What do y'all think about mouseovers in fpps? February 11, 2003 2:41 PM   Subscribe

Grab a modern browser (looks best in mozilla) and try hover over some of the links shown here in y2karl's posts. Is this annoying or informative? [code from here]
posted by mathowie to Feature Requests at 2:41 PM (98 comments total)

egads! some might like it but i personally can't stand translucent hovers. now, if it were opaque (which, of course is easy enough to do), then i'm on board!
posted by poopy at 2:46 PM on February 11, 2003


Informative, but I don't know if most people will add the "title" info to their links.

Can those who don't want to see them just use a different style sheet?
posted by ?! at 2:52 PM on February 11, 2003


It's annoyingly unreadable. Opaque? Ok.
posted by hama7 at 2:53 PM on February 11, 2003


20% transparency or thereabouts in IE6/WinXP.
I echo the opinions above.
Is it possible to have the title text pop up in a sidebar, or somewhere apart from the text of the post?
posted by PrinceValium at 2:56 PM on February 11, 2003


I can't read the link http: below the actual text. Too small. Maybe my MeFi font-size settings? (Chimera .6, Mac).

Also, the white text underneath the rollover makes the text too hard to read. Either decrease the transparency to a solid color, or a more contrasting color. But otherwise, it's kinda cool, I guess. Could get really annoying if overdone. If it's used so much that it prevents me from reading someone's post normally, I'd nix it.
posted by gramcracker at 2:57 PM on February 11, 2003


i've been wondering when you might include some dhtml hovers....i like the fact that people can include alt text but the problem with alts is that they only appear for a limited time so if someone has thrown in a bunch of text, it's impossible to read (and annoying as hell) without hovering again. what is so dandy about this is that a user can hover over a link and read the text w/o having to worry about it disappearing on them.
posted by poopy at 3:00 PM on February 11, 2003


I really like it. I'm in my twenties, you can trust me.
posted by the fire you left me at 3:00 PM on February 11, 2003 [1 favorite]


I be liking.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:03 PM on February 11, 2003


Ok, opacity removed. It's no non-transparent. Better?

Also, is the URL important? I could see dropping it, to make the title text more readable.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:03 PM on February 11, 2003


fwiw, I like the translucency. I'd go with a smaller font, though.
posted by crunchland at 3:04 PM on February 11, 2003


My opinion about the mouseovers (trans and otherwise):

Absolutely delightful; excellent spice to a sumptuous and filling post. I'm not sure if they would work with every post, but they were just one more creative way to completely entrance me with this one. When you've mined what info you can from the links ... Oh wait! There's more. Despite some objections that y2karl has been ego-stroking in a banner ad kinda way, I think that's a lot of jealousy talking. This was a superb post, beginning to end.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:08 PM on February 11, 2003


oh honey... awesome

i like the idea of a url, but agree with crunch that the font could be a tad smaller....the url doesn't have to be bold either IMO.
posted by poopy at 3:08 PM on February 11, 2003


I Like it, but I think it could use a little tweaking - I think the text is a little overpowering as-is... if you made it slightly smaller (say the size of the "posted by" line), I think that'd be good.
posted by chrisege at 3:09 PM on February 11, 2003


The URL is extraneous, an echo of the status bar, for those so equipped.
posted by the fire you left me at 3:11 PM on February 11, 2003


I think it's lovely both ways. I wish I knew how to do it.

You know, for when I get the cojones to post a link.

I think the URL is redundant though.
posted by padraigin at 3:11 PM on February 11, 2003


I think it's good, but agree that the URL is unnecessary. It is a lot easier to read than the standard title links.
posted by cell divide at 3:25 PM on February 11, 2003


cool stuff. me likey.
posted by fishfucker at 3:26 PM on February 11, 2003


Agreement wit the fire you left me, on the URL. I would prefer transparent, as well.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 3:27 PM on February 11, 2003


I changed the font to 12px verdana, tried it w/o the bold, but it was harder to read. I brought back a tiny bit of transparency (90% solid instead of 75%), and grayed out the URL a bit.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:29 PM on February 11, 2003


It's both annoying and informative.

