Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   NZ Computing (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f47-nz-computing.html)
-   -   ticketdirect web site SUCKS (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t577750-ticketdirect-web-site-sucks.html)

whoisthis 02-04-2006 02:01 AM

ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
Tried 3 different web browsers including firefox on the Mac and the
ticket direct site just kept loading their ****ing flash crap.

Hey he'e a hint people, make your web page usable and kill of all the
wanky high data bullshit, it does NOT make you web page more useable, it
does NOT attract people to come to your web page.

If you can not make your web site
a) USEABLE
b) USEABLE
c) USEABLE
d) look good
e) USEABLE

then find another job like painting a toilet seat black, calling it art
and getting the arts council to pay you for you private wankfest.

Stu Fleming 02-04-2006 02:36 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
whoisthis wrote:
> Tried 3 different web browsers including firefox on the Mac and the
> ticket direct site just kept loading their ****ing flash crap.
>
> Hey he'e a hint people, make your web page usable and kill of all the
> wanky high data bullshit, it does NOT make you web page more useable, it
> does NOT attract people to come to your web page.
>
> If you can not make your web site
> a) USEABLE
> b) USEABLE
> c) USEABLE
> d) look good
> e) USEABLE
>
> then find another job like painting a toilet seat black, calling it art
> and getting the arts council to pay you for you private wankfest.


Same in 1996 as it is in 2006. This is progress.

Fred Dagg 02-04-2006 02:41 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:36:24 +1300, Stu Fleming <stewart@wic.co.nz>
exclaimed:

>whoisthis wrote:
>> Tried 3 different web browsers including firefox on the Mac and the
>> ticket direct site just kept loading their ****ing flash crap.
>>
>> Hey he'e a hint people, make your web page usable and kill of all the
>> wanky high data bullshit, it does NOT make you web page more useable, it
>> does NOT attract people to come to your web page.
>>
>> If you can not make your web site
>> a) USEABLE
>> b) USEABLE
>> c) USEABLE
>> d) look good
>> e) USEABLE
>>
>> then find another job like painting a toilet seat black, calling it art
>> and getting the arts council to pay you for you private wankfest.

>
>Same in 1996 as it is in 2006. This is progress.


It IS a **** of a lot more usable than Ticketeks.

At least you can choose your own seats. I tried to book some tickets
to the rugby via Ticketek, and gave up in disgust. I booked some last
year through TicketDirect, and it was a much more pleasant experience.

Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
too, my friend.

Peter 02-04-2006 03:51 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
Fred Dagg wrote:

>
> Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
> use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
> too, my friend.


A lot of sys admins will not allow it on their employers' systems for
security reasons. Similarly cautious computer users are just not going to
download something willy-nilly. There a a lot of people out there still
with ye olde dial-up - they do not their surfing experience to be clogged
up with smart and cute features that take lots of bandwidth.

I have come across sites that have abandoned or at least rolled back the use
of flash to make their sites more accessible eg Anglican Diocese of
Wellington and Siemens.

Scenario:

Manager - I am getting complaints that people cannot access our site
because it uses 'flash'.

Web writer - 'Flash' is a de-facto standard - they should download it.

M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.

W - I can't help this - they should get with it.

M - Do you actually need to use 'flash'?

W - It gives the user a deeper surfing experience.

M - And some of those complaining have dial-up - they want internet that
works, not a surfing experience that is inaccessible.

W - Telecom should be lobbied to provide more wideband.

M - Do you really need to use 'flash' for our site to fulfil its purpose?

W - ur, well ... , not really.

M - then re-write it not using 'flash'.


Fred Dagg 02-04-2006 04:18 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:51:13 +1300, Peter <peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz>
exclaimed:

>Fred Dagg wrote:
>
>>
>> Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
>> use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
>> too, my friend.

