Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Smart Tags - Dumb Idea

Rated 3.47 (Ratings: 13) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(52 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of headlemur

Alan Herrell

Member info | Full bio

User since: August 30, 1999

Last login: September 15, 2006

Articles written: 13

The quest for control of presentation by designers has taken many turns. From the first graphical browsers in 1994[1] to the sophisticated tools for creating webpages and managing content available today , designers have used the web to display the fruits of their labors.

Over the next few years the web developed and more websites arrived, from individuals, business and governments, browsers became more complex and began the bloody trail of tears known as the Browser Wars.

Creating two sets of pages for a single site, just to get them to display close to each other, while allowing creativity in imagery and navigation was taking a toll on designers, and creating an antagonistic atmosphere for companies to adopt the web as a part of their business goals primarily due to cost, complexity of browser workarounds, and deployment time.

In 1998 a group of designers formed the Web Standards Project[2] to bring some sanity to the creation of websites and to adopt the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)[3] HTML Markup Language Recommendations as 'Standards' to create websites. The WaSP called on the Browser Makers to build browsers to follow these standards, as the cost of developing websites for just the two major players, Netscape and Internet Explorer was adding up to 25% to the cost of website development.

Because of the economic writing on the wall, the browsers began to improve. They began to release products that began to conform with the 'Standards'. They are not there yet, but exciting things are anticipated.

With the growth of the web has come the enfranchisement of individuals and groups of all persuasions, beliefs and backgrounds. The web is a truly democratic medium for information, viewpoints and entertainment. A few bucks a month for a connection, a computer, free tools and if you are new to the web and need help, we have it in droves, from HTML markup to Flash.

With this freedom has come a few bumps, a few billion dollars down various ratholes[4] and the fight for control of the web continues in courtrooms, boardrooms and by designers [5] , independant content producers [6] and pixel mechanics like me around the world.

In our hunger to publish, we have grasped at every opportunity to extend the boundaries of the possible. Designers have been exploring the boundaries of design and presentation since the first animated .gif was displayed. We have twisted the code, we have created navigation and information displays of incredible beauty and abysmal nightmares.

Many of us believe in the promise of the web outlined in the Wasp Mission Statement;

We recognize the necessity of innovation in a fast-paced market. However, basic support of existing W3C standards has been sacrificed in the name of such innovation, needlessly fragmenting the Web and helping no one.
Our goal is to support these core standards and encourage browser makers to do the same, thereby ensuring simple, affordable access to Web technologies for all.

There is a new technology that threatens the web.
Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6.0

IE 6.0 correctly implements the CSS Box Model. Hooray! There is a price you will pay for this. Internet Explorer 6.0 is incorporating a new 'feature' called Smart Tags. According to Microsoft this is an 'enhancement' for your browser experience.[7]

"Smart tags are a new feature in Microsoft ® Word 2002, Microsoft Excel 2002, Microsoft Outlook® 2002 (when Word is enabled as your e-mail editor), and Microsoft Internet Explorer (when Microsoft Office XP or one of the standalone applications mentioned above is installed on your computer) that allows text to be labeled with contextual information while users type."

This so-called contextual information are actually presented in your browser window as purple squiggly underlines (just like the underlining that Microsoft Word uses for spell checking when you are creating documents and it doesn't have the word in it's dictionary, mis-spelled or not) highlighting your content with links to Microsoft and it's partners.

This has two immediate consequences. It fractures the web by placing links on sites you designed without your knowledge or permission. It changes the context of sites you created. In the June 7th story in the Wall Street Journal, New Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit Others' Sites[8], Walter S. Mossberg said that the XP product would re-edit your site. It will not change your text but it sure as hell will co-opt your sites for someone elses benefit. Walt is not alone here. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

The second and more dangerous issue is the destination of these links. By Microsoft's published admission;

" Microsoft officials confirm that they will send users to Microsoft Web properties or to other properties blessed by Microsoft. One of the links did work: It launched Microsoft's mediocre search engine, which is packed with plugs for other Microsoft services." [8]

David Coursey thinks that they are wonderful;[14]

Smart Tags are a great invention and deserve a fair shake. And perhaps now you, dear reader, understand why companies don't like their beta software leaking out before it's ready.

Beta Envy, David?

This is a threat to the free and open creation and viewing of the web. When you consider that it was Microsoft products were responsible for the world wide damage created by the Mellisa virus and their intent is to lock you in to their world with .Net and hailstorm products don't be surprised if a large number of sites put up a page like this There is no cure on the horizon. The alleged meta tag <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE"> to turn off this behaviour does not work as of this posting. This is a viral marketing tactic on the same level as the Ebola Virus or HIV in humans.

I hope that you can enjoy the CSS Box Model. I am not going to play for Microsoft.

Footnotes

  1. NCSA Mosaic
  2. Web Standards Project
  3. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  4. Fucked Company - listing crash and burn victims of the new economy
  5. K10K the designers Lunchbox
  6. the ageless project
  7. Developing Simple Smart Tags
  8. New Windows XP Feature Can Re-Edit Others' Sites
  9. Smart-ass tags - Doc Searls
  10. June 9, 2001 - Scott Andrew
  11. Friday, June 8, 2001 - Edit This, Bucko - Deborah Branscum
  12. GlennLogs
  13. The Microsoft Internet - The Next Episode
  14. Are Smart Tags part of an MS plot? (Hint: the WSJ is wrong!)

Not just for XP (fyi stuff)

Submitted by deanburge on June 18, 2001 - 15:34.