My take? Do we really really need to cram the maximum possible amount of information into a post? With [more inside] and an unlimited number of commets to elaborate with, do we really need to squeeze in everything? Should it take me 15 minutes just to read the post? We like brevity, then we find a way to not be brief?

On the other hand - The pop ups would be helpful to people wondering if they should follow the link.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:35 PM on February 11, 2003


i still don't like any transparency in hovers because it competes with the underlying text. if this was a hip design site then maybe, but this is metafilter, a site about content and usability: transparency has no place here. blech! ;)

i like the smaller font size but i'm curious: is there a limit to the number of characters that can go in these boxes?
posted by poopy at 3:38 PM on February 11, 2003


I like the URL up there; all the info about the link in one place.
posted by transient at 3:39 PM on February 11, 2003


Also....... The "Petr the Younger" pop up text doesn't fit in my browser window unless I maximize it. (low res vid card at work - not my fault)

Maybe we could encouage people using this to be more brief while they are pointedly not being brief.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:41 PM on February 11, 2003


It doesn't work in Safari or IE Mac. However, it looks great in Mozilla and Chimera.

Definetely much better than those regular old title tags.

Now, if only someone would teach people to start using those title tags. Especially in posts like these
posted by einarorn at 3:46 PM on February 11, 2003


y6^3, y2karl is an outlier, pushing the limits of how much info goes into a post, and how much he can cram into a title tag.

Using mozilla, it automatically cuts off titles at a certain number of characters, and I miss anything more than a few words. This allows that to display, but I wouldn't use y2karl's contributions as a middle-of-the-bell-curve example. He's the limit to what people will do with them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:49 PM on February 11, 2003


Cute, will surely make title attributes more used, and title attributes mean people don't have to explain links inline which is good.

Doesn't seem to do it for Abbr/Acronym's title attributes. I don't mind the the url but it seems redundant.

Makes me wonder why a browser doesn't do this by default.
posted by holloway at 3:53 PM on February 11, 2003


Weird. Works for me in IE6/Win2K, but not Moz 1.3. Might just be my tweaked-out, half-corrupted copy of Mozilla though (when I say "not working," I mean I'm not seeing the keen hover titles or the normal title popup -- I do see them on the page the code is liberated from).
posted by yerfatma at 3:55 PM on February 11, 2003


Now, if only someone would teach people to start using those title tags

I did but mine did not work. Plus I thought the mouse-over was previewing the link for me, not a title. But now I know where these titles I've been looking for are.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:57 PM on February 11, 2003


I like this. A lot. The title tag is largely ignored because very few people hover long enough and no one really pays attention to the status bar. The text is pretty big though. At least on one of the newer builds of Phoenix.
posted by skallas at 3:59 PM on February 11, 2003


Umm, I can't see anything (even regular title tags), so I guess I am missing a plug-in or something? I am using Mozilla 1.2.1/WinXP Pro. The slider bar does move slightly when I mouse-over, but that is all :-( I do see them in IE6 on the same machine though and they are way cool, as long as they don't get cut off in Mozilla the way regular tags do.
posted by dg at 4:02 PM on February 11, 2003


the problem with dhtml is the insane bulkiness of it (considering the different browsers and platforms) due to client-side script. some people will not see this correctly because the js file looks for NS(6 or higher) IE and GECKO Treat any other "Gecko" browser as NS 6.1.(vr6.1 or higher).
posted by poopy at 4:04 PM on February 11, 2003


Doesn't work in AOL, but what did I expect? Looks good in IE.
posted by Orange Goblin at 4:07 PM on February 11, 2003


I like this a lot! Since there are only a few people who use the title tag, such as y2karl, it likely wouldn't get too messy and would allow us to read the information that's in these tags without getting ticked off, as I do from time to time with y2karl's (from not being able to read it all, not because it's there).

That said, it's not pretty, is it? If there was a way of making it less of a "HERE I AM, READ ME!" kind of thing, I would be happy.

I think it's a good idea, matt.
posted by ashbury at 4:11 PM on February 11, 2003


Further to above, I can see the tags in Mozilla on the code link supplied above, just not on the MeFi link. If that helps at all :-)
posted by dg at 4:16 PM on February 11, 2003


Gah! No, keep it away!
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:22 PM on February 11, 2003


"y2karl is an outlier"

Yep yep. I was avoiding calling him out by name. With his style he really needs something like this, since there's no hugging way I'm going to follow all of those links blind. I have work to do.

