trading post

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, May 25, 2005.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    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
     
    dorayme, May 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme wrote:
    > 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?

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    > From: Travis Newbury <>

    > dorayme wrote:
    >> 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?



    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
     
    dorayme, May 26, 2005
    #3
  4. dorayme wrote:
    > 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?

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 26, 2005
    #4
  5. dorayme

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Previously in alt.html, Travis Newbury <> said:

    > 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.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
    alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/
     
    Mark Parnell, May 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Mark Parnell wrote:
    >>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.


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


    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Mark Parnell wrote:
    > > 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.


    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?

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 26, 2005
    #7
  8. dorayme

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Mark Parnell wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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 ;-)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Rod Stewart - Some Guys Have All The Luck
     
    Els, May 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Els wrote:
    > > 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 ;-)


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

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 26, 2005
    #9
  10. dorayme

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Els wrote:
    >>> 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 ;-)

    >
    > 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 :))

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, May 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Els wrote:
    >>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 :))


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

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 26, 2005
    #11
  12. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    > dorayme wrote:
    >> 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?


    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
     
    dorayme, May 27, 2005
    #12
  13. dorayme wrote:
    > 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....

    --
    -=tn=
     
    Travis Newbury, May 27, 2005
    #13
  14. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    >> 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....


    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
     
    dorayme, May 27, 2005
    #14
  15. dorayme wrote:
    > > 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.


    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.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 27, 2005
    #15
  16. dorayme

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > dorayme wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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 :)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, May 27, 2005
    #16
  17. Els wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, May 27, 2005
    #17
  18. dorayme

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Els wrote:

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


    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?

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Now playing: Etta James - I Just Want To Make Love To You
     
    Els, May 27, 2005
    #18
  19. In article <BEBC9592.12092%>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > 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

    --
    <http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
     
    Leonard Blaisdell, May 28, 2005
    #19
  20. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Travis Newbury" <>

    > dorayme wrote:
    >>> 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.


    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
     
    dorayme, May 28, 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. Jake
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,185
    Eric J. Roode
    Dec 13, 2005
  2. Patrick Burke
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
    Patrick Burke
    May 19, 2004
  3. Patrick Burke
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    463
    Patrick Burke
    Jul 21, 2004
  4. realtybaron

    (fantasy) stock trading lib

    realtybaron, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    766
    Nick Pomfret
    Aug 21, 2004
  5. TheMuniCenter, LLC Jobs

    Bond Trading Front End Web Developer

    TheMuniCenter, LLC Jobs, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    591
    Eric Sosman
    Sep 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page