>
>A lot of sys admins will not allow it on their employers' systems for
>security reasons. Similarly cautious computer users are just not going to
>download something willy-nilly. There a a lot of people out there still
>with ye olde dial-up - they do not their surfing experience to be clogged
>up with smart and cute features that take lots of bandwidth.
>
>I have come across sites that have abandoned or at least rolled back the use
>of flash to make their sites more accessible eg Anglican Diocese of
>Wellington and Siemens.
>
>Scenario:
>
>Manager - I am getting complaints that people cannot access our site
>because it uses 'flash'.
>
>Web writer - 'Flash' is a de-facto standard - they should download it.
>
>M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
>some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.
>
>W - I can't help this - they should get with it.
>
>M - Do you actually need to use 'flash'?
>
>W - It gives the user a deeper surfing experience.
>
>M - And some of those complaining have dial-up - they want internet that
>works, not a surfing experience that is inaccessible.
>
>W - Telecom should be lobbied to provide more wideband.
>
>M - Do you really need to use 'flash' for our site to fulfil its purpose?
>
>W - ur, well ... , not really.
>
>M - then re-write it not using 'flash'.


or:

Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
website.

Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
people a lot more likely to buy our product.

M - Sounds good. But why do most of the people complain about it?

W - Usually they are akin to Linux geeks. They are stuck in the
command-line equivalent of boring old static HTML, rather than the
interactivity our site now offers. They basically believe in a lowest
common denominator approach, and, even though most are perfectly able
to download and install it for free (and automatically!), they
generally don't like progress. Some still think that the web should
still be plain text, rather than HTML.

M - Sounds interesting, and I know the type!! But some corporates
apparently don't allow Flash for security reasons. Is this true?

W - That is their choice. Flash is only as secure as the systems they
are on, and there are only a few scattered people that don't have it.
The myth that admins don't allow it is really from the old days too,
and almost all don't restrict it now. Some are still stuck in the dark
ages, though.

M - Fair enough. The increased appeal of our site for 98% of people is
probably worth it, versus the 2% who don't use it.

W - Oh, also, a small number of people are still on dialup, and hence
will have a slight delay before the page is loaded.

M - That's fine. Even in NZ, 89% of people who use the internet each
day have faster-than-dialup connections, and that includes the vast
majority of our visitors. Good work on taking the initiative, rather
than taking a lowest common denomonator approach. It's great that the
vast majority of our visitors, and our target market, are enjoying a
far superior experience. The last guy who had your job was stuck in
the 90s, and thought that boring, static pages were the only option.
Well done, and here, have a pay rise!

Steve 02-04-2006 04:47 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:18:58 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:


>
> or:
>
> Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
> website.
>
> Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
> people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
> people a lot more likely to buy our product.
>
> M - Sounds good. But why do most of the people complain about it?
>
> W - Usually they are akin to Linux geeks. They are stuck in the
> command-line equivalent of boring old static HTML, rather than the
> interactivity our site now offers. They basically believe in a lowest
> common denominator approach, and, even though most are perfectly able
> to download and install it for free (and automatically!), they
> generally don't like progress. Some still think that the web should
> still be plain text, rather than HTML.

WTF does HTML have to do with being static? Maybe I don't want my computer
to require the use of a program written by a profit making company, rather
than using published standards? ( OK, plus those standards as b*stard*sed
by Mickeysoft ).
>
> M - Sounds interesting, and I know the type!! But some corporates
> apparently don't allow Flash for security reasons. Is this true?
>
> W - That is their choice. Flash is only as secure as the systems they
> are on, and there are only a few scattered people that don't have it.
> The myth that admins don't allow it is really from the old days too, and
> almost all don't restrict it now. Some are still stuck in the dark ages,
> though.

Ah, another 18 year old security consultant who knows it all!
>
> M - Fair enough. The increased appeal of our site for 98% of people is
> probably worth it, versus the 2% who don't use it.
>
> W - Oh, also, a small number of people are still on dialup, and hence
> will have a slight delay before the page is loaded.

SLIGHT! Let's just waste bandwidth for nothing?
>
> M - That's fine. Even in NZ, 89% of people who use the internet each day
> have faster-than-dialup connections, and that includes the vast majority
> of our visitors. Good work on taking the initiative, rather than taking
> a lowest common denomonator approach. It's great that the vast majority
> of our visitors, and our target market, are enjoying a far superior
> experience. The last guy who had your job was stuck in the 90s, and
> thought that boring, static pages were the only option. Well done, and
> here, have a pay rise!