"...when Microsoft Office XP or one of the standalone applications mentioned above is installed on your computer..."

I am running IE6b1 and Office 2k (not XP) on Win98 (1st edition). If I choose in options for Smart Tags to be turned on in IE6, I can still see the contextual tooltip style information on any webiste I care to look at with mention of particular company subject keywords.

I also read somewhere one journalist reporting that the new smart tags are "new and dangerous" - not ture as there are companies doing what Microsoft are building into IE6/WinXP/Office/XP for quite some time. Flycast is one I can think of off the top of my head.

Ebola for the Web? Possibly.

login or register to post comments

'Precious' Webmasters Try To Oppress Users ... ?

Submitted by Milly on June 19, 2001 - 14:56.

I enjoyed the history lesson, and learned a fair amount too. But it's the background to the wrong issue, I suggest.

headlemur says "It fractures the web by placing links on sites you designed without your knowledge or permission." But it doesn't. It places links on my local copy of sites, and fractures nothing.

And if "It changes the context of sites you created" and will "co-opt your sites for someone elses benefit", then it only does so in my browser. Your sites remain (roughly, as always) as you intended.

How a web page is displayed in my browser is up to me. I routinely block ads, web bugs, hit counters, Flash, ActiveX and javascript, background music, and cookies. I also re-enable attempts to block right-clicking, re-enable cacheing, stop popups and scrollers, and much more.

In some cases I kill or change the colours, backgrounds or fonts (and many Proxomitron users, for example, make much more adventurous changes - to the extent that the site designer might barely recognise what they intended).

Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and there is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), the site owners/designers have no control over what I do with their pages within my PC - never have - and nor should they. Which browser I choose to use, or which of it's features and settings I choose to enable, is none of their business (except to the extent that I choose to reveal that information, for our mutual convenience).

If I want to use Proxomitron or Webwasher or similar to change what I see, or use Google or Alexa or Atomica or Sage or OEG or Crystal or NQL or Reuters or Amnesty International or the BBC, or even MS IE6, to add information or links to key words, why shouldn't I? And if I want to use Proxomitron to kill the meta tags that (may or may not turn out to) block Smart Tags, why shouldn't I be able to do that too?

Not one web page will be altered (except by site owners themselves) by Smart Tags. What changes is within users' machines, and is wholly within their control. Hooray for that, I say.

The real issue is with how MS use and abuse their muscle to grab an 'unfair' proportion of the destinations of such Smart Tags, and how (and if) they foist the feature on unsuspecting users without proper explanation. And it's a valid and important issue, which is poorly served by aiming at the wrong target, or by designing sites which shut out users.

It's not about server side standards. It's not about the technology being included, and available to users, within browsers.

Milly

login or register to post comments

Should have read the formatting guidelines first..

Submitted by Milly on June 19, 2001 - 14:58.

Sorry. Milly

login or register to post comments

RE: 'Precious' Webmasters Try To Oppress Users .

Submitted by headlemur on June 19, 2001 - 16:47.

What ever you do with your browser from text size to user definable styles are not the subject of this article. Nor are serverside issues. You said: "Absent any agreement between me and the web sites concerned (and there is none - express or implied - in 99%+ of cases), " In the United States, Websites are publications and are protected by copyright. Over 180 Countries in the Civlilized world are signitories to the Paraguay Convention, which is the update to the Berne convention on International Copyright. And you do not Need the copyright symbol to enforce these rights. Registration of your work is helpful to prosecute infringment cases. The squiggly lines on websites that were not created by the designer, regardless of who put them there create derivitive works which are not allowed except by express permissions of the site owners. As a designer having squiggly lines on the text portions of what ever I design does not come close to being 'roughly' as I intended, neither for myself nor my clients. Co-opting the webpage with these especially when they point to offsite information is not why we get paid to build websites. Having two different types of navigation features one as provided by the designer and another as a feature created by a third party, with neither consent, collusion or compensation is not what I intend nor what I contracted for. Since you have discovered all of the wonderful things that you MUST do to disable features, cookies, webbugs and redirects, where is your web site to explain to the 1/2 of the estimated 400 million folks that are online of which 200 million have been online less than 12 months who think that a blue underlined link is a neat feature? Of course 20% of the users are not affected at all.

login or register to post comments

Underlining and linking

Submitted by isaac on June 19, 2001 - 18:13.

As a designer having squiggly lines on the text portions of what ever I design does not come close to being 'roughly' as I intended, neither for myself nor my clients.

I believe that nearly every browser in the last 5 years has been able to use a custom stylesheet to make all text show as underlined if the user would prefer that. How is a "squiggly" line all that different?

Is your sole issue that links are being added to your site? Have not bookmarklets made this possible in the past? In addition to your "IE6 users bugger off" page, how about something for users of bookmarklets also?

Is your "evil" Microsoft to blame for giving the users this choice (the tags are off by default remember), or should you be getting grouchy with anyone who enables the feature for their personal use?

Does your proposed page for users of IE6 block all users of the browser, or just those who have smart tags enabled?

Is it illegal to pencil in notes to your personal copy of a book or newsletter? If it isn't, do you think it should be?

login or register to post comments

RE: 'Precious' Webmasters Try To Oppress Users..

Submitted by Milly on June 19, 2001 - 18:22.

Ah, the copyright red herring.

The squiggly lines aren't on web sites, aren't published, aren't served, aren't distributed. They're only in my browser. No breach of copyright. If you serve a digitally signed PDF file, let alone a defenceless HTML page, and I hack it to replace key words with subversive alternatives, no breach of copyright has taken place. Nor if I use third party tools to do so. Now if I go on to publish, serve or distribute that page, that's a different kettle of fish.

