trading post

[dorayme]

There is a site that has always been very frustrating from the time it
started till the present day: http://www.tradingpost.com.au/

I won't go into it here beyond saying that on one of my best browsers
(Mozilla 1.3.1) it "flashes" quite unpleasantly; meaning, when you even
scroll down, or across or resize the window, the browser contents, some or
all in random fashion, disappear for a sec and come back. This does not
happen in my IE, but other things don't work in IE with this site.

BTW, there has been talk recently about fixed-width sites. Maybe it is OK
sometimes but here I find it positively annoying.

It strikes me that the designers of this site are not first class. I mean,
eBay, which can attract a fair amount of criticism and which maybe can be
compared in scale and complexity to some extent, looks very competent by
comparison.

What gives here? What is the core problem with the design of this site? It
sure uses tables and cookies and javascript in great dollops. But methinks
there is something more fundamental. I'd bet there are a few people here
could make a heap of bucks offering their services and do a much better job
(be a big one... ). It is so much easier using the newspaper version. I
doubt this would be the case with eBay if there could somehow could be a
paper version of eBay, (forget for a moment the dynamic part of auctioning
to compare, just as goods for sale at their present price in time)

dorayme

 

[Travis Newbury]

There is a site that has always been very frustrating from the time it
started till the present day: http://www.tradingpost.com.au/...
...What gives here? What is the core problem with the design of this site? It
sure uses tables and cookies and javascript in great dollops. But methinks
there is something more fundamental. I'd bet there are a few people here
could make a heap of bucks offering their services and do a much better job...

So here I am a "typical" visitor, everything works, the site is not
unpleasant to the eyes (with the exception of the text at the bottom
with is just about impossible o read because of color choice) So if I
am the owner, I have to think why spend big bucks to fix something that
in the eyes of most is not broken?

 

[dorayme]

So here I am a "typical" visitor, everything works, the site is not
unpleasant to the eyes (with the exception of the text at the bottom
with is just about impossible o read because of color choice) So if I
am the owner, I have to think why spend big bucks to fix something that
in the eyes of most is not broken?

You on broadband? Perhaps this makes *all* the difference for this site. I
know ebay can be frustrating on dial up, but it is a site that is barely
tolerable, TP I find almost impossible on any browser I have on Mac... it
was ever so for years...

dorayme

 

[Travis Newbury]

You on broadband? Perhaps this makes *all* the difference for this site. I
know ebay can be frustrating on dial up, but it is a site that is barely
tolerable, TP I find almost impossible on any browser I have on Mac... it
was ever so for years...

Should a website cater to the weakest of the surfers?

 

[Mark Parnell]

Should a website cater to the weakest of the surfers?

When the "weakest" means those on dialup, who still constitute the
majority of web users, absolutely.

 

[Travis Newbury]

When the "weakest" means those on dialup, who still constitute the
majority of web users, absolutely.

So if the primary audience has broadband, then it is ok to cater to them.

 

[Travis Newbury]

When the "weakest" means those on dialup, who still constitute the
majority of web users, absolutely.

Actually, I did not phrase my question right. What percentge of the
population using broadband would you consider an acceptable percentage
to start catering to them? Above you state "majority", but Iam sure
you do not mean 51%. Say if 80% of the population is using broadband,
would it then be ok to cater to it?

 

[Els]

Actually, I did not phrase my question right. What percentge of the
population using broadband would you consider an acceptable percentage
to start catering to them? Above you state "majority", but Iam sure
you do not mean 51%. Say if 80% of the population is using broadband,
would it then be ok to cater to it?

Of course it would. It would be okay if they made up 5% already.
Just don't forget to also cater for the less fortunate, even if /they/
are only 5% of the internet connected population ;-)

 

[Travis Newbury]

Of course it would. It would be okay if they made up 5% already.
Just don't forget to also cater for the less fortunate, even if /they/
are only 5% of the internet connected population ;-)

I just feel all this political correctness, and "let everyone always
see everything" may not hurt functionallity, but it really really
stymies creativity.

 

[Els]

I just feel all this political correctness, and "let everyone always
see everything" may not hurt functionallity, but it really really
stymies creativity.

Only if you don't know how to combine your creativity with the right
code ;-) (scnr )

 

[Travis Newbury]

Only if you don't know how to combine your creativity with the right
code ;-) (scnr )

But we all know HTML and CSS can not reproduce the things one can do
with Javascript, java and Flash...

 

[dorayme]

Should a website cater to the weakest of the surfers?

How long is a piece of string?

A site aimed at the general public in a country where broadband is not so
well taken up (last percentage I heard was in the 30s, but it may be a bit
more now?) that is a famous institution for selling new, but more second
hand goods of every possible type, should cater well, if it can, to the dial
up community in its online form.

