Java script, icons, html transitional, css and tables.

[Oli Filth]

Sorry, in my opinion it is not enough to read 1 or 2 pages.
Otherwise it would be enough for me to read 2-3 threads of this NG to learn
HTML.

That's not the same. HTML is a massive subject that takes weeks to learn
properly and months or years to master well enough to make enterprise
websites.

This issue with HTTPS is a very specific case, it should be easy to
point out a page that deals with this.

I've actually browsed pretty much every single article on this
ebusinesslex site now, they're not that long, and only a few of them
have anything to do with protection or security of data, and out of
those I can't see anything that implies you should worry about the
secure transmission of all data that leaves your server.

But I may post some links in future, if you want to, anyway.
Do you want me to post them to your e-mail adress or can it be something
interesting for this NG?
I am going to visit that site many other times.

If you do have any specific links, please post them to the NG, I'm sure
many people here would certainly find it interesting.

It takes longer but as the normal connection is already very fast, the user
can accept a delay in the connection much more easily, I think.
Moreover, please, do not forget that he or she can always choose to show
most pages over http.

Please bear in mind that studies have shown that the average length of
time a user is prepared to wait for a site is 8 seconds, regardless of
what you might like to think.

It would have been enough to split the contents in more websites or load it
on a faster server, I suppose.

Do you have a faster server, or more websites? Anyway, "splitting the
contents" would probably make things worse.

better to




But I did not change my mind. I am sorry if that disturbs you but I am still
entitled to have my opinions.

Ok, but many of the things on my list were indisputable fact (like "it
will slow down the user's experience of the site" or "HTTPS prevents
caching" or "the risk of TCP/IP injection is miniscule"). If you've
considered these issues and still want to go ahead, then fine. But if
you're just ignoring these because they're not "your opinion", then
you're ignoring practical facts.

For example, the category of those who think as I do.
It is better to serve most pages over both https and http and some content
which is more sensitive only over https.
The user and search engines can choose whether they want to visit one of
them or both.

As you've found from this NG, most tech-literate people *don't* think
this way. The fact that there are no commercial websites (that I've
seen) that serve non-confidential pages as HTTPS shows most enterprise
developers *don't* think this way. And the general public who know
nothing about HTTPS certainly *don't* think this way.

I have a different opinion. You use expressions as "You´re still missing the
point" which seem to show that you believe that you are absolutely right.
That does not sound to be a very good method to let people believe what you
say or write

I said "you're missing the point" because you *were* missing (or
ignoring) the point I was originally trying to make, regardless of
whether it was right or wrong.

See above about what I think of the use of certain expressions which seem to
show that you believe that you are right.

No, this really is fact. The majority of users are put off by
over-complication, decisions, technical details and unfamiliar website
design. There are countless usability and psychological studies that
have shown this, and countless websites that tell you about it. For a
few examples, try these random links I found just now:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/
http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/
http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/solutions/design/article.php/3402191

There's hundreds more where these came from (do a google search for "web
usability studies" or similar).

They don't necessarily deal with your issue specifically, but they
illustrate the point that lots of web designers aren't thinking about
how *users* actually *use* the web.

People use the web to get information.

I prefer to let people choose more that you seem to let them want to
choose...
If you used the same principle and put it to the extreme in politics you
might draw the conclusion that dictators do not want people to get confused
and decide everything for the people!
I am for democracy.

It's not a matter of what *you* prefer. Users follow certain patterns,
please spend some time doing some google-based research (such as the
links I provided above) to learn this. If you want a site to be
successful, it's no good having these Great Ideas that aren't based in
reality; you have to design the site around and for the user, not for
yourself.

I knew practically nothing about html a few years ago and now the website
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com is indexed by many search engines ( just
search and test it if you want to)

No offence, but that proves nothing. My personal site is indexed within
the top 5 for particular words by many search engines, even though it
has no sensible or useful content.

I am not asking you to use my method but
I am going to use my own method to learn computer languages.

Of course you're entitled to learn any way you want, but please try and
take notice of what people are saying here. Regardless of what you might
think, a lot of the advice that you've been given by people here *is*
fact and not opinion, either learnt out of experience, or by reading up,
or by discussions like this.

Oli

 

[Oli Filth]

I do not. You were not talking about facts. You were trying to forecast
users´behaviour basing your assumptions on some facts.