And I prefer the way Opera 6 displays the text - That's the plain vanilla title params tool tip I assume. The bells and whistles seem like overkill. The striped down look and feel of Metafilter is very refreshing.

[sigh] After looking at this too long I guess I really prefer the regular title param tool tip.....
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:23 PM on February 11, 2003


cool.
thanks, Matt.
posted by matteo at 4:23 PM on February 11, 2003


Oh, for the people seeing it on the example site, but not metafilter, you need to reload your CSS sheets. So try reloading y2karl's post by holding down the shift key and hitting 'refresh' to get the new default.css sheet.

I took off the bold, and I'll leave it like this for a few days. If it gets in the way over the next few days, I'll get rid of it, but if it feels helpful, I'll keep it around.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:26 PM on February 11, 2003


Works really well for me in IE 5 and Mozilla 1.2.1. Of course it is a technique that needs to be used with taste, which Y2Karl has done. I'm sure I'll use the technique for my blog, love it.
posted by gametone at 4:27 PM on February 11, 2003


I like it, a lot, and I like the transparency (it's not transparent at all now, as far as I can tell). It adds to the usability; you can, to some degree, get an idea of the text of the post if it pops up before you've read that far.

If it were me, I'd take the size down and nix the rounded corners (eww). But that's just a design issue, not usability.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:28 PM on February 11, 2003


I like it, but think the text is a bit on the large side (mouseovers usually are small font, so this looks surprising to me). Also, for whatever reason, the mouseovers in the right-side column are a pixel or two offscreen, not blocking any text, but causing a horizontal scrollbar to pop in and out when I mouseover/mouseout - annoying, but not the worst thing (IE6 on WinXP). Otherwise, cool!
posted by kokogiak at 4:32 PM on February 11, 2003


On second look, the usability on the sample site is horrendous. The transparency is annoying and the some of the text boxes are sticky, and don't go away when you aren't even hovering. Eeewww! I'm glad it is possible to do such things, and maybe I'll find a use for the technique, but I don't think so. The non-transparent, non-sticky way it looks in Y2Karl's post works fine for my tastes.
posted by gametone at 4:44 PM on February 11, 2003


weird.... now when i mouseover i get the same problem that kogogiak just described... the width of the screen is somehow changed.
posted by poopy at 4:45 PM on February 11, 2003


I think it is super sweet. I like the URL there, too. Keeps me from having to look up and down at the status bar. The font is just right, don't have to do a semi-squint.
posted by sadie01221975 at 4:53 PM on February 11, 2003


i always check links for mouseovers and really like this format with the url. looks great in ie6 but the font could stand to be smaller - just my taste and exceedingly good eyesight. if it stays that size it's still great.
posted by t r a c y at 4:57 PM on February 11, 2003


ok...everything is working great...and like sadie just said, the font is perfection!
posted by poopy at 4:58 PM on February 11, 2003


...for the people seeing it on the example site, but not metafilter, you need to reload your CSS sheets...
Ah, that is better - displays perfectly. An excellent addition to the site and deserving of many thanks. The font size etc is perfect and I love the rounded corners (in Mozilla only).

Two thumbs up!
posted by dg at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2003


Matt, in terms of data, I like it. In terms of style, I think the rounded corners work against the rest of the site. If they could be sqauared off, I think they'd fit with the rest of the design.
posted by machaus at 5:37 PM on February 11, 2003


Late to the party (again), but count me in as a yay vote.
posted by adampsyche at 5:40 PM on February 11, 2003


the problem with dhtml is the insane bulkiness of it

5k? I'll agree about the poor browser detection, but I disagree with the idea that DHTML is, by definition, code-heavy.

Now I feel like a goober-- cached stylesheet. Duh.
posted by yerfatma at 5:52 PM on February 11, 2003


I like the new look, and I've always liked y2karl's use of alt text (though I got a little pissy about some of his recent formating choices earlier).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:58 PM on February 11, 2003


Hate the transparency, looks much better without it, and without the URL, too. Like the fire said, it's just status bar info.