But smart Tags don't do that.

There may well be other legal remedies if MS abuses their position to, err, promote their own Smart Tags unfairly. Not breach of copyright, though.

I'm afraid I don't think I understand your point about my web site to explain to the folk that who think that a blue underlined link is a neat feature. I'd be surprised if MS, and AOL soon enough, didn't steamroller their way to widespread acceptance of their own Smart Tags, I'm sorry to say. And I'd love to see some comparably high profile advocacy for users choosing their own Smart Tag sources, or none at all, in deference to the web site authors' intent, for that matter. But the absence of such is no reason for trying to stifle the technology.

Milly

Hope this formatting works....

login or register to post comments

RE: 'Precious' Webmasters Try To Oppress Users..

Submitted by headlemur on June 19, 2001 - 19:06.

They are not just in your browser, they are in mine and the next guys. The entire issue may be over real soon though, according to sources close the testing. On your drive in your house on your intranet, you can smart tag that interoffice memo till you run out of harddrive space.

login or register to post comments

RE: Underlining and linking

Submitted by Milly on June 19, 2001 - 19:06.

I didn't twig that the "IE6 users bugger off" page was headlemur's own.

For someone apparently so keen on standards it seems an odd choice.

Tim Berners-Lee once said :-

"So if any of you have got Web Masters out there who put those little buttons on saying this is best used using a particular browser, suggest they put 'this is best used using a browser which works to the following specifications: HTML 3.2', or something like that. You can go back this evening; email them from your homes, and tell them that I just mentioned it."

I wonder what he'd make of blocking a compliant browser because of the Web Master's opinion of the power it gave to users to manipulate local content.

Milly

login or register to post comments

Only on my local computer?

Submitted by MartinB on June 20, 2001 - 05:36.

Milly

You say that:

And if "It changes the context of sites you created" and will "co-opt your sites for someone elses benefit", then it only does so in my browser. Your sites remain (roughly, as always) as you intended.

Where else is a site presented? If the changes are made for all IE6 users, then the context is changed as far as users are concerned.

Now were Smart Tags based on a completely user defined database, or a public, open database which could be added to without commercial interests, rather than being a proprietory, vendor specific db, then there would far less public concern about it.

login or register to post comments

Only on my local computer?

Submitted by Milly on June 20, 2001 - 07:22.

"Where else is a site presented?"

I do take your point. But there is a crucial difference, seemingly lost in much of the outcry, between what is changed at the source (the server) and what is changed only locally by individual users (even by many, even by most, individual users, using the same tools). Users have always had control of how sites are presented locally.

"If the changes are made for all IE6 users, then the context is changed as far as users are concerned."

Leaving aside how well or badly MS implememt or deploy ST's (please see my earlier fears on that score), the changes are optional. And within the users' control. By all means fight against MS's dominance, and the decidedly mixed blessings that result. I'll join you. But don't, I say, let user choice and useful technology be hit with friendly fire.

"Now were Smart Tags based on a completely user defined database, or a public, open database which could be added to without commercial interests, rather than being a proprietory, vendor specific db, then there would far less public concern about it. "

I'm sure you are right, though there is nothing 'closed' about MS's proprietory system (in this case). It doesn't break or co-opt any existing standards either.

A completely user defined database is easily (though not by me!) possible, and I'm sure will be done (after all, it would be a small tweak from those that allow businesses to develop them to suit their own intranets and purposes). I guess they'll be many public open databases too, some with non-commercial 'open-source'-style aims.

But if vendors wish to develop and make available their own, even MS, why shoudn't they? If the answer is about use or abuse of their dominance, then that should be the target.

Milly

login or register to post comments

Only on my local computer

Submitted by MartinB on June 20, 2001 - 09:35.

I do take your point. But there is a crucial difference, seemingly lost in much of the outcry, between what is changed at the source (the server) and what is changed only locally by individual users (even by many, even by most, individual users, using the same tools). Users have always had control of how sites are presented locally.

I don't think there's an issue with what a user does with their own view of your site. But where an external company (a third party) makes global changes to the way your site is presented to users (who don't participate in the changing process), then there is no difference between changing it on the client or the server - the presentation is the same. With the exception of users who telnet in and see what the original content was, of course.

When I talk about 'closed' I mean that the default list of links and linked terms is under the exclusive control of a third party vendor. Believe me, even if the database is technically open to development partners to add to for intranet and ISP purposes (much as there's an SDK for IE generally to enable changing the titlebar, rotating icon etc), consumers at large will not do this. This is closed in a business sense, not in an IT standards sense. (hmm - 'closed in a business sense' - sounds like abuse of a monopoly to me).

Here's a parallel. Online grocery store tesco.com have a service where if your chosen item isn't in stock, you can tell them to substitute something else. You as a consumer don't have choice over what that is.

Now imagine for a moment that you are Kellogg's. How would you feel if your products were being consistently substituted by Nabisco brands? You would be very, very, very upset. It doesn't matter that you're producing enough product to satisfy demand, if the consumer isn't getting it.

Now if you were a partner in developing substitution lists, specifically for your own brands, but also as one player within the category, you'd feel much better about it.

As I've said, it doesn't matter that this is Microsoft. If Apache or Netscape did this on the server at run time (so there's no change to your files, right?) MS would the first into the courts and media.

The solution is to make it open, like the CDDB - anyone can add to it. It's a great user concept, but it's the control that's the issue.

login or register to post comments

Only on my local computer

Submitted by Milly on June 20, 2001 - 12:39.