No, that's what you've been doing in a lot of your posts. I'm basing my
predictions on web usability sites, web design sites, and from reading
about people's experiences here.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Oli Filth wrote:

It would have been enough to split the contents in more
websites or load it on a faster server, I suppose.

<snip>

You would suppose wrong. These share-trading sites had a 50,000 (UK)
pound single transaction limit and averaged 2,000 per transaction.
Nobody was skimping on the server hardware, and the users were (mostly)
on broadband (as they could easily afford it). If there had been a
technical way of rendering that front-end redesign viable expense would
not have stood in the way of doing so.

Richard.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

That's not the same. HTML is a massive subject that takes weeks to learn
properly and months or years to master well enough to make enterprise
websites.

This issue with HTTPS is a very specific case, it should be easy to
point out a page that deals with this.
I
No


I've actually browsed pretty much every single article on this
ebusinesslex site now, they're not that long, and only a few of them
have anything to do with protection or security of data, and out of
those I can't see anything that implies you should worry about the
secure transmission of all data that leaves your server.

I have a different opinion and as I may have suggested before, you are
welcome not serve all the pages over https.
I am free to serve them over https.

If you do have any specific links, please post them to the NG, I'm sure
many people here would certainly find it interesting.

If there are people who are really interested in that, they can write it on
this thread.
If there aren´t many writing it, then I will assume that there aren´t many
at all.

Please bear in mind that studies have shown that the average length of
time a user is prepared to wait for a site is 8 seconds, regardless of
what you might like to think.

Please quote the studies you are referring to and give us a chance to check
it up how and where studies were done, where users involved in the study
come from, which connection they were using and so on.

Do you have a faster server, or more websites? Anyway, "splitting the
contents" would probably make things worse.

I am not talking about my case. I do not seem to have this problem.
Statistics regarding my website can show me if the number of users visiting
my website will be higher after I have begun using the https protocol.

Ok, but many of the things on my list were indisputable fact (like "it
will slow down the user's experience of the site" or "HTTPS prevents
caching" or "the risk of TCP/IP injection is miniscule"). If you've
considered these issues and still want to go ahead, then fine.

I have considered that it will slow down the user´s experience of the site
and paid attention at that the user can choose to visit most pages over http
if he wants to do so.
I have also considered that the risk https could protect me against is very
little according to you and I still want to go ahead.
But you are free to choose not to use https

But if

you're just ignoring these because they're not "your opinion", then
you're ignoring practical facts.

You may think what you want.

As you've found from this NG, most tech-literate people *don't* think
this way. The fact that there are no commercial websites (that I've
seen) that serve non-confidential pages as HTTPS shows most enterprise
developers *don't* think this way.

That does not mean much to me.

And the general public who know

nothing about HTTPS certainly *don't* think this way.

Interesting. Which statistics you are referring to?

I said "you're missing the point" because you *were* missing (or
ignoring) the point I was originally trying to make, regardless of
whether it was right or wrong.
No, this really is fact. The majority of users are put off by
over-complication, decisions, technical details and unfamiliar website
design. There are countless usability and psychological studies that
have shown this, and countless websites that tell you about it. For a
few examples, try these random links I found just now:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/
http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/
http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/solutions/design/article.php/3402191

There's hundreds more where these came from (do a google search for "web
usability studies" or similar).

They don't necessarily deal with your issue specifically, but they
illustrate the point that lots of web designers aren't thinking about
how *users* actually *use* the web.


It's not a matter of what *you* prefer. Users follow certain patterns,
please spend some time doing some google-based research (such as the
links I provided above) to learn this. If you want a site to be
successful, it's no good having these Great Ideas that aren't based in
reality; you have to design the site around and for the user, not for
yourself.


No offence, but that proves nothing. My personal site is indexed within
the top 5 for particular words by many search engines, even though it
has no sensible or useful content.

It does not say much in my opinion that your site is indexed within the top
5 for particular search engines, either.
Did you check up how many pages of my site have been indexed?
How long have you been learning HTML?
How many and which languages do you speak and/or write which you learnt by
your method?

Besides, I am not interested to prove anything to you.
It is enough that I want to use a method instead of another.
It does not matter whether you think that this method is successful or not.
But you can go on using your method, of course.
..