Some of you seem to like the transparency, I guess... couldja make it a user pref, Matt, off by default?
posted by gramcracker at 6:25 PM on February 11, 2003


Naw, no use in going through all the effort over 10% of transparency. It's a cool effect but gets old fast. I'll leave the URL for now, as it's kind of nice to have more info in the same space (I don't have to look down at the status bar concurrently).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:31 PM on February 11, 2003


the worst thing about asking people for their opinion is getting it.
posted by crunchland at 6:46 PM on February 11, 2003


well that and if you offer people something then they might ask for something else...

... like a giant panda? hmmm???
posted by poopy at 7:06 PM on February 11, 2003


...not a real one because that might hurt but a nice cuddly toy panda would be nice.
posted by poopy at 7:09 PM on February 11, 2003


in IE, is there a way to hold the alt longer than a few seconds? the box disappears before i can read some of his longer floaters.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:16 PM on February 11, 2003


I always hated link titles but I think I've discovered that it's the way my browser (Opera) handles them that I hate. It puts the title in a little tool tip (plain vanilla as y6y6y6 mentioned) but it also puts the title in the status bar, without the URL. (This in Opera 6 and 7beta). That sucks. I assumed other browsers did the same but nope, Mozilla (1.2) and IE (6) show the URL in the status bar like with an untitled link. Much nicer. And with pretty Metafilter colors too.
posted by TimeFactor at 7:57 PM on February 11, 2003


"Titles. The category is 'New Titles', Mr. Connery."

I like the new titles. A while ago I complained about how y2karl's long titles disappeared after a few seconds in Chimera, making them impossible to read. These don't go away for me, so I approve. Looks like the problem just shifted over to sirmissalot, though...
posted by tss at 8:49 PM on February 11, 2003


sexy.
posted by epersonae at 8:56 PM on February 11, 2003


sirmissalot, if you're seeing the titles as intended, they don't go away. If you're using an old version of IE or IE on the mac, you'll see regular titles, which are limited to whatever the browser manufacturer set the time that titles show to.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:20 PM on February 11, 2003


It's scripted for the sake of scripting. I don't see any value this adds to the posts.
posted by riffola at 10:23 PM on February 11, 2003


sirmissalot, if you're seeing the titles as intended, they don't go away. If you're using an old version of IE or IE on the mac, you'll see regular titles, which are limited to whatever the browser manufacturer set the time that titles show to.

thanks, you're right. like the look! must be the new style sheet (or something), b/c before they disappeared after about 3 seconds . . . and i am/was using IE6.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 10:30 PM on February 11, 2003


Matt if you decide to keep it, could you make it optional?
posted by riffola at 10:31 PM on February 11, 2003


Not to be a party pooper, but doesn't this add to the server's load by calling these javascript files? She is working hard as is, no?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:36 PM on February 11, 2003


And could there possibly be a delay before the messages pop up? If I hover my mouse over the link for a second, it means I want to read the alt text, but if I have to read it every time the pointer passes over any link, it gets annoying.

Especially if the size of the alt text causes scrollbars to pop up, which it's doing on some of the text ads.
posted by Hildago at 10:46 PM on February 11, 2003


it's client side scripting, so it's not a tax on the server load.

Here's what is better about it (I admit it's a lot of flash at first, any if its utility isn't apparent, I'll eventually get rid of it)

- tooltips take a second or two to show up, consequently, I never see y2karl's titles, because I don't have the patience to sit there and hover for a few seconds over each and every link.

- in mozilla, tooltips cut off after a short number of characters, like maybe 50-60. So anything longer than that is gone, and the only way to read it is changing to IE, or viewing source.

- it brings a bit of info that is largely hidden, farther forward.