I don't think there's an issue with what a user does with their own view of your site. But where an external company (a third party) makes global changes to the way your site is presented to users (who don't participate in the changing process), then there is no difference between changing it on the client or the server - the presentation is the same.

I agree. But ST's don't make global changes. Every user sees either what the site owner intends, or such amendments as the user has chosen. That IE6 might lead to many users choosing the same amendments doesn't alter the underlying premise. Users are free to turn off the feature, or choose their own ST supplier, or use another browser. I think they should be free to do so.

When I talk about 'closed' I mean that the default list of links and linked terms is under the exclusive control of a third party vendor.

The default list, sure. And maybe that's an abuse of monopoly power in the same way as bundling, or making freely available, the browser itself is. Or selling Favorites/Bookmarks within the default installation, like MS, Netscape/AOL (and Opera) do. If it is. I'm not arguing that it won't be. We'll have to see.

Believe me, even if the database is technically open to development partners ..... consumers at large will not do this.

Probably not en masse, but popular products and features shouldn't be 'banned' for that reason. If there are no actual barriers to developers, MS can hardly be faulted (except on the 'break 'em up' grounds, which may or may not be appropriate).

Here's a parallel. Online grocery store Tesco.com have a service ...

I use it! :)

... where if your chosen item isn't in stock, you can tell them to substitute something else. You as a consumer don't have choice over what that is.

Now imagine for a moment that you are Kellogg's. How would you feel if your products were being consistently substituted by Nabisco brands? You would be very, very, very upset. It doesn't matter that you're producing enough product to satisfy demand, if the consumer isn't getting it.

Umm, I'm not sure quite how this parallels the ST issue. The Tesco site is a closed system, and ST's couldn't fulfil substituted links (I suspect that wasn't what you were suggesting). But hey, if Nabisco bought 'links' within the default MS ST database, which pointed to their site every time the word 'Kellogg's' was parsed, on every site, I think Kellogg's would have a strong beef with MS. But probably not if Nabisco bought 'links' which pointed to their site every time the word 'cereal' was parsed.

Either way, users should be free to download ST's which popup links to, say, the five best-priced cereal vendors. And use them when they surf the Tesco site, if they wish. Back to the basic issue - should ST's be stifled at birth in fear of their potential commercial abuse? Fight the abuse, I say, and welcome the cool technology.

As I've said, it doesn't matter that this is Microsoft. If Apache or Netscape did this on the server at run time (so there's no change to your files, right?) MS would the first into the courts and media.

If anyone did this on the server, so surfers had no choice but to view the amendments, I'd be first into the courts and media.

The solution is to make it open, like the CDDB - anyone can add to it. It's a great user concept, but it's the control that's the issue.

Yep, although CDDB was founded and developed in much the same way as MS is doing with Smart Tags. The only significant difference is that ST's were 'invented' by the Beast of Redmond instead of a couple of music geeks with a brilliant idea. As an ordinary punter, I agree it's a shame it hasn't happened the other way round. But the days when 'good guys' can reach an unassailable critical mass with a cool idea before the commercial interests move in, are probably dead. And one pool, even sub-divided, of ST's for all users wouldn't work.

Smart Tags are here, and we'll have to do the best we can with MS, as usual, as a big player.

Killing the technology would be wrong.

Milly

login or register to post comments

From a users point of view...

Submitted by paulnattress on June 21, 2001 - 06:02.

Very interesting discussion guys...

I'm trying to see the whole issue of Smart Tags from a users (rather than developers) view.

Consider this - I'm Mr Average Web User. I use whatever browser is installed on my computer - generally I will click on the icon on my desktop which says "The Internet" (set up by the nearest 14 year old for me).
I don't know, or care, what browser I'm using because as far as I'm aware, there is only one - the one that I use.
I know how to use the Internet - you can click on words with lines beneath them and they take me to relevant pages on the Internet. Sweet.

Now then. I'm suddenly using IE6. I don't know (or care, remember) how this happened. Maybe my "nearest 14 year old" (or network administrator at work) has set up my PC with the latest browser. Suddenly all the sites I go to have more and more links - I assume that this has happened because the websites themselves have put them there. I therefore believe that these links are recommendations by the sites which I have learnt to trust. I am unaware of what Smart Tags are or that only IE6 uses them. I don't know who decides what links have been created for me. All I know is that there are more links on the page. More links which I believe have been recommended to me by a trusted source.

This is why Smart Tags are a bad idea. There will be some people who know what Smart Tags are - these people will understand that the links will take them to Microsoft sites and will use this information to help them decide whether to click on the link or not. A lot - and we're talking millions - of people will not.

If I'm wrong about this, or you think I've missed the point, please let me know.

Paul.

login or register to post comments

From a users point of view...

Submitted by Milly on June 21, 2001 - 08:37.

A not unlikely scenario. So what would you like done about it?

How does your answer affect other users?

Milly

login or register to post comments

Escape From Smart Tags?

Submitted by adolph on June 21, 2001 - 14:02.

How well do Smart Tags stick to words composed of escape characters?

-A

login or register to post comments

Paul

Submitted by isaac on June 21, 2001 - 16:24.

Your scenario is unlikely. Smart Tags will be disabled by default.

There's already been a similar issue - wasn't deja.com auto-linking certain words in newsgroup posts to shopping sites owned by deja.com? That wasn't off by default, and I can't remember there being an option to disable it either...