I can't help feeling that the recent exchanges on unrelated matters has made
you so defensive, Travis. And if not defensive, then over anxious to push a
particular barrow. Like you feel that everyone is too picky about websites,
you are more relaxed...

I mentioned the TP because I wanted to see what others thought. You think it
fine on broadband. I wanted to know this for starters (and have had to
deduce it from your responses. It's OK, you can confess that you are on
broadband to me. Don't worry. Some of my best friends are.).

I was also wanting to know if folks think it could be much faster on dial up
given the considerable complexity of its brief. Or whether somehow, it would
have been very difficult to do so. I suspect that the designers are not
first class and do not have the knowledge that I see displayed often here.

dorayme

 

[Travis Newbury]

How long is a piece of string?

this long....

I can't help feeling that the recent exchanges on unrelated matters has made
you so defensive, Travis. And if not defensive, then over anxious to push a
particular barrow. Like you feel that everyone is too picky about websites,
you are more relaxed...

I do feel everyone is way too picky when it comes to websites. And I
think it is they that are uptight about it not me. Look at the way
people jump down others throats when they use frames, or require
javascript, or flash, or [insert your own personal favorite here]

I think the web is an medium where one should be free to explore what
ever they like. Javascirpt, Flash, embedded media,and anything new that
comes around are all ok in my book _even_ if that means that there may
be someone out there that can't see the site or use the site. I don't
believe in a one size fits all web. I think one size fits all hurts the
web. Even for a commercial site.

It's OK, you can confess that you are on
broadband to me. Don't worry. Some of my best friends are.).

Ok you caught me... I confess I am a broadband junkie....

 

[dorayme]

It's OK, you can confess that you are on

Ok you caught me... I confess I am a broadband junkie....

I know its hard to believe but, at least this is what I tell myself: I
remain on dial-up so as not to be tempted to make slow loading websites. But
I am sorely tempted by broadband if only to overcome the frustration of
using sites made by folks who do not have this concern. I do not have any
overall view about *all* sites needing to be friendly to dial up. It is just
that mostly in my work it is an important criteria.

(yes, I know. People can have broadband and still make sites dial up
friendly...)

I do feel everyone is way too picky when it comes to websites.

Yes, ok. But maybe think of it this way: one point of *this* newsgroup is to
chew the fact on websites. When folk are criticising things and finding
fault, it may not be that they really think the sites concerned are truly
dreadful. Sometimes this is the case, but often, it is just shop talk,
throwing ideas back and forth. Seriously yes, but the point is, that it is
instructive to see how far short of perfection even a good site might be...

dorayme

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yes, ok. But maybe think of it this way: one point of *this* newsgroup is to
chew the fact on websites.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the "facts" everyone says
here. From a "one size fits all" viewpoint they are right on the
money. Frames cause problems, using Javascript for navigation will
make it so some people can't see you site, Flash is almost always bad.
But I completely disagree on the philosophy behind what makes a good
web site good. I disagree with "one size fits all".

Now at the same time, I know that I am on the losing side of the
argument. Eventually we will have a very bland generic web that
everyone can see no matter how they view it. The lawyers of the world
will make sure that happens. But I think it will be sad day when it
does happen.

 

[Els]

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the "facts" everyone says
here. From a "one size fits all" viewpoint they are right on the
money. Frames cause problems, using Javascript for navigation will
make it so some people can't see you site, Flash is almost always bad.
But I completely disagree on the philosophy behind what makes a good
web site good. I disagree with "one size fits all".

Now at the same time, I know that I am on the losing side of the
argument. Eventually we will have a very bland generic web that
everyone can see no matter how they view it. The lawyers of the world
will make sure that happens. But I think it will be sad day when it
does happen.

I don't think it will happen.
There is nothing against using Flash and JavaScript and whatever more
designers can come up with to spice up a web site. The thing that
(imo) needs to be done though, is make a site so, that if someone
doesn't have JavaScript or Flash, at least the information is still
available.
JavaScript menus are no problem, if they have a solid <a href=".."> as
basis. I don't know anything about Flash, but I don't think it's
impossible to have an alternative content access in case Flash is
disabled or not installed.

One size fits all, to me means that you can serve fancy Flash content
to perhaps the majority, whilst not forgetting the minority, simply by
adding a link to a simple (bland if you like) HTML page.

Even in a large theme park with rollercoasters, aimed mainly at
teenagers, adolescents and adults, they always have a simple
roundabout for the little ones on the premises

 

[Travis Newbury]

I don't think it will happen.
There is nothing against using Flash and JavaScript and whatever more
designers can come up with to spice up a web site. The thing that
(imo) needs to be done though, is make a site so, that if someone
doesn't have JavaScript or Flash, at least the information is still
available.