Of course you're entitled to learn any way you want, but please try and
take notice of what people are saying here. Regardless of what you might
think, a lot of the advice that you've been given by people here *is*
fact and not opinion, either learnt out of experience, or by reading up,
or by discussions like this.

Oli

If what the first men had learnt by experience had been the whole reality,
mankind had never been able to progress somehow...

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

I do not find it difficult to choose whether I have to navigate on http and
https.
Users from different countries may think in different ways on this subject
depending on how often they go on the internet.
Did you consider what I wrote about democracy?



You seem to prefer to do what most webmasters do, I prefer to do what I
think it is right and look at what users like, not what most webmasters
do. They are 2 different things. If few webmasters have used https you
cannot know whether users would like it or not.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

<snip>

You would suppose wrong. These share-trading sites had a 50,000 (UK)
pound single transaction limit and averaged 2,000 per transaction.
Nobody was skimping on the server hardware, and the users were (mostly)
on broadband (as they could easily afford it). If there had been a
technical way of rendering that front-end redesign viable expense would
not have stood in the way of doing so.

Richard.

Ok. But my website is probably not so great as yours was...

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Ok. But my website is probably not so great as yours was...

So, what may have been a problem for your website does not need be a problem
for mine.
Also, you may have forgotten that most pages of the website
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com
are also available at http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com ....

 

[rf]

<snip 13K of text>

You really need to learn how to trim.

 

[Oli Filth]

I
No

So you've been going "read http://ebusinesslex.net", read
"http://ebusinesslex.net" all this time, but it doesn't actually support
your view either?

Please quote the studies you are referring to and give us a chance to check
it up how and where studies were done, where users involved in the study
come from, which connection they were using and so on.

I'm not going to quote a study, it's common knowledge. Do a google
search for "8-second rule", web.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="8+second+rule"+web&btnG=Search&meta=

But you are free to choose not to use https

And indeed I won't. Then again, I'm not making a website whose success
will rely on it's visitors.

That does not mean much to me.

Well, maybe you should stop to think why this is the case.

Interesting. Which statistics you are referring to?

I'm not referring to any statistics on this instance. It's common sense.
Do you really think the average user is going to have an opinion on
HTTPS, or even know what it is?

It does not say much in my opinion that your site is indexed within the top
5 for particular search engines, either.

I made the comparison with my website to point out that just because
your site comes up on search engines for certain words doesn't mean that
it's successful, useful, or well-designed.

How long have you been learning HTML?
How many and which languages do you speak and/or write which you learnt by
your method?

What does this have to do with anything?

Besides, I am not interested to prove anything to you.

I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I'm trying to get you to
think about this properly. Believe it or not, most people here are
trying to offer their help, not to slow you down nor to try and prove
that they're better than you.

If what the first men had learnt by experience had been the whole reality,
mankind had never been able to progress somehow...

Your HTTPS isn't progress, it's going backwards. This has been tried
before, and rejected (as in Richard Cornford's post, for example) for
very good reasons. Progress is learning from other people's experiences
and extending them.

Oli

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

So you've been going "read http://ebusinesslex.net", read
"http://ebusinesslex.net" all this time, but it doesn't actually support
your view either?


I'm not going to quote a study, it's common knowledge. Do a google
search for "8-second rule", web.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="8+second+rule"+web&btnG=Search&meta=




And indeed I won't. Then again, I'm not making a website whose success
will rely on it's visitors.


Well, maybe you should stop to think why this is the case.


I'm not referring to any statistics on this instance. It's common sense.
Do you really think the average user is going to have an opinion on
HTTPS, or even know what it is?


I made the comparison with my website to point out that just because
your site comes up on search engines for certain words doesn't mean that
it's successful, useful, or well-designed.


What does this have to do with anything?


I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I'm trying to get you to
think about this properly. Believe it or not, most people here are
trying to offer their help, not to slow you down nor to try and prove
that they're better than you.


Your HTTPS isn't progress, it's going backwards. This has been tried
before, and rejected (as in Richard Cornford's post, for example) for
very good reasons. Progress is learning from other people's experiences
and extending them.

Oli

Hello Oli,
We have clearly different ideas.
I have already expressed my ideas on this subject
Have a nice time!