Jim Pursley <jim.goodgaia@...>
Ditto. It seems to be the same reader available on Firefox, as /F9 initiates the reader there.
One little foible. The reader, at least the Immersive reader on Edge, don't always read an entire article. When the reader encounters an ad in mid article, the text stops there. the NYT has inl8ine ads in their articles. A minor thing, I think.Original Message-----
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> On Behalf Of John Covici
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2021 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: reading without ads
Using edge, if you hit f9, you get the imersive reader which so far has worked great for me.
On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:06:52 -0500,
JM Casey wrote:
[1 <text/plain; utf-8 (quoted-printable)>] OH, I don’t disagree with
anything you’ve said – except I guess I do feel some – not guilt maybe, but reservations. It’s not enough to stop me from using an ad blocker, but simultaneously I do feel a bit selfish for doing so sometimes. This is especially rue on youtube, where I just don’t get ads played, period. I know people who make revenue from their channels this way. I know a couple of guys who work in the newspaper industry and they say they are really caught between a rock and a hard place with this stuff – page hits just aren’t enough for these people. I don’t really know what tehh solution is, but for sure I am not going to struggle to the point of pain just to read what should be a simple webpage, and ads that play concurrently with your attempting to read an article etc do mess up screen-readers pretty badly sometimes – anything from slowing them down drastically to causing the reading position to jump around in unpredictable ways.
But, the war goes on! Yes, finding ways for ads to be far less intrusive would seem to solve a lot of everyone’s problems.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
Sent: February 21, 2021 03:54 PM
Subject: Re: reading without ads
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 02:09 PM, JM Casey wrote:
the object of content providers is going to be finding cleverer and
better ways of making sure we do see the ads, moving forward.
And the ad-blockers keep adding new tricks to block as well.
I have never, for a single second, felt the slightest bit of guilt about ad blocking. Content providers should be paid, much like newspapers were, for having placed the ad combined with a visit count for the page. In print media, one was never guaranteed that what was circulated meant that there would be literal eyes-on for the advertising in that media. Payment was for placement and the amount determined by circulation. Now, in cyberspace, circulation can be calculated as page hits. But the fact that someone visits a page should be enough.
I have every right not to download anything to my computer that I do not wish to download. And given the intrusive nature of online advertising, that's why I block it. Since I can see, the incessant blinking, scrolling, animation, etc., etc., that goes with online advertising is the worst kind of visual clutter that distracts from my primary purpose for being anywhere. If much or most of it did not behave in that manner, I'd probably never have started using an ad blocker to begin with. Stuff that just sits quietly in it's own little box that the content flows around can be easily ignored, but that style was getting increasingly infrequent.
Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 20H2, Build 19042
One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.
~ André Gide
[2 <text/html; utf-8 (quoted-printable)>]
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
you spend it?
John Covici wb2una