Keep in mind that there aren't too many titles used on the site, so this will be an infrequently used feature, but when there are titles, I find them infinitely more useful in mozilla.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:21 PM on February 11, 2003


I wasn't seeing anything in IE 6 or Mozilla 1.2 on XP until I deactivated the mighty ad-muncher. Now that I have, I see that I like this a lot, eye-candy freak that I am, and I agree that it does present some improvements, in IE at least, over the way that titles are normally shown.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:45 AM on February 12, 2003


Matt: You should consider chopping off the urls from the titles after X characters --longer urls just mess up the entire DHTML pane. Check out the last link on this FPP (yes, it's my post, which is why I checked it) (IE 5.5/Win2k).
posted by costas at 3:25 AM on February 12, 2003


Thanks for all the feedback, all. That'll teach me to knock off something quickly; it gets picked up by MeFi and used and then people complain about my design decisions ;)

I've updated the library a little to use a transparent PNG as the backdrop rather than proprietary opacity methods. The browser detection was there because there is, as far as I know, no other way to reliably get the mouse position; object detection can't be used. However, since I also updated the library to work with onfocus/onblur handlers (for tab navigation to links) I updated the library so that the link's position is used rather than the mouse position as a basis for the tooltip position, and therefore said browser detection (which I like as little as you do) is no longer used.

The cutoff in Mozilla/Linux is a weird one; I don't know why it happens. It happens for me, too; I'd like to thin this down to a testcase and file a bug report about it.

The code *should* detect when a tooltip would run off the right-hand-side of the screen and correct for that (I don't like scrollbars either!) but it's obviously a pixel or two out. Not sure why; it doesn't seem to happen for me.

Cheers for the feedback, regardless.
posted by Aquarius at 4:20 AM on February 12, 2003


I really like them used on y2karl's newer thread. They offer lots of info that will help me prioritize links when I am pressed for time...and they don't require speed reading the way the tooltips did...I like the look and the usefulness. Thumbs up here.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:49 AM on February 12, 2003


It's OK if you have no proper editing skills, I suppose. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:43 AM on February 12, 2003


/envy]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:44 AM on February 12, 2003


Not to be a party pooper, but doesn't this add to the server's load by calling these javascript files? She is working hard as is, no?

The server is a "she"? This is shaking my belief system to the core! I no longer know if up is really up and down is really down. Perhaps I/P threads are worth reading and political/religious/gun control posts should be examined more closely.

I'm so confused...
posted by ashbury at 6:04 AM on February 12, 2003


Works in AOL now...
posted by Orange Goblin at 8:12 AM on February 12, 2003


I totally love it. Big surprise, right?

Title tags are swell and underutilized, IMHO--if nothing else, it's an unobtrusive place to add bits about loud media, NSFW, big file DLs, etc. Sort of like a footnote. I find this rollover dealie a great way to present that.

Not to ask for a configurable pony, but it might be cool if the feature could be flipped on/off per-user or per-skin.
posted by merlinmann at 8:30 AM on February 12, 2003


Useful only in that I'm rarely aware of title tags until I just happen to leave my mouse on a link for several seconds. If people have been putting useful info in them, I guess I've been missing out.
posted by gramcracker at 9:27 AM on February 12, 2003


I don't have the cutoff problems in Mozilla 1.3a. I can read the massive titles in this post without any issues. Surely the Lea Gilmore title there goes over the limit?
posted by kelperoni at 9:43 AM on February 12, 2003


I don't have the cutoff problems in Mozilla 1.3a

That's because you should be seeing the dhtml tooltips instead. I just looked for the first too-long-of-a-title-to-work-in-my-mozilla and I found this

Mouseover the link marked "PB: RSS in WSH, OK!" and tell me if you can see the joke about LOGO. For me in mozilla 1.2 and 1.3b, it ends at "system ..." even though there is another 5 or 6 words in the title. y2karl's titles were largely useless in mozilla before I added the nice titles, due to this limitation.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:03 AM on February 12, 2003


Matt, the only issue I've noticed is with the titlebar on the right hand side of the front page.

