Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > ticketdirect web site SUCKS

Reply
Thread Tools

ticketdirect web site SUCKS

 
 
whoisthis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Fred Dagg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:48:22 +1300, whoisthis <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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?


No, but then again I was using firefox and safari, ones uses the mozilla
engine and the other KHTML, bot latest versions, neither however are
microsoft and too many coders only code for microsofts non-standard
proprietry extensions because it is easier and lazier.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:

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


Any public minded web writer should design the system so people with serious
disabilities can access sites. They may well be limited to text based
browsers with special person machine interfaces (eg synthetic speech).
Given this, there should be no difficulty with coping with legacy browsers.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:41:53 +1300, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
exclaimed:

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

>
>Any public minded web writer should design the system so people with serious
>disabilities can access sites. They may well be limited to text based
>browsers with special person machine interfaces (eg synthetic speech).
>Given this, there should be no difficulty with coping with legacy browsers.


No offence, but I take it you do not design websites in the real
world?

For a site to look OK at 640x480, it will look like crap at 1024x768.
Simple fact. Good designers design sites to look best at 1024x768, and
good at 800x600 or 1280x1024 (and not too bad at higher resolutions).

Heck, I don't think Windows even *supports* 640x480 anymore.

Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
inexperienced, or both.

And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
generally have Flash installed.

Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:51:45 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:41:53 +1300, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
>>Fred Dagg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Some people still browse in IE4, running 640x480. Do designers have to
>>> cater for them, too?

>>
>>Any public minded web writer should design the system so people with serious
>>disabilities can access sites. They may well be limited to text based
>>browsers with special person machine interfaces (eg synthetic speech).
>>Given this, there should be no difficulty with coping with legacy browsers.

>
> No offence, but I take it you do not design websites in the real
> world?
>
> For a site to look OK at 640x480, it will look like crap at 1024x768.
> Simple fact. Good designers design sites to look best at 1024x768, and
> good at 800x600 or 1280x1024 (and not too bad at higher resolutions).
>
> Heck, I don't think Windows even *supports* 640x480 anymore.
>
> Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
> possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
> everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
> inexperienced, or both.
>

Considering it's pretty simple to a) find out the screen resolution, and
b) to scale things as %ages, why are you just being bone idle in your
design?

If you are experienced, and take pride in your work, you will have
developed libraries of functions to implement just such things.

Or is this a problem specifically with flash that you're talking about? By
the way... how does flash cope for blind users?

Steve.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
>
> Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
> possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
> everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
> inexperienced, or both.
>
> And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
> that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
> to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
> hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
> generally have Flash installed.
>
> Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
>

Fact is flash is a) 'cool' b) easy and those are the main reasons people
use it. Fact is flash actually adds little to most sites and is
generally used for fancy animated home pages. Fact is flash adds very
little functionality to most web sites.

Cheers,

Cliff
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred Dagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:37:18 +1300, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)>
exclaimed:

>Fred Dagg wrote:
>>
>> Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
>> possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
>> everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
>> inexperienced, or both.
>>
>> And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
>> that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
>> to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
>> hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
>> generally have Flash installed.
>>
>> Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
> >

>Fact is flash is a) 'cool' b) easy and those are the main reasons people
>use it. Fact is flash actually adds little to most sites and is
>generally used for fancy animated home pages. Fact is flash adds very
>little functionality to most web sites.
>

You're quite right. Flash doesn't add much functionality to most web
sites. It's not it's job to add functionality. It's its job to add to
the visual attraction of the site.

And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
debate. I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
purely application driven. However, I get sick of those that complain
about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
*is* progress.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stu Fleming
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:
> And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
> debate. I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
> purely application driven. However, I get sick of those that complain
> about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
> *is* progress.


No, if Flash had become an *industry* standard, *THAT* would have been
progress.
 
Reply With Quote
 
whoisthis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Fred Dagg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:37:18 +1300, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)>
> exclaimed:
>
> >Fred Dagg wrote:
> >>
> >> Fact is, whilst it is important to cater to as many people as
> >> possible, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to provide the best experience to
> >> everybody. Anyone who says that it is is either lying or
> >> inexperienced, or both.
> >>
> >> And secondly, it usually pays to cater to your target market. Most
> >> that are in the business of selling products over the 'net will want
> >> to sell to the 98% who keep their computers relatively up-to-date, and
> >> hence would not generally be viewing the web at 640x480, and would
> >> generally have Flash installed.
> >>
> >> Fact is, you can't please everyone, and marketeers understand that.
> > >

> >Fact is flash is a) 'cool' b) easy and those are the main reasons people
> >use it. Fact is flash actually adds little to most sites and is
> >generally used for fancy animated home pages. Fact is flash adds very
> >little functionality to most web sites.
> >

> You're quite right. Flash doesn't add much functionality to most web
> sites. It's not it's job to add functionality. It's its job to add to
> the visual attraction of the site.
>
> And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
> debate. I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
> purely application driven. However, I get sick of those that complain
> about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
> *is* progress.


Unfortunately too many web programers have forgotten that it must be
functionality over form. They are too busy trying to show how clever
they are to consider the user.

There are many times where I have simply stopped loading a web site
because it was too full of crap, this resulted in me buying elsewhere.

Web sites MUST be useable, easy to navigate, easy to find what the user
is after, fulfill its purpose. Looking good actually comes into this by
default as something badly designed almost always looks crap.

However, looking flashy with all the bells and whistles does not
nescessitate good design or usability.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
Fred Dagg wrote:

>
> And just for the record, I really don't know quite how I got into this
> debate.


You have chosen to prolong this debate. Just look at the posting history.

> I don't write flash, and the sites we are involved in are
> purely application driven.


Well, why are you sticking up for 'flash' then.

> However, I get sick of those that complain
> about progress, and the fact that Flash has become a defacto standard
> *is* progress.


So is Microsoft's mutilation of standards driven by its marketing droids.

You do not seem to have noticed that there is some resistance to 'flash' out
there by various people with good reason *not* to see it as a de facto
standard. It might possibly have its place on hard sell marketing sites
where prospective customers are likely to have installed the plug-in, but
it definitely has no place on general information, community, educational
and government sites. For these sites, reaching as many people as possible
is the priority, people with disabilities - even more so.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Waylon Kenning
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2006
T'was the Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:51:45 +1300 when I remembered Fred Dagg
<(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like this:

>For a site to look OK at 640x480, it will look like crap at 1024x768.
>Simple fact. Good designers design sites to look best at 1024x768, and
>good at 800x600 or 1280x1024 (and not too bad at higher resolutions).


If the site's all locked in with clever looking gifs and jpegs for the
design. What about using CSS with % for top and left attributes of div
tags, and using ems for font sizes? Sure you'll have a lot of blank
space at the bigger resolutions, but your site will work at the
smaller resolutions as well.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
 
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
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber XML 1 12-25-2007 11:48 PM
Free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-24-2007 04:26 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-21-2007 03:47 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsweb sites cyber HTML 1 12-19-2007 09:07 AM
Create a web site, not default web site mike kim ASP .Net 2 08-19-2003 11:26 PM



Advertisments