New Freesat service
 

tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. I
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own
expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most people
would prefer no DOGs.

New Freesat service
 

In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. I
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own
expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most people
would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't for
the informative digital on screen graphics?

The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not
catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller images.
The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with reading if
they were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright yellow would be
a lot better that the transparent greyish colour some channels use.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

New Freesat service
 

Alan wrote:
In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with
DOGs. I don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your
own expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most
people would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not
catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller
images. The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with
reading if they were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright
yellow would be a lot better that the transparent greyish colour some
channels use.

If they flashed on and off continuously that would help too! :o)

(kim)

New Freesat service
 

kim wrote:
Alan wrote:
In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with
DOGs. I don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your
own expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most
people would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not
catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller
images. The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with
reading if they were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright
yellow would be a lot better that the transparent greyish colour some
channels use.

If they flashed on and off continuously that would help too! :o)

(kim)

Maybe a voiceover every 10 seconds for people that still can't see them.

New Freesat service
 

Adrian wrote:


Maybe a voiceover every 10 seconds for people that still can't see them.


I jest

Great idea. Why hasn't that been implemented on Audio Description? If
the sighted have to put up with DOGs to inform them that the TV set is
on channel, then surely for balance AD should do the same?

/I jest


--
Adrian C

New Freesat service
 

In article , Tim (not at home) wrote:
I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. *I*
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own expectations*
in this.

I think there's an important priciple to be considered here, much more
important than individual preferences even if there are individuals who don't
mind the screen clutter. Bookshops don't vandalise the books they sell,
whatever record shops are called nowadays they don't vandalise their CDs and
DVDs, and broadcasters should not vandalise the programmes they broadcast. If
you bought almost any other product and found it damaged or blemished you'd
take it back and complain, because the argument that some people in some
circumstances don't mind damaged goods just wouldn't be acceptable. The fact
that in the case of broadcasts the damage is applied deliberately by the very
people selling the product is an absolute outrage.

Rod.

New Freesat service
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Tim (not at home) wrote:
I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. I
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own
expectations
in this.

I think there's an important priciple to be considered here, much more
important than individual preferences even if there are individuals who
don't
mind the screen clutter. Bookshops don't vandalise the books they sell,
whatever record shops are called nowadays they don't vandalise their CDs
and
DVDs, and broadcasters should not vandalise the programmes they broadcast.
If
you bought almost any other product and found it damaged or blemished
you'd
take it back and complain, because the argument that some people in some
circumstances don't mind damaged goods just wouldn't be acceptable. The
fact
that in the case of broadcasts the damage is applied deliberately by the
very
people selling the product is an absolute outrage.

There was a big car dealer in Doncaster who started putting 'chrome' badges
with their name on it next to the car maker's badge. A friend of mine went
to collect his new car and when he saw the badge refused to accept the car.
The thing turned into a barney and they actually said he couldn't have his
deposit back. A short letter from his solicitor solved that one. They
stopped putting the badges on pretty soon. I guess they were having a few
problems.

I won't wear any item of clothing that has any sort of brand name or other
textual embellishement visible. It's a matter of principle. It's caused
trouble when people have bought me presents, and I was once called an
awkward sod. I had the presence of mind to reply, 'That's the nicest thing
anyone's ever called me!"

Bill

New Freesat service
 

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. I
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own
expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most people
would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't for
the informative digital on screen graphics?

YOUR STB TELLS YOU EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE CHANNEL OF PRES THE INFO OR THE EPG
BUTTON!!!!!!


The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not

WRONG! The main problem with DOGs is the fact that they are on your screen.
Even if they were only 1x1 pixel they would still be annoying. Why do you
think people don't like monitors with dead pixels and send them back for a
replacement?

catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller images.
The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with reading if they
were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright yellow would be a lot
better that the transparent greyish colour some channels use.


You are having a laugh.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

New Freesat service
 

In message , Agamemnon
writes

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Adrian
wrote
tim (not at home) wrote:

I know that it's not a popular view but I have no problem with DOGs. I
don't think that I am alone, don't judge everybody by your own
expectations in this.

tim

You may not be alone but you're certainly in the minority and most people
would prefer no DOGs.


How do you instantly tell what channel you are watching if it wasn't
for the informative digital on screen graphics?

YOUR STB TELLS YOU EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE CHANNEL OF PRES THE INFO OR
THE EPG BUTTON!!!!!!


The main problem with DOGs is the size. The broadcasters are not

WRONG! The main problem with DOGs is the fact that they are on your
screen. Even if they were only 1x1 pixel they would still be annoying.
Why do you think people don't like monitors with dead pixels and send
them back for a replacement?

catering for an ageing population that cannot easily see smaller
images. The DOGs need to be a lot bigger. It would also help with
reading if they were broadcast with a better contrast ratio. Bright
yellow would be a lot better that the transparent greyish colour some
channels use.


You are having a laugh.

-- Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

It's no laughing matter. Not only do DOGs need to be bigger, highly
contrast and coloured yellow, they should also be animated, preferably
bouncing around the screen like the 'ball' in the early electronic
tennis games.
--
Ian

New Freesat service
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
I won't wear any item of clothing that has any sort of brand name or other*
textual embellishement visible. It's a matter of principle. It's caused*
trouble when people have bought me presents, and I was once called an*
awkward sod. I had the presence of mind to reply, 'That's the nicest thing*
anyone's ever called me!"

Hmm. Perhaps that's carrying it a bit far. After all, a logo on a garment,
provided it is reasonably discreet and fits with the design of the garment,
and is the logo belonging to the company that actually made it, could be said
to be no more unreasonable than a manufacturer's badge on a piece of
electronics - i.e a simple piece of identification that doesn't interfere
with its primary function.

It's quite different from the situation where a blemish is applied to the
picture or soundtrack of a broadcast, because those *are* it's primary
function.

Any argument about the need to identify the channel is of course utter
nonsense on two main grounds:-

1. Channels are easily identified by other means, if anybody cares.
2. Nobody cares.

Not that I would dare call you an awkward sod, of course.

Rod.