When I mouseover a link, the popup appears on the far left hand side. Is this because of the css properties of the right hand news bar, I wonder?
posted by christian at 11:11 AM on February 12, 2003


Oh. I'm using IE 5.5 on Win2k server, by the way.
posted by christian at 11:12 AM on February 12, 2003


I have to say I like it. Clever without being flashy.
posted by dong_resin at 12:43 PM on February 12, 2003


I am seeing the same thing as christian.
posted by rhapsodie at 2:01 PM on February 12, 2003


Also: When I click a link (which opens either in a new or the same browser window) with the title popup and then return to the MeFi front page, the popup is now permanently visible until I refresh.
posted by rhapsodie at 2:04 PM on February 12, 2003


(IE 6.0 on Win2k)
posted by rhapsodie at 2:12 PM on February 12, 2003


That's because you should be seeing the dhtml tooltips instead.
Ok, nevermind then; I was seeing the dhtml tooltips. I didn't see anything for the link you pointed out...
posted by kelperoni at 3:13 PM on February 12, 2003


I am having the same issue rhapsodie describes, and I am on IE 5.5 Winsows ME. This only occurs after clicking a link - popup will only go away with a page refresh.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:41 PM on February 12, 2003


Matt, could you please make it optional via customize?
posted by riffola at 4:08 PM on February 12, 2003


This is awesome, if only because now I can write link titles without fear of being cut off. I've always found them a great way of adding a new dimension to webpages - putting little tidbits of information away in a slightly hidden place, to be revealed at a touch. I just have one tiny little request - that the background color of the tooltips be slightly different from that of the sidebar. Just a shade or two lighter or darker would help to distinguish the tooltip from the sidebar when they overlap, making the alternate text a little easier to read.

Oh, and I think the "Christian Effect" may be related to Aquarius' change to a link position-based tooltip-positioning system, combined with link text that wraps around from the right side of its box to the left side. I only say this because I'm getting the same thing (in reverse) with some of the links on y2karl's last post, but in reverse - the tooltips on wordwrapped links appear on the right side of the window, even if my mouse cursor hovers over the part of the link on the left side of the window. On the other hand, the version of the post that I've left open and unrefreshed since 6:45 or so this morning (3:45 PST, before Aquarius' changes) doesn't do that. Or I could be totally wrong. BTW, I am using Mozilla 1.0.1 on WinME.
posted by skoosh at 5:35 PM on February 12, 2003


Matt...when I right click -> Open a link, the dhtml info just stays on the screen. ie5 on Winme.
posted by Kevs at 9:38 AM on February 13, 2003


Chalk up another one for "Title doesn't go away after clicking the link", on IE6, Win2K.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:19 PM on February 13, 2003


Same here--title stays on screen after clicking link. IE6/Win2K. MeFi option open links in new window.
posted by AstroGuy at 1:06 PM on February 13, 2003


Yeah, it seems like the event capturing gets busted by right-clicking or other activities. It's weird it doesn't reset itself when you mouse back over it (event capturing has always been the one thing that was beyond me in JavaScript). Seems like you only get one chance to turn off the title once you mouse onto it, and that's to mouse right back off and not do anything in between.

Unfortunately, I can't think of another event that you could fire hideNiceTitle from. The only half-ass fix I can think of is to modify hideNiceTitle so that it shuts off any and all title elements, rather than just the one belonging to the link you moused off. That might be a little much though.
posted by yerfatma at 5:21 PM on February 13, 2003


they work fine on my antique system [win95 and IE5] but they're almost unreadbale on my darkish monitor. Plus, I don't like them, they turn the front page into a mine field which plays hell on my bad touchpad abilities. I assume there will be a toggle for this feature or maybe it could just be disables in the "simple" version of the CSS?
posted by jessamyn at 6:28 PM on February 13, 2003


I assume there will be a toggle for this feature or maybe it could just be disables in the "simple" version of the CSS?

Well, the customization could always set one more cookie if you choose to shut them off, then inside the style tag . . .

[cfif cookie.noPrettyTitle EQ "Yes"]
[cfoutput].nicetitle {display: none;}[/cfoutput]
[/cfif]
posted by yerfatma at 6:38 PM on February 13, 2003


IE 5.5 : The text-field doesn't disappear once popped up after hovering over the specific text.
posted by zerofoks at 7:47 PM on February 13, 2003


ew yuck. where is my opt-out button ?

:)
posted by balinx at 8:19 PM on February 13, 2003


I made them opt-in only now. Check your customize page to turn them on now (they are off by default).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:46 PM on February 17, 2003


« Older [This Is Good] script bug   |   one doozy of a page Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments