Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Good Sites - who's got some examples?

Reply
Thread Tools

Good Sites - who's got some examples?

 
 
William Tasso
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
> Michaelangelo wrote:
>
>> Naturally I went to -
>>
>> www.zanussi.co.uk
>>
>> - only to be met with the most patronising message I've ever come
>> across informimg me that for the privilege of viewing their website
>> I would have to change my browser to either IE or Netcape. Opera
>> 7.11 wasn't good enough for them.

>
> PS: I just visited the site with Opera and got the same message.
> Perhaps if every Opera user reading this would pay this site a visit,
> stay there a second, and then leave again... heh, heh... will sure
> look annoying when they take a look at their statistics and see that
> a surprisingly large number of Opera users went to their site only to
> be turned away.


dime to a dollar they wont notice. if they're that clueless they probably
don't even look at the logs.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nicolai P. Zwar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
Michaelangelo wrote:

>
> Yes, I realised I was giving another negative example but the point is I
> don't go to websites to LOOK et them. I go for information or maybe to
> acquire something - a purchase or a download of some kind. In the same
> way I go to art galleries to look at the pictures, not to admire the
> picture-frames.



I realize you don't GO to pages to LOOK at them. That's besides the
point. You don't buy a car to LOOK at it either, yet obviously some cars
you may find better LOOKING than others, and the way a car looks
definitely influences its sales. The way a web page LOOKS definitely
influences its popularity, too. A web page is not a picture frame, a web
page is more comparable to the layout of a magazine or a catalog. Of
course you read magazines or catalogs for the information and not
_because_ of the layout, but there are obviously some layouts and
designs that entice more people to read a magazine or to browse through
a catalog. The web is by now far more than just cut and dry readable
text information. So, all I would like to know is what you consider a
good LOOKING site, a site you think is cleverly and well designed.
That's a valid question just as it would be a valid question to ask for
a car that you consider good LOOKING. I wouldn't expect you to buy the
car just because of its design either.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
EightNineThree
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003

"Whitecrest" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> In article <blmnnb$5lk$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> > Data from the largest research companies on earth (Forrester, Gartner,
> > Raddon) indicate clearly that the majority of web users (around 70%) use

the
> > Web for "Information", not entertainment.
> > As such, a "good" website would be designed to be informed above all

else.
> > Multimedia would be used as a supplement for the information on the

site,
> > not *as* the information.

>
> Except on that other 30% right? So if that is your market, then it is
> ok to use stuff like flash, and multi-media. Also, did they give a
> breakdown of what that 70% considered to be entertainment? for example,
> is looking at the Matrix movies web site considered entertainment or
> information? It could be looked at either way. And in any event, that
> 30% is a mighty fine niche to have a piece of.
>


I happen to think that 100% is a nice niche, but maybe I'm just greedy...


--
Karl Core

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche

eightninethree AT eightninethree.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
Isofarro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:

> I realize you don't GO to pages to LOOK at them.


I don't think you do. The design is irrelevant. What matters is the
readability and accessibility of the content.

> So, all I would like to know is what you consider a
> good LOOKING site, a site you think is cleverly and well designed.


Irrelevant really. About the same as asking a nutritionalist which cereal
box artwork they like - and pretending it is such a big deal.




--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Design Tutorial: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Morris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
"Nicolai P. Zwar" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> coders). I am basically just curious about what some of the regulars
> here would consider WOWIE! examples for _design_. You know, matters of


The only one I've seen recently that impressed me and made me think
'how did they do that' has been http://www.tantek.com/map.html

It may not look incredibly fancy, but getting that effect without
images, tables, flash, or anything other than CSS and HTML, is
impressive.

--
Chris
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> > I realize you don't GO to pages to LOOK at them.

> I don't think you do. The design is irrelevant. What matters is the
> readability and accessibility of the content.


No, what matters is that you present the information in a manner that
makes you the most money. If that includes Flash, or multi media, then
you do that. If my site makes more money using flash, than not using
it. Why would I not want to use flash?

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
In article <blouvf$dsu$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> I happen to think that 100% is a nice niche, but maybe I'm just greedy...


And in a dream world, you can have that. But in reality not every
product in the world is marketed at every single consumer in the world.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> The only one I've seen recently that impressed me and made me think
> 'how did they do that' has been http://www.tantek.com/map.html
> It may not look incredibly fancy, but getting that effect without
> images, tables, flash, or anything other than CSS and HTML, is
> impressive.


So we should all strive for that "May not look incredibly fancy" effect?

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicolai P. Zwar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
Isofarro wrote:

> Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>
>
>>I realize you don't GO to pages to LOOK at them.

>
>
> I don't think you do.


Then you are both presumptuous and wrong.

> The design is irrelevant.


That's what you think. But you are both presumptuous and wrong again.

> What matters is the
> readability and accessibility of the content.


[ ] You have understood the original request.
[x] You have not understood the original request.

>>So, all I would like to know is what you consider a
>>good LOOKING site, a site you think is cleverly and well designed.

>
>
> Irrelevant really.


To whom? Obviously not to you, as you seem it relevant enough to answer
to this thread just to point out once more the tired old mantra that
what matters is the content, something that anybody who has spend any
time in this group has read three times a day, something that is pretty
much self evident, and something that nobody here has disputed.

> About the same as asking a nutritionalist which cereal
> box artwork they like - and pretending it is such a big deal.


First, who has pretended that anything is a big deal? Secondly, they
don't spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on the box artwork of
cereals if it were irrelevant.
No one forces you to participate if you are unable to answer such a
simple question as to what pages you like for their design. Do you have
such an example?

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2003
"Nicolai P. Zwar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bloomh$s6f$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I realize you don't GO to pages to LOOK at them. That's besides the
> point. You don't buy a car to LOOK at it either, yet obviously some cars
> you may find better LOOKING than others, and the way a car looks
> definitely influences its sales.


I most certainly buy a car to look at it as well as to drive it.

The same goes for web pages. I prefer a site that shows
off the work of the designer as well as presenting useful
information. Information presented on a site that looks
good is more appealing to me than one that is more
simple in appearance.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some sites ok, some not on wireless ....... Nondisclosure007 Wireless Networking 1 06-22-2009 08:29 AM
some good JS sites? Dennis M Javascript 5 06-24-2008 05:24 PM
If you Got Questions? I bet We got Answers Leisure.201@gmail.com Javascript 1 04-28-2007 11:04 PM
How do prevent sites to be loaded in other sites frames? Stefan Caliandro HTML 2 02-14-2005 06:05 PM
ISO: Web sites for images (pay sites preferred) Kevin Buchan ASP .Net 1 02-20-2004 09:34 AM



Advertisments