Opinions On This Site?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Leif K-Brooks, May 22, 2005.

  1. (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.)
     
    Leif K-Brooks, May 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Leif K-Brooks

    jake Guest

    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
     
    jake, May 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Leif K-Brooks

    Els Guest

    (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 -
     
    Els, May 22, 2005
    #3
  4. 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
     
    (PeteCresswell), May 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Leif K-Brooks

    Andy Dingley Guest

    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.
     
    Andy Dingley, May 23, 2005
    #5
  6. 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), May 23, 2005
    #6
  7. (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!
     
    Leif K-Brooks, May 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Leif K-Brooks

    dorayme Guest

    > 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
     
    dorayme, May 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Leif K-Brooks

    Henry Guest

    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.

    ;)
     
    Henry, May 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Leif K-Brooks

    dorayme Guest

    > 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
     
    dorayme, May 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Leif K-Brooks

    me Guest

    "(PeteCresswell)" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > 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



    Oohh well,

    As you are busy commenting sites and giving tips, I also want to take the
    chance to get drowned in critics.

    Please remember, my site is made by myself as a private hobby homepage and I
    do not have any training in websites. And I also have limited time to work
    on it.
    I will be happy with any constructive comments that can help me improve my
    page...... as long as you don't laugh to much about me ;-)

    This is my URL:
    http://members.home.nl/ww2propaganda/

    See if you find the time to have a look.

    Hans
     
    me, May 23, 2005
    #11
  12. dorayme wrote:
    >>From: Leif K-Brooks <>
    >>On the negative side:
    >>- 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.


    Fruit shops may be crowded, but they're still orderly: neat, clean
    looking more-or-less straight rows. On the other hand, the page in
    question doesn't just look crowded; it looks disorderly.

    This is a good fruit shop:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    | Apples | Grapes | Avocadoes |
    |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    And this is a bad fruit shop:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    | Apples and grapes and avocadoes |
    |00oo.0o0...ooo00o00ooo0o..o.0.oo.o0oo0.o0o..0o.00.oo0oo.00.00.|
    |00000.0.oooo.o.0.o0..0.0.ooo.o0.0...oo000.00o0o0ooo..o00o0o0oo|
    |o0.0000..o0o..0ooo..0ooo0o..00MoNkEy!!!00....0o.0o0o.oo.000o.o|
    |0o.o..0o....0o0____o000o0.0o0.oo0o.o0.ooooooo0ooo.o.000o00..oo|
    |0.0o.0o0o00o.oo|--|.0o.00..o.00o00.0o.o0oo0.0000..00o...0.0..o|
    |o...o.o0oo00oo0.o.0.0.00.0..oo00000oo.0ooo.0oo.0.....oo00ooo.o|
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Leif K-Brooks, May 23, 2005
    #12
  13. Leif K-Brooks

    Els Guest

    Re: supermarket layout [was: Opinions On This Site?]

    Leif K-Brooks wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >>>From: Leif K-Brooks <>
    >>>On the negative side:
    >>>- 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.

    >
    > Fruit shops may be crowded, but they're still orderly: neat, clean
    > looking more-or-less straight rows. On the other hand, the page in
    > question doesn't just look crowded; it looks disorderly.
    >
    > This is a good fruit shop:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >| Apples | Grapes | Avocadoes |
    >|oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    >|oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    >|oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    >|oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    >|oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    >|oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > And this is a bad fruit shop:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >| Apples and grapes and avocadoes |
    >|00oo.0o0...ooo00o00ooo0o..o.0.oo.o0oo0.o0o..0o.00.oo0oo.00.00.|
    >|00000.0.oooo.o.0.o0..0.0.ooo.o0.0...oo000.00o0o0ooo..o00o0o0oo|
    >|o0.0000..o0o..0ooo..0ooo0o..00MoNkEy!!!00....0o.0o0o.oo.000o.o|
    >|0o.o..0o....0o0____o000o0.0o0.oo0o.o0.ooooooo0ooo.o.000o00..oo|
    >|0.0o.0o0o00o.oo|--|.0o.00..o.00o00.0o.o0oo0.0000..00o...0.0..o|
    >|o...o.o0oo00oo0.o.0.0.00.0..oo00000oo.0ooo.0oo.0.....oo00ooo.o|
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------


    May I just borrow this example to say how much I hate the 'layout' of
    the new supermarket here? It looks like this:

    (x=vegetable y=another vegetable)

    ---------------------
    |Fruit and Vegetables |
    |ooo...oooxxx000yyy...|
    | ooo...ooooxxxyyy....|
    |ooo...000xxxxxyyy....|
    |..ooo000......xxxxooo|
    |...oooxxx...xxxxxoooo|
    |..oooxxxyyyy00000oooo|
    ---------------------

    The area is smaller than in the other examples, as this is only one
    side of a 4 sided isle, and there are 4 (or 6?) isles in the fruit and
    veggie section.