Would the opposers of Smart Tags be so upset if Microsoft introduced a feature "Smart Translation" (disabled by default, and blockable by a meta-tag) that allowed users to surf the net in a different language (no matter how poor the auto-translation was)?

Remember that Smart Tags can be written by third parties. You can use them on your intranet to provide more info on whatever you'd like (and not necessarily linking to Microsoft).

login or register to post comments

Switched off by default?

Submitted by MartinB on June 22, 2001 - 06:28.

We have a suggestion that it'll be switched off by default. We also have a suggestion that there will be an effective meta-tag to disable Smart Tags on a per-page basis. We're still waiting on conclusive proof of this.

And let's be clear: Microsoft aren't doing this as a public service. It's a clear ploy to bring traffic into sites which they have a commercial interest in. If the Auto-Translation parallel is true, then you'd have to factor in that the translation will be editorialised to MS's commercial interests. It'd be a bit like the old Kelloggs' recipe book, where every recipe somehow managed to use Cornflakes.

Except that that's transparent. Editorialising of content by adding links or commentary is covert to everyone who only uses IE6, which will be the greater bulk of users. And the population of users who only use a single browser will be biased towards those who won't question the authenticity of the content as presented to them

Time for digital signatures?

login or register to post comments

It's bad because it's opt-out

Submitted by pointwood on June 22, 2001 - 08:28.

Smart tags could possibly be a great feature I believe, but it depends on the implementation.

The implementation Microsoft have choosen currently is opt-out and that's what's wrong - it should be opt-in.

If it were opt-in, then there would not be any smart tags on my site, except if I added a meta tag (or something like that) to enable them!

Whether they are disabled or enabled as default doesn't matter - it's enough that the feature (in it's current implementation) exists! Who knows if the first service pack for WinXP or IE6 suddenly makes them enabled as default!?

IMHO it does change the content. Just because it's downloaded to your computer and therefore, technically, you are looking at a local file, you are still "on" my website. It's not "legally" on your computer before you have saved that page on your harddisk.-

Disclaimer: English isn't my primary language - hope you understand my points anyway.

login or register to post comments

Submitted by paulnattress on June 22, 2001 - 14:34.

I've heard conflicting rumours about whether Smart Tags are going to be enabled or disabled by default. More recently the rumours have been more in favour of saying that they're disabled - this would be fine. What would be ideal is having them as "opt-in" only. That is, if I want Smart Tags to be implemented on one of my sites, I put the meta tag in my code.

The technology, I must admit, sounds good and I think the idea was borne out of good intentions. Microsoft have to be careful about the implementation. We have to remember also, that ISPs have their own branded versions of IE and they may choose whether to enable Smart Tags or not. Maybe they'll have the option to direct some of the links to sites sponsored by their own company.

We'll have to wait and see...

login or register to post comments

Oh Paul! ....

Submitted by Milly on June 22, 2001 - 17:39.

What would be ideal is having them as "opt-in" only. That is, if I want Smart Tags to be implemented on one of my sites, I put the meta tag in my code.

Grrr.... So I can't use price comparison Smart Tags from say, ShopSmart.com, when browsing your WePretendWe'reCheapButWeLie.com site unless (as if) you put in a meta tag?

User empowerment first, I say.

Milly

login or register to post comments

Correct

Submitted by MartinB on June 24, 2001 - 02:56.

You shouldn't be able to see ads for whoevergaveMSlotsofmoney.com when you're browsing yourusualretailoutletwhocan'taffordtobribeMS.com. Just as a real world retail outlet would not tolerate a competitor advertising within their store. My gaff, my rules.

If you as a consumer wish price comparisons, then it's only fair that you go to a third party site, which will also disclose any commercial interest which advertisers have in the comparison engine.

User empowerment is all very well, but only when there is a level playing field for vendors so the consumer can make educated choices.

login or register to post comments

Freedom

Submitted by boldfish on June 24, 2001 - 04:13.

Here's what I worry about: (as a web site engineer) Client: "what are all these extra links on my site? I didn't ask for them" Me "They're Smart tags - cool technology don't you think?" Client "not really, three of them are pointing to my competitor" Me "you can turn them off in your browser" Client "I see, will everyone else see them?" Me "they will if they've turned on smart tags in their browser" Client "So my site is advertising my competitor?" Me "it might be, depends on what browser they're using and if they've turned smart tags on or not............................................... What do I do now? either the client sees the opportunity and wants his own smart tags - how affordable will that be? or he sees the threat and I need to force smart tags off on his site. Smart tags, imho, are a tool to strengthen global corporate monopoly, be it Microsoft, or PornKings'r'us or Dell or maybe even Government (imagine a health warning on every mention of smoke - bit silly on the fire department site!) I want a way to force them on or off on sites I build. Imagine: I'm a book publisher, some of the book shops I sell to are adding notes on every page to every book they sell. (I don't know which ones it is and they do it so well the reader doesn't know if they should be there or not) I don't think my authors are going to be too happy, do you? This is a fundamental rights issue. I think we have laws in society that protect the weak from the strong, give copyright to artists and creators and prevent graffiti and defamation. As a consumer I like freedom of choice. As a designer I like freedom from theft. As a business I like freedom from unfair trading. My view on smart tags: They should be fully opt in. The user should have to download the plugin to make them work. They should be controllable. I should be able to turn them off for my e-commerce site in the same way that I would eject a competitor from my store if he were promoting his product to my customers. They should be source obvious. "Dell says, buy Dell computers", not just "buy Dell computers" My forecast: They will be used against us, in ways we have yet to imagine, because we relinquish yet more control over our own lives in the name of "freedom" and "cool technology"

login or register to post comments

Freedom

Submitted by deanburge on June 24, 2001 - 04:33.

