«

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Is this site worth using as a development model by a noob?

Is file:////dev/null worth using? Yes, definitely.

(Hint: we need to know the address.)

In message <>,
"(PeteCresswell)" <> writes
>This is a commercial site - one that I have no connection whatsoever with.
>
>After reading this group for awhile, it's pretty clear that what's on the
>surface doesn't always match what's underneath in terms of quality.
>
>The reason I'm soliciting opinions is that, to me-the-dumb-user, it seems like
>such an excellant site in that it gives me what I expect when I expect it - and
>in a manner that I can grasp immediately.
>
>Is this site worth using as a development model by a noob?
>
Possibly.

--
Jake

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

> This is a commercial site - one that I have no connection whatsoever with.

Figures <g>

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

This is a commercial site - one that I have no connection whatsoever with.

After reading this group for awhile, it's pretty clear that what's on the
surface doesn't always match what's underneath in terms of quality.

The reason I'm soliciting opinions is that, to me-the-dumb-user, it seems like
such an excellant site in that it gives me what I expect when I expect it - and
in a manner that I can grasp immediately.

Is this site worth using as a development model by a noob?

--
PeteCresswell

On Sun, 22 May 2005 09:08:11 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)" <>
wrote:

>Is this site worth using as a development model by a noob?

In a world where we didn't listen to the crap spouted by Nielsen, this
would be seen as an excellent site. It's Amazon-like -- the page is
dense, and everything that possibly could take you somewhere when
clicked on, takes you there.

If you like this, read Paco Underhill's "Why We Buy"
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684849143/codesmiths-20>

As a site, this one has clear goals, sensible goals, and it implements
them in a thorough and rational manner (I didn't go as far as the basket
/ checkout)..


As to the implemementation, then that's a bit sucky. It could be better,
and it could be better in a way that enhanced the basic aims, rather
than fighting with them. They could make better use of width, for one
thing.

There are also a few database issues that could be better, if anyone
cared (a _leading_ retailer is one where there are people who both care
about these details, and can have them sorted). Browsing for "Airport
safe steel free" boots shouldn't necessarily bring up plastic beachwear
as its first offering. It's _correct_, but it's not _helpful_.

Some of the product information is well hidden. There's a category for
"Made in the USA", but it's hard to find this for a product you're
already looking at.


Overall though, this site is going to get slated in this newsgroup by
some pinhead whining about a doctype (customers don't know what doctypes
are). However as a selling site, it's one of the better ones and
certainly worth studying.


--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

Per Leif K-Brooks:
>Is file:////dev/null worth using? Yes, definitely.
>
>(Hint: we need to know the address.)

Oops! RCI strikes again.

The URL is www.zappos.com
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> The URL is www.zappos.com

On the positive side:
- Works fairly well at higher-than-default font sizes.

On the negative side:
- Too crowded (my eyes dart everywhere; I can't focus on any one part of
the page).
- Fixed-width (I have a large browser window out of choice; respect
that).
- Cursor put in search box automatically on page load, which can
stop me from using search-as-you-type.
- Nearly unusable in a text browser.
- The server-side image map in the header, in addition to making the
page inaccessible in non-visual browsers, hides the URLs of links
until they're clicked.
- And once again: too crowded!

> From: Andy Dingley <>

> PeteCresswell wrote:
>
>> Is this site worth using as a development model by a noob?
>
> the page is
> dense, and everything that possibly could take you somewhere when
> clicked on, takes you there.
>
> As a site, this one has clear goals, sensible goals, and it implements
> them in a thorough and rational manner

I agree, and nicely put.
>
>
> As to the implemementation, then that's a bit sucky. It could be better,
> and it could be better in a way that enhanced the basic aims, rather
> than fighting with them. They could make better use of width, for one
> thing.

Well, they could have used *more* of the width given they have images and it
needs a fair bit. It sure loads quick on dial up here and all tables eh? I
would like to see it done in purer CSS and have the same stability, if it
could be I would say it would need a very high degree of skill - that most
designers, given the browser support and the available standards of CSS,
would not have.


>
>Browsing for "Airport
> safe steel free" boots shouldn't necessarily bring up plastic beachwear
> as its first offering. It's _correct_, but it's not _helpful_.

I did not get this? I got what it should get.


> ... as a selling site, it's one of the better ones and
> certainly worth studying.


I agree it is good, not sure you can *learn* anything much from it though.
What would you learn? You would get inspiration: "It can be done, lots of
info and presentation and pics on each page. Nice looking. Fast loading.
Good search facilities. Lots of navigation links..." Maybe you can learn
things from studying the site with intelligence and help from knowledgeable
and fair teachers. But just looking at it and the code? Not sure... But I
liked it. Maybe I like looking at shoes and handbags too much!

dorayme

Leif K-Brooks wrote:
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>>The URL is www.zappos.com
>
>
> On the positive side:
> - Works fairly well at higher-than-default font sizes.



Agree...

Fast loading page.


>
> On the negative side:
> - Too crowded (my eyes dart everywhere; I can't focus on any one part of
> the page).


Yes and no. I do amire the way that page is designed. Very logical well
organized.


> - Fixed-width (I have a large browser window out of choice; respect
> that).

The most people with monitors 19" and higher are using IE as a smaller
window (not at full screen) and often Favorites are on left hand side.

Fixed width is still the most preferable IMHO.

> - Cursor put in search box automatically on page load, which can
> stop me from using search-as-you-type.



What a fault! OMG.

> - Nearly unusable in a text browser.


Correct and perfecty OK. The page based on pictures anyway.




> - The server-side image map in the header, in addition to making the
> page inaccessible in non-visual browsers, hides the URLs of links
> until they're clicked.


The page based on pictures anyway.

> - And once again: too crowded!

It could be more white space but you would have scroll heavier.

I do prefer as is.


IMHO perfect web site for that purpose.


I would suugest to find a different site which is selling shoes and post
the link here for evaluation.

> From: Leif K-Brooks <>

> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> The URL is www.zappos.com
>
> On the positive side:
> - Works fairly well at higher-than-default font sizes.
>
> On the negative side:
> - Too crowded >
> (later) - And once again: too crowded!

I am not meaning to be too critical of your remark here. I understand it.
But part of me wants to say: "Ah but it is the crowded, full range of the
display that is appealing!" Like going into a nice fruit shop. They fill it
up to make it look nice, plentiful, rows and rows of this and that.
Appealing. Same with cake shops and displays. I complain to them as a joke
sometimes that it is unfair, I can't focus, everything looks good! The point
is really that something valuable and interesting would be lost without the
crowded look.

You saying it is too crowded reminds me of the criticism levelled at Mozart
for one of his operas in the film, Amadeus: "Too many notes!" suggested an
adviser to the Duke who was uncomfortable about something or other but could
not quite say what...


> - Fixed-width (I have a large browser window out of choice; respect
> that).

Well, fair enough on the one hand... but on the other, maybe it does help to
"focus" a bit...

dorayme