains 13 HTML coding
> errors, and link errors  occur about once every four
> pages. Furthermore, Zona Research estimated  that U.S.
> companies lose approximately $58 million per month in  e-
> commerce sales due to Web page loading failures. Web
> sites  need to be tested to ensure that they function
> correctly, are compatible  over many different browser and
> operating system configurations and can  handle a large
> amount of concurrent users.
> Foo, Inc. is an  independent testing facility that
> specializes in web site testing and  load testing
> solutions. If you would like us to send you more
>  information about our web site testing and load testing
> services, please  e-mail us at info@foo.com to
> receive further information about our  testing services or
> visit our web site at http://www.foo.com.
>
> Thank you,
>
> K Foo
> Project Manager
> Foo,  Inc.
> E-mail: kfoo@foo.com
> http://www.foo.com

Adobe to Sue AppleInsider

For those of you who have heard about Adobe Photoshop 6, you may have heard about the sneak preview of it and ImageReady 3 that AppleInsider posted on May 30. If you go back to that page now, the link to the article has been replaced with the text, "Links Removed by the Demand of Adobe Legal."

However, this doesn't quite cover it all. It seems Adobe went beyond just threatening them and telling them to remove the link. Adobe is suing Mac News Network (MacNN, the parent) for much money (maybe in the tens of millions) because they feel customers will now not purchase Photoshop 5.5 if people know 6.0 is in the pipe.

Photoshop may have a case simply because the software is legally confidential and AppleInsider's posting of any information on it is in violation of the California Civil Code.

You will also notice on the AppleInsider page a link to a preview of Word 2001 for Mac that has been replaced with, "Article Remove [sic] 9PM EST By the Demand of Microsoft Corp, Inc."

There is a much more detailed article at The Register, "Adobe lashes out at Mac rumor site."

BeOS 5 to be Released for Free

Be, Inc. will release BeOS 5 for free download later this quarter (no earlier than March 31). The free download (estimated at between 40 and 60MB right now) will only be available to individuals for personal, non-commercial use. Commercial use will require a separate license.

It appears to be primarily targeted at MSWindows machines, and does not require re-partitioning (which was an issue if you've ever tried it, especially with 3.0) to install. In fact, it appears as a standard executable which you can launch from within Windows that will exit from Windows and boot into BeOS. It can also run without a Windows installation as well. Also of note, the free version will include all the development tools currently bundled with BeOS.

Read the BeOS 5 Information FAQ.

They also have a hardware compatibility list posted to tell you which types of computers will best support it. As of now, G3 and higher Macs will not support it, but Intel-based machines, especially newer ones, should be ok.

BBB Requests Input on Proposed Online Code

The Better Business Bureau, through its BBBOnline entity, seems to have finally realized that it can leverage its name in the online world to provide basic auditing over online business. Just as a company may display the Better Business Bureau seal on their advertising to tell customers to expect a certain level of service, online business may soon have the same opportunity to display a seal whose source indicates an updated set of guidelines tailored to business on the internet through the BBBOnline Code of Online Business Practices.

The BBB seems to have realized that they cannot account for all situations, and have asked for commentary on their draft. While the code is supposed to apply to all ecommerce models, including online auctions and charity sites, there are no specific provisions geared toward those models. Feel free to peruse their draft. December 30, 1999 is the deadline for comment on the proposed code.

The draft includes five main principles that the BBB expects sites to adhere to in order to display the seal:

1. Disclose! Disclose! Disclose! Online businesses shall disclose to their customers and prospective customers, clearly, conspicuously, and in easy-to-understand language, accurate information about the business, any goods or services offered through an online transaction, and, if applicable, the transaction itself. Full details.
2. Tell the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth! Online businesses shall not engage in deceptive or misleading trade practices with regard to any aspect of electronic commerce, including advertising and marketing, or in their use of technology. Full details.
3. Have Respectful Information Practices! Online businesses shall adopt information practices that are respectful of the consumer's concerns and treat the information with care. They shall post and adhere to a privacy policy based on fair information principles, take appropriate measures to provide adequate security, and respect consumer's preferences regarding unsolicited email. Full details.
4. Aim to Please! Online businesses shall make online shopping a positive consumer experience and shall seek to resolve disputes that are raised by their customers, clients, or licensees in a timely and responsive manner. Full details.
5. Take Special Care with Children! If online businesses target children under the age of 13, they shall take special care to protect them. Full details.

There are three free regional (US) conferences for people to comment on the code. They are December 1, 1999 in Denver, December 2 in Palo Alto, and December 9 in Washington D.C.

Because of the BBB's name and reputation in the brick and mortar world, many consumers may come to expect to see a BBB seal over time. The only way to guarantee that the seal has any value is if we as web developers take the time to comment on it. We need to ensure that their guidelines are both reasonable and attainable, otherwise we're the only ones to blame if they aren't. When your newest client expects you to post the seal on the site you build, you had better be sure that you and the client agree with, and will support, the requirements to display that seal.

You can visit the site to read about the current BBBOnline seals. The three they currently have are the Reliability Seal, the Privacy Seal, and the Kid's Privacy Seal. Eligibility requirements are linked from each description.

IE5.0 for Mac Delayed Again

Microsoft has verified reports that Internet Explorer 5.0 will be pushed back from the fall release date to a winter release date. Back in July, Microsoft acknowledged the shift from a summer release date to a fall release date.

According to Microsoft, the delay is due to their attempts to introduce "cool end-user features" while still offering "strict compliance" with the W3C HTML guidelines, although which HTML version was not specified. Full implementation of CSS1 and partial implementation of CSS2 is promised, as well as a plan to have both the Mac and Windows versions use the same DOM.

Putting aside the potential oxymoron of "cool features" and "strict compliance," it will also offer some Macintosh-only features, such as an auction-watch feature, and the ability to scale smaller fonts up so they more closely match those represented in web pages viewed on a Windows version of IE.

Outlook Express 5.0 for Mac is supposedly still on schedule for a fall release.

You can get more information at News.com or at MacWEEK.