In reply to Boldfish... ...that disables Smart Tags appearing on this page. After adding this tag, any Smart Tags that I add to this page will work, but Internet Explorer will not dynamically add new tags when users view the page. What a pain to have to do it to any or all pages though we say.

login or register to post comments

Adding to all pages

Submitted by MartinB on June 24, 2001 - 14:10.

Dean

I've just added it to every single one of the pages on my site. This was very easy, as my site is built using Server Side Includes (actually, it uses Apache includes, not ASP ones, but the idea is the same). The header part of the page is largely the same throughout the site, and derives from a single file, which is brought into the page when it's served.

So all I had to do was add:

<!--
##
# Keep out ie6 nastiness
##
-->
       <meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">
       <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE">

to the included file and hey presto - no more Smart Tags or image browsing (not that I have a lot of images - mostly photos)

You'll only have a problem adding the meta tag to every page if each page is handbuilt in its entirety. And even then, a search and replace across your site should cope with that.

login or register to post comments

Turn off smart tags

Submitted by boldfish on June 24, 2001 - 14:24.

I'll be adding these tags by default to all pages I maintain and produce, unless contracted not to.


I assume they really do work?

I still think this is just one more *bad* thing from Microsoft

You'd think that they'd be getting just a little bit concerned about their public image by now, wouldn't you!

login or register to post comments

Why not just see what MS have to say about things?

Submitted by timbooker on June 25, 2001 - 05:21.

According to this page at Microsoft, Smart Tags will be disabled by default, and you'll be able to install Smart Tags from people other than MS.

If this is the case, it makes Smart Tags a very useful and powerful feature of the new browser.

I've heard so many people debating this as if MS will be hacking into your server and modifying your HTML code.

Lets get a grip...

login or register to post comments

balanced viewpoint?

Submitted by boldfish on June 25, 2001 - 07:58.

I have researched some more, including reading what MS have to say.

As a user i'm in favour of the idea of Smart Tags

As a Web site builder I'm still concerned that the average user with smart tags turned on out of curiosity won't be able to distinguish between the tags I put on the site and the tags someone else put on the site and I'm reasonably certain that I won't be able to afford to put smart tags on everyone elses site.

I see that I can turn them alloff, but what if I want to use some smart tags throughout my site to promote my product or assist my site visitor with added info right there in the text? I have no control then over what other smart tags the user has installed. Some of which may be in direct competition with my site. Good, you say, more power to the user, but what happens when the only sites you can visit on the web are run by the global corporate smart taggers, because the little guy gives up?

On balance they may be a good idea and a cool new technology, but I'm not convinced they will never be used against us

To be honset, I think I'm actually more concerned at the attitude Microsoft are promoting to Graphics on the web - "take them, keep them, they're "My Pictures"

Sometimes I love the Internet, sometimes I hate what's being done with it, always I feel helpless.

login or register to post comments

MS 'not hacking your code'

Submitted by MartinB on June 25, 2001 - 09:09.

Tim - true, MS aren't changing the code on the server. But they are changing it significantly on the way to the user. Because of this, it doesn't actually matter where it's changed - before they see it is the only place that a user knows about. As far as waiting to see what MS have to say about the matter, I'd rather wait and see what the actual behaviour of the browser is, and be forearmed against the worst possibility to manage the risk effectively.

login or register to post comments

Selectively shutting off Smart Tags

Submitted by MartinB on June 25, 2001 - 12:23.

The Register has some interesting commentary on some possibilities of how Smart Tags might operate when you shut them off.

Something they didn't pick up on. They quote the MS page on Smart Tags:

After adding this tag [the one above], any Smart Tags that the author has added to the page will continue to work, but Internet Explorer will not dynamically add new tags when users view the page.

But hang on - what do they mean 'author'? Does this mean that I (the author of my site) can selectively add Smart Tag support on a per-link basis? How's this different from just, y'know, adding a normal link with &lt;a href=&quot...?

login or register to post comments

Martin...

Submitted by isaac on June 25, 2001 - 17:44.

Yes, I believe you can add your own smart tags, and they are significantly different to a normal href. View the screenshot of a smart tag pop-up (dhtml overlib-style) to see how they are different. I also believe that they are applied to all instances of a certain term. For example, you could run a smart tag that auto-linked every instance of "content management system" on your site to raise a pop-up listing your articles and preferred resources.

Smart tags are a smart move by Microsoft to bring new power to sites, users, and themselves (ie, increased help for their sites against AOL). An ideal implementation would have smart tags only showing when a modifying key is held (apparently the purple squiggly line is just not different enough for some people), and a clear indicator of the smart tags author (whether that is Microsoft, Dictionary.com, or the author of the site itself).

login or register to post comments

Essential questions as yet unanswered

Submitted by MartinB on June 26, 2001 - 04:57.

