Big Company, Appalling Design

[Roy Schestowitz]

I thought I'd point you to the following large site, which is an example of
very repulsive use of HTML:

http://www.palm.com

If you look at it carefully, you'll notice that the entire page is made out
of images, and as if that's not bad enough, there is JavaScript too, which
navigation depends on.

Is there an idea behind this design that I just fail to grasp?

Roy

 

[Aquila Deus]

I thought I'd point you to the following large site, which is an example of
very repulsive use of HTML:

http://www.palm.com

If you look at it carefully, you'll notice that the entire page is made out
of images, and as if that's not bad enough, there is JavaScript too, which
navigation depends on.

Is there an idea behind this design that I just fail to grasp?

1.Everybody should have js in their browser. Why? ASP.NET needs js,
Struts needs js, even the coming JSF depends on js too!

2.The text in their images looks nice. Most OSes are developed by
blinds and their fonts make me want to die.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I thought I'd point you to the following large site, which is an
example of very repulsive use of HTML:

If you look at it carefully, you'll notice that the entire page is
made out of images, and as if that's not bad enough, there is
JavaScript too, which navigation depends on.

Is there an idea behind this design that I just fail to grasp?

In other fields, this might be called "stunting" or perhaps
"hot-dogging". I've never heard these terms applied to web site design
styles, but they seem pretty applicable. Maybe it's time to start.

 

[Jeff Bowman]

Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

Just curious, how come?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Just curious, how come?

http://blinkynet.net/comp/ggfilters.html

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

1.Everybody should have js in their browser. Why? ASP.NET needs js,

Most of us do have js in our browsers. Some of us have it disabled
during normal browsing, though. Why? To combat clueless authors'
silliness... extraneous popup windows... sometimes malicious stuff.

ASP.NET? I don't develop with ASP.NET, so why do I need js?

Pages that *require* js to function need rethinking.

Struts needs js, even the coming JSF depends on js too!

Time will tell.

 

[Dylan Parry]

ASP.NET needs js

It does? AFAIK, clientside debugging by the author requires JScript, but
for the end-user there is no requirement.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Is there an idea behind this design that I just fail to grasp?

Employing Nathan Barley as a designer.

The amusing thing about this site is that it's _Palm_ who are doing
it. A company based around small-screen mobile devices. Not only is
this approach a bad idea, but it's worst for exactly their core user
group.

 

[Aquila Deus]

It does? AFAIK, clientside debugging by the author requires JScript, but
for the end-user there is no requirement.

LinkButton, AutoPostBack, etc.

You can still use ASP.NET (and Struts and others) without requiring js
in client-side, but since js has become part of them, the developer
must code carefully to avoid js-dependent things (and don't expect most
dev to even think about this!)

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

I thought I'd point you to the following large site, which is an example of
very repulsive use of HTML:

http://www.palm.com

If you look at it carefully, you'll notice that the entire page is made out
of images, and as if that's not bad enough, there is JavaScript too, which
navigation depends on.

Is there an idea behind this design that I just fail to grasp?

Thing is, http://schestowitz.com/ is also pretty poor, though it does
get better if you turn the images off. Pots & kettles.

Sorry to read about your Gran, though.

 

[Jeff Bowman]

http://blinkynet.net/comp/ggfilters.html

What kinds of problems are happening?

 

[Toby Inkster]

What kinds of problems are happening?

As Google's archives go *way* back, and Google doesn't (by default)
sort the search results by date, you often get people replying to threads
that are weeks and weeks old -- usually without quoting anything -- for
example:

Yes, that looks like a very elegant solution. Does it work
in Internet Explorer too?

Of course, as the thread has expired off all normal news servers, and the
poster hasn't quoted anything, it's impossible to tell what on earth
they're on about!

That's one reason to ignore posts from Google Groups.

 

[Travis Newbury]

That's one reason to ignore posts from Google Groups.

Bummer, some have no other choice but to use google groups when they are
at the office. Which is also the place they need it the most.

Oh well, I also think it is dumb to have your messages deleted after 7
days. If everyone did that, there would be no archive.

 

[Jeff Bowman]

Of course, as the thread has expired off all normal news servers, and the
poster hasn't quoted anything, it's impossible to tell what on earth
they're on about!

That's one reason to ignore posts from Google Groups.

That's reason enough, I'd say <s>

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

What kinds of problems are happening?

Add, for instance, to what Toby said, that many of them aren't quoting
and/or attributing. Many think these froups[1] are a Google feature, so
you get people using Usenet that don't even know what it is, so they
don't have any sense of conventional practices or courtesies.

[1]And they wouldn't know that "froups" has been a bit of established
Usenet slang for along time; long enough that it's documented in the
1992 printing of the dead tree version of /The Jargon File/.

 

[Jeff Bowman]

Add, for instance, to what Toby said, that many of them aren't quoting
and/or attributing. Many think these froups[1] are a Google feature, so
you get people using Usenet that don't even know what it is, so they
don't have any sense of conventional practices or courtesies.

I guess a fella could get into this stuff, couldn't he?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Add, for instance, to what Toby said, that many of them aren't quoting
and/or attributing. Many think these froups[1] are a Google feature, so
you get people using Usenet that don't even know what it is, so they
don't have any sense of conventional practices or courtesies.

I guess a fella could get into this stuff, couldn't he?

Doing things right? Yes. Isn't that how you try to do web design?

 

[Jeff Bowman]

Doing things right? Yes. Isn't that how you try to do web design?

Actually I meant Usenet ;-)

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Actually I meant Usenet ;-)

Ah. I thought you meant "get into" seeing it work well by being used
correctly. As I, and some others do.

 

[Jeff Bowman]

Ah. I thought you meant "get into" seeing it work well by being used
correctly. As I, and some others do.

Well, that too <s>