And get sacked when everything goes t*ts-up. You've skipped over trivial
advances from static HTML that have happened since the 90's, like DHTML,
CSS, XML, SOAP, AJAX,... all of which provide the ability for most
companies to do everything you want.

Flash is proprietary, and puts you completely in the hands of Macromedia.
Web browsers are designed to display html and variants. Open up flash,
publish it as a standard, start getting browsers to support it natively,
and then lets have this conversation again.



Waylon Kenning 02-04-2006 06:03 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
T'was the Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:51:13 +1300 when I remembered Peter
<peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz> saying something like this:

>M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
>some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.


Here's a question? Why not allow flash?

Having said that, we access our computer systems at work through
terminal services. Nothing kills the connection like animation, like
flash.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/

Waylon Kenning 02-04-2006 06:06 AM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
T'was the Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:47:16 +1300 when I remembered Steve
<ThisOne@Aint.Valid> saying something like this:

>And get sacked when everything goes t*ts-up. You've skipped over trivial
>advances from static HTML that have happened since the 90's, like DHTML,
>CSS, XML, SOAP, AJAX,... all of which provide the ability for most
>companies to do everything you want.
>
>Flash is proprietary, and puts you completely in the hands of Macromedia.
>Web browsers are designed to display html and variants. Open up flash,
>publish it as a standard, start getting browsers to support it natively,
>and then lets have this conversation again.


Ugh, is it just me or is someone forgetting about SVG? How successful
was that?
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/

whoisthis 02-04-2006 08:48 PM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
In article <21a8u1dsbih1ajejbmstkippoaihlcgbcn@4ax.com>,
Fred Dagg <freddagg@dagg.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:51:13 +1300, Peter <peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz>
> exclaimed:
>
> >Fred Dagg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Flash is a defacto standard these days, and is basically required to
> >> use a large part of the web. And it does make sights more attractive,
> >> too, my friend.

> >
> >A lot of sys admins will not allow it on their employers' systems for
> >security reasons. Similarly cautious computer users are just not going to
> >download something willy-nilly. There a a lot of people out there still
> >with ye olde dial-up - they do not their surfing experience to be clogged
> >up with smart and cute features that take lots of bandwidth.
> >
> >I have come across sites that have abandoned or at least rolled back the use
> >of flash to make their sites more accessible eg Anglican Diocese of
> >Wellington and Siemens.
> >
> >Scenario:
> >
> >Manager - I am getting complaints that people cannot access our site
> >because it uses 'flash'.
> >
> >Web writer - 'Flash' is a de-facto standard - they should download it.
> >
> >M - I gather that some users are too scared to download 'flash' and that
> >some IT managers will not allow it on corporate machines.
> >
> >W - I can't help this - they should get with it.
> >
> >M - Do you actually need to use 'flash'?
> >
> >W - It gives the user a deeper surfing experience.
> >
> >M - And some of those complaining have dial-up - they want internet that
> >works, not a surfing experience that is inaccessible.
> >
> >W - Telecom should be lobbied to provide more wideband.
> >
> >M - Do you really need to use 'flash' for our site to fulfil its purpose?
> >
> >W - ur, well ... , not really.
> >
> >M - then re-write it not using 'flash'.

>
> or:
>
> Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
> website.
>
> Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
> people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
> people a lot more likely to buy our product.


Unfortunately the people who went to that site were PREVENTED from
buying anything because of the gross overload of noddy features.

This means they could NOT buy the product, so the web site was a 100%
failure for that customer.

Fred Dagg 02-04-2006 10:06 PM

Re: ticketdirect web site SUCKS
 
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:48:22 +1300, whoisthis <who@am.i.spammer>
exclaimed:
>>
>> Manager - Some moron sent me a rant about using "Flash" on our
>> website.
>>
>> Web writer - Yeah, you'll get that. Only a very small fraction of
>> people don't have flash, and it makes our site a heap better, and
>> people a lot more likely to buy our product.

>
>Unfortunately the people who went to that site were PREVENTED from
>buying anything because of the gross overload of noddy features.
>
>This means they could NOT buy the product, so the web site was a 100%
>failure for that customer.


Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
cater for them, too?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.