OK, so I can see how Smart Tags could be useful to users, providing that there are a range of sources, and that the owner of a site can control which sources are used. So here are a few questions which need answering to gain confidence that it's a beneficial technology overall:

  1. Can a site author selectively enable and disable Tags based on their source? Will I be able to choose to only enable my site's set of Smart Tags, along with those from ft.com and news.bbc.co.uk plus the sites I normally scan? If so, then I could be sure that no-one would be selling from my efforts without rewarding me and that the content the Smart Tags pointed to would be similar to content I would have explicitly chosen to promote with &lt;a href=&quot...
  2. The SDK for developing Smart Tags is free. And you can write them with a text editor (they're XML). That's good. But will the average site owner be able to produce an installer for the resulting DLL? Will you need Visual Studio Installer?
  3. Smart Tags are DLLs which edit the registry. Let's think about that for a moment, and consider the security implications. What's the security model to prevent exploits?
  4. Can a Smart Tag set update itself as Apple's Sherlock does - checking an URL for last updated date and auto-downloading a new version? If not, how do I update my changes?
  5. How does the algorithm work to choose key concepts to link? Could you get every word on a page linked, or is there a level of sparseness? Is this a configurable variable? If so, who by - the user, the site owner or the Tag set writer?
  6. How are conflicts managed? If multiple sets of Tags wish to link the same word, who gets precedence? Is this a configurable variable? By whom?

login or register to post comments

Purple squiggly lines...

Submitted by paulnattress on June 26, 2001 - 06:00.

Most users of the Internet (or at least, the ones familiar with Microsoft Office) will be used to seeing squiggly lines in their Word documents. These lines are red rather than purple and signify spelling errors... Will the average user make the connection between the two and think that the author of the web page has made a lot of errors in their text?

I think they will. Take for example, clicking. I've seen dozens of people double clicking hyperlinks on the Web. Why? Because they double click on icons on their Windows desktop. To the average user, there is only one type of clicking. They don't care about the difference. I like the idea of adding a tag into my code to differentiate between a link to a site and a link that defines the word that is clicked on.

login or register to post comments

Sorry, got distracted...

Submitted by paulnattress on June 26, 2001 - 06:27.

Got a little sidetracked in the office while adding that comment.

The last line is meant to be the beginning of a new subject...

I like the idea of adding a tag into my code to differentiate between a link to a site and a link that defines the word that is clicked on (or provides additional information, just like footnotes). In a similar way, we are seeing the TITLE tag and LONGDESC tag used to provide additional information about a hyperlink. Hyperlinks have lasted for quite a number of years and Smart Tags are looking to be an upgrade to this technology. If Smart Tags allow the site author to provide a clear definition between two types of hyperlinks which will benefit the user then we have some good stuff to look forward to. I'm still unconvinced that this is the case however.

login or register to post comments

Styled by CSS?

Submitted by isaac on June 26, 2001 - 19:17.

The introduction and popularity of smart tags seems inevitable. Would it be sensible to allow smart tags to be styled by site owners using CSS? Much like a:hover. Instead of an underline (squiggly or not), a subtle colour tint behind the smart-tagged word could be effective for some sites.

login or register to post comments

Styled by CSS?

Submitted by paulnattress on June 27, 2001 - 05:22.

That would be great if we could do that. It may only happen in a perfect world though...

Also, it would be good if we had the chance to define (in the stylesheet) which group of websites the Smart Tags would be connected to.
For example, by default, the tags could lead to sites chosen by Microsoft. The site author could then choose whether they want to change this to the AOL group of sites, or the CNET group of sites, or the site author could even define their own group of sites.
This would bring back the control into the hands of the site author (this is the person whose opinion the reader trusts) while still allowing Microsoft and the other big companies some scope for domination. It could possibly lead to all these companies competing against each other to come up with the best, perfect groups of sites. Sorry, I'm thinking of that perfect world again...

login or register to post comments

Good riddence!

Submitted by bmason on June 28, 2001 - 00:15.

Microsoft announces that Smart Tags will not be in the release version of IE6.

login or register to post comments

Hang on...

Submitted by paulnattress on June 28, 2001 - 01:48.

From the CNET article featured above: "Although the Smart Tags feature was included in Internet Explorer 6, the Web browser that is bundled with current beta versions Windows XP, it will be dropped from the final product."

To me, the "final product" which the article refers to is Office XP - is CNET saying that Smart Tags have been (and will continue to be) included in IE6 but have been dropped from the final XP product? I may have picked this up wrong... I hope it mea\ns that Smart Tags were included in IE6 but were then dropped from the final product (i.e. dropped from IE6 along with the rest of Office XP.)

login or register to post comments

no

Submitted by timbooker on June 28, 2001 - 03:02.

Cullinan also emphasized that Smart Tags remains a feature of Office XP, the upgrade to Microsoft's suite of applications that launched on May 31.

They're saying that smart tags were a part of IE6 beta releases, but they will be dropped from the final release. They're talking about the final release of WinXP, which was to include smart tags as part of IE6.

login or register to post comments

Info from SitePoint

Submitted by setac on July 3, 2001 - 14:35.

I found another discussion thread at SitePoint.com. One of the particiapants there had posted this information.

=============
From http://scobleizer.manilasites.com/

We have learned that future versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6.0 will have new SmartTag features that answer most, if not all, of the concerns of Web site owners that have been expressed about SmartTags over the past few days. We learned these things from a leak from a "well-placed" Microsoft developer. These three changes are going to be made in future versions of IE 6.0

SmartTags will be off by default. (Users will be able to toggle them on or off using a toolbar button),

Web masters will be able to turn off SmartTags. They will do that by using a metatag and users will no longer be able to override the "turn off SmartTag" metatag,

No recognizers will ship by default. This answers our biggest concern that Microsoft would use SmartTags as "free advertising" and take folks off of sites without asking the site manager (and without the site manager having any control over the issue).

I can verify that this is corect, I'm running IE 6 build 2488 which has the Smart Tags toolbar and it is off by default. So while they may be around in the refreshed preview I don't think there is much to worry about in the shipping version.