What do you do with a site like Barbie.com? Some little girl (her
money hungery sue happy parents) that cannot use the site for one
reason or another will find a lawyer that will be happy to sue Mattel
to make them change the site so the little girl can use it. Who cares
if they ruin it for all the other little girls in the world.

You know this will eventually happen. As long as there is no
punishment for losing a frivoless lawsuit, some slimy lawyer will try
it. And with the liberal courts out there some jury will let them win.

Maybe a pesimistic view, but looking at the current state of lawsuits
in the US it is bound to happen.

 

[Els]

Els wrote:

[the web turning into one big bland mass of pages]

What do you do with a site like Barbie.com? Some little girl (her
money hungery sue happy parents)

must be USA citizens ;-)

that cannot use the site for one
reason or another will find a lawyer that will be happy to sue Mattel
to make them change the site so the little girl can use it. Who cares
if they ruin it for all the other little girls in the world.

All Mattell has to do, is provide a text link outside the Flash,
leading to an HTML page.
That HTML page will have to have a link to barbiecollector.com, one to
the /parents/ pages, one to the /catalog/ section, and so on.

And then on all the simple HTML pages which are showing all the boring
information, they should have a link to the Flash content, with
something like "this site is much more fun with Flash installed, get
Flash >here< now" or something.

You know this will eventually happen. As long as there is no
punishment for losing a frivoless lawsuit, some slimy lawyer will try
it. And with the liberal courts out there some jury will let them win.

Maybe a pesimistic view, but looking at the current state of lawsuits
in the US it is bound to happen.

I hate the "we'll sue you" mentality, but I think it's a good thing if
sites like barbie.com would just take the minor trouble to provide an
HTML version of their content. It's not like people without Flash
installed, or with bad eyesight, don't ever want to buy a barbie, is
it?

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

I was also wanting to know if folks think it could be much faster on dial up
given the considerable complexity of its brief. Or whether somehow, it would
have been very difficult to do so. I suspect that the designers are not
first class and do not have the knowledge that I see displayed often here.

I can't see any of the problems you describe on Safari and a dial-up
connection. The site even loaded fairly quickly. I haven't explored
anything besides the main and signup pages. Considering I'm connecting
from the western US, I really mean that it loads fairly quickly, perhaps
15 seconds.
My only gripe on the main page is that the bottom text is marginal to
read as the page fades from blue to white. Whoops! I didn't originally
see that "Sports & Leisure" and something unreadable above it don't fit
in the white General section of the menu. Is there a menu section below
General? If so, I can't see it. Let's check the source. Don't think so,
but the menu's last two items are screwed up. Hmm. The w3c validator
doesn't like it with 107 errors. Perhaps I was hasty in my original warm
fuzzy feeling about the site.

leo

 

[dorayme]

oops, a typo, I meant "fat" ('chew the fat' is an expression for throwing
ideas back and forth, talking... I expect it is more than an Australian
expression. The typo conveyed the wrong impression. Sorry)

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the "facts" everyone says
here. From a "one size fits all" viewpoint they are right on the
money. Frames cause problems, using Javascript for navigation will
make it so some people can't see you site, Flash is almost always bad.
But I completely disagree on the philosophy behind what makes a good
web site good. I disagree with "one size fits all".

Well, it is a complex matter. It is a bit unfair to caricature the views of
many here as 'one size fits all'. First, there are quite a range of
different views. From the rigid and silly to the more mature advocacy of
high standards.

Take Flash. Mostly I think, many people here take a sensible stance that
Flash is fine where it adds to the site in a way no other more assessable
method will and where people who cannot or do not use Flash are catered for
in some alternative way where it is important that they be catered for. This
last bit is surely unexceptional? To use it for navigation and to not give
another choice is not too reasonable if you want to get a general audience.

Often, advice given here is for a good overall starting attitude to website
design. Perhaps you take the views expressed too rigidly? I can understand
your sentiment and it is one i think many others have felt. It is
frustrating to be held to high standards, but it is better to know what they
are and to be diverging with open eyes if one does...

Now at the same time, I know that I am on the losing side of the
argument. Eventually we will have a very bland generic web that
everyone can see no matter how they view it. The lawyers of the world
will make sure that happens. But I think it will be sad day when it
does happen.

If you follow the idea that people are given choices and not forced off a
site by devices and facilities like Flash which they do not use, then no
such sad day will come. If I may say, you are being sidetracked by the not
so important manner of the way some people express themselves. It does often
seem so cool and arrogant, presumptuous. Forget all this, forget the petty
schoolyard stuff, the strutting to which few of us seem able to resist and
underneath may be something good and true and beautiful. A tear has formed
in my eye now and a lump in my throat and I cannot continue... sorry...

dorayme