    When I'm in the supermarket, I want the first example, which is how it
    used to be. All different apples on one side of the isle, all citric
    fruits on the other side, avocados and grapes on the third isle,
    between melons and strawberries...

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Thunder - Dirty Love
     
    Els, May 23, 2005
    #13
  14. Leif K-Brooks

    kchayka Guest

    Leif K-Brooks wrote:
    >
    > [www.zappos.com]
    > the page in question doesn't just look crowded; it looks disorderly.


    I agree. Too many different colors, too many different things crammed in
    "above the fold" vying for attention at once. It lacks balance and
    focus. When I first loaded the page, I didn't know where to look, but my
    first reaction was to block out most of the graphics as advertising
    banner spam.

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, May 23, 2005
    #14
  15. Leif K-Brooks

    me Guest

    "me" <> schreef in bericht
    news:d6s50m$71v$1.ov.home.nl...
    >

    snip
    >
    > Oohh well,
    >
    > As you are busy commenting sites and giving tips, I also want to take the
    > chance to get drowned in critics.
    >
    > Please remember, my site is made by myself as a private hobby homepage and
    > I do not have any training in websites. And I also have limited time to
    > work on it.
    > I will be happy with any constructive comments that can help me improve my
    > page...... as long as you don't laugh to much about me ;-)
    >
    > This is my URL:
    > http://members.home.nl/ww2propaganda/
    >
    > See if you find the time to have a look.
    >
    > Hans


    btw, I am also interested in how things look under other browser than my
    ie6....

    Hans
     
    me, May 23, 2005
    #15
  16. Leif K-Brooks, May 23, 2005
    #16
  17. Leif K-Brooks

    Spartanicus Guest

    Spartanicus, May 23, 2005
    #17
  18. Leif K-Brooks

    JT Guest

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

    Yes, the site looks fine by me and no doubt also for those who arrive there
    looking for shoes.
     
    JT, May 23, 2005
    #18
  19. Leif K-Brooks

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Leif K-Brooks <>
    >
    > dorayme wrote:
    >>> From: Leif K-Brooks <>
    >>> On the negative side:
    >>> - 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.

    >
    > Fruit shops may be crowded, but they're still orderly: neat, clean
    > looking more-or-less straight rows. On the other hand, the page in
    > question doesn't just look crowded; it looks disorderly.
    >
    > This is a good fruit shop:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Apples | Grapes | Avocadoes |
    > |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > |oooooooooooooooooooo|....................|00000000000000000000|
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > And this is a bad fruit shop:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------
    > | Apples and grapes and avocadoes |
    > |00oo.0o0...ooo00o00ooo0o..o.0.oo.o0oo0.o0o..0o.00.oo0oo.00.00.|
    > |00000.0.oooo.o.0.o0..0.0.ooo.o0.0...oo000.00o0o0ooo..o00o0o0oo|
    > |o0.0000..o0o..0ooo..0ooo0o..00MoNkEy!!!00....0o.0o0o.oo.000o.o|
    > |0o.o..0o....0o0____o000o0.0o0.oo0o.o0.ooooooo0ooo.o.000o00..oo|
    > |0.0o.0o0o00o.oo|--|.0o.00..o.00o00.0o.o0oo0.0000..00o...0.0..o|
    > |o...o.o0oo00oo0.o.0.0.00.0..oo00000oo.0ooo.0oo.0.....oo00ooo.o|
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------



    Leif K-Brookes! This is a very good reply! It has cheered me up for the day,
    it looks so miserable out there... Your good fruit shop looks very nice
    indeed... And your bad one is very bad indeed.

    But, perhaps a fair minded observer would incline to say the site in
    question is not as disorganised as your "bad fruit shop". I admire efforts
    to achieve order without so much neatness, I like it when some people are
    able to embrace more complex order. I guess, bottom line, I don't think it
    so disorganised.

    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 24, 2005
    #19
  20. Leif K-Brooks

    Dan Guest

    Henry wrote:
    > > - 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.


    A flexible-width site will accommodate these people, as well as those
    who use full-screen browsers. What's wrong with that?

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

    >
    > What a fault! OMG.


    I hate sites that "force" cursor focus like that; sometimes I'm
    starting to type in the address bar or a form field before the site has
    finished loading, and then it's annoying when the cursor suddenly jumps
    somewhere else due to some idiot JavaScript.

    --
    Dan
     
    Dan, May 24, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin Spencer

    Re: another request for OPINIONS

    Kevin Spencer, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    354
    msnews.microsoft.com
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. Utter Newbie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
    Utter Newbie
    Jul 28, 2003
  3. JPerrin

    Opinions of Hostdepartment

    JPerrin, Oct 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    350
    JPerrin
    Oct 28, 2003
  4. JoeBlack
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    373
    JoeBlack
    Oct 4, 2004
  5. Steve Macleod

    Site Opinions wanted

    Steve Macleod, Feb 21, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    677
    Alan D-W
    Feb 22, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page