__________________
Chris Robinson
NFLI Canada.com
Moderator Online MLM

===========================
Still I am waiting until I have the MSIE in hand and can see how it works.

I look at this from a designer's and owner's viewpoint. Anyone adding anthing to my site or my clients' sites that takes people away from my site is unacceptable.

Alan

login or register to post comments

Smart tags in spyware

Submitted by nothing on August 1, 2001 - 00:39.

My first post ever wasn't formatted right, let me try this again. Sorry.

On a recent visit to Slashdot.org, I came upon an interesting article about a popular file swapping service called KaZaA which installs Spyware called TopText under the default installation. With the spyware installed, while surfing, you'll "suddenly start seeing yellow links to obvious ads on some of your favorite Web sites." The links pop up under results in search engines and even on websites who are competitors of the advertisers. Very interesting and disturbing.
More can be found from these two URLs

http://slashdot.org/features/01/07/31/2015216.shtml
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/30/BU231339.DTL

login or register to post comments

Smart tags no more?

Submitted by paulnattress on August 14, 2001 - 09:19.

A story on The Register suggests that IE6 is not to have Smart Tags included in its impending release.

The Register story

login or register to post comments

WHat is all the fuss about?

Submitted by scottadamson on October 3, 2001 - 05:22.

Microsoft give you the browser for free, no? So why should they not be entitiled to do with the browser what ever they want? Others will follow suite, smart tags will become the norm in all browsers, then what are you sad gits with nothing better to do than criticise new techonology going to be able to use to view the web ? LYNX????

login or register to post comments

Sorry im not finished yet.....................

Submitted by scottadamson on October 3, 2001 - 05:29.

And by the way the microsoft bias in the beta release of smart tags, was probably because "Microsoft" were developing it and "Microsoft" were arangin the testing, so maybe there was no other data to use than that of "Microsoft" and its partners?????? Ohter companies are developing simple little extentions that can plug into ie4 and above, probably netscape as well which do the same job as MS Smarttags, But these companies are small companies in comparison who have their hands on this technology, wouldnt it be best that the technology was in the hands of a known company than an unknown company?

login or register to post comments

Last time I checked, we were still in the USA!

Submitted by jgettings on June 27, 2002 - 14:37.

Ok, people. Let's think why shouldn't they be able to advertise products with their product. Look at it this way: I was watching the latest 'reality TV show' American Idol. Great show. But they are obviously pusing Coca Coa. Red and white couches.....coke cups everywhere....the constant mention of coke throughout the show. My god , it was like coke had given them money to make them do it.....oh.....wait....that sounds awfully close to ADVERTISING!!!!!! I believe that here in the good ole US of A, it is still legal to do that....What about that sign on the highway talking about your next Ford Truck.......oh, yeah......that is advertising too!! If you don't want to have the ads, don't use the browser. There are other browsers available for a **FREE DOWNLOAD** . Leave Microsoft alone, let them get rich, and think about where we'd be without there technologies.....I am a pretty big fan of Windows over DOS....It helps me everyday to not have to shut one program to use another....Oh, yeah Apple lets you do that too, but then I guesss if it wasn't for Microsoft, we'd be bashing APPLE here instead. GET OVER IT.......

login or register to post comments

In the USA?

Submitted by MartinB on June 27, 2002 - 16:28.

Who's this 'we' that's in the USA?

And who's this Microsoft who have been found guilty of abusing a monopoly position? Sounds like Smart Tags is the same thing again.

login or register to post comments

Me and Microsoft...probably quite a few others

Submitted by jgettings on June 28, 2002 - 08:34.

Microsoft is an American Company. I am so sick of this monopoly business. If you are unhappy with microsoft products.....DON'T USE THEM!! Give me a break!

login or register to post comments

An American Company

Submitted by MartinB on June 28, 2002 - 08:49.

So being an American Company makes it OK to break American Anti-Trust laws?

The point of being a monopolist that abuses that position is that you don't get a lot of choice.

Moreover, the criticism being voiced above is not whether IE adds Smart Tags to someone else's site when I'm viewing it, but the other way round. If it were simply a case of 'not using MS products' then by not using IIS I should be able to make Smart Tags go away for users of my site. That's not the case.

login or register to post comments

Give me a break

Submitted by luminosity on June 28, 2002 - 09:24.

First of all, you show your ignorance by saying that we're all in the usa, when just below the commenting field it says: Evolt.org is a world community…. Secondly, yes the browser is a free download. Used by the vast majority of web users. Many of whom wouldn't even know what a smart tag was. Thirdly, why the hell are you commenting on something so outdated? Oh, and capital letters and multiple exclamation marks really make you point come across better, you know…

login or register to post comments

luminosity, turn on your light!

Submitted by jgettings on June 28, 2002 - 09:50.

First of all, where did I say we are ALL in the USA? I may have commented on something outdated, but hey, there you are a day after I commented. What are you doing here?Again, if those users don't know what they are they probably won't turn them on so what is the big deal??

login or register to post comments

Re: luminosity, turn on your light!

Submitted by luminosity on June 28, 2002 - 10:25.

First of all, where did I say we are ALL in the USA? Right here: Last time I checked, we were still in the USA!. I'm here a day after you commented because it showed up in the most recent comments section, and I was intrigued. your comments annoyed me, and I usually reply to annoying comments. Yes, I know the users have to turn them on, however in the context of what you were replying to, the people were discussing if they were on by default.

By the way, luminosity doesn't need a light because it is something which is luminous is a light source…

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.