trading post

D

dorayme

From: Leonard Blaisdell said:
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.

I'm talking using the site in anger, looking for things. Pretend you want
some back springs for a specific old car and see how you go. I have since
posting this looked at some other sites that have a degree of complexity in
database and they fare so much better.
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.

Keep going!

I am sure that this site is an unnecessary tragedy. It is just that I can't
prove it!

dorayme
 
T

Travis Newbury

dorayme said:
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)

Ah this brings up a perfect example. I knew what you meant. Everyone
that read the post knew what you meant. But how many times do you see
people rip others apart by by misrepresenting what we all know they
mean? Or more often seen, misrepresenting ones post to mean the extreme.
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.

Yes, but you have to agree that the general mood of the "experts" in the
group leans towards one size must fit all.
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.

The problem is what "adds to the site" means is in the eyes of the
beholder. What I believe constitutes "adds to the site" is probably
completely different from what Jukka (no offense Jukka) believes it
means. And what if the content "is" Flash?

We should probably rename this thread to something like "flame-free web
philosophies"
 
R

Richard Cornford

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

When would 'the primary audience has broadband' be true? (as opposed to
maybe 'the primary audience may have a tendency to have broadband'). For
someone selling broadband upgrades then maybe the primary audience does
have broadband (with a secondary audience who may be interested in
purchasing upgrades for others and using an unknown connection type).

There seems to be a common practice to hiding behind some notion of a
'target audience' where it is difficult to see how such an audience can
have the characteristics proposed for that audience. When someone say
'my target audience all use default installations of Window IE 5.5+'
(and you know that they are not writing for an Intranet where that might
be a certainty) I end up wondering what it is exactly they are selling.
(Superior desktop Windows web browsers? Add-ons for IE?).

Having a target audience makes sense. For an e-commerce site (or an
advertising funded site) it seems reasonable to say that the target
audience does not include those without a disposable income (as they are
not going to purchase anything). And if the produce is expensive (or
utterly trivial) the target audience might be restricted to those with a
larger disposable income. Market research might narrow that audience
down to, say 'individuals with at least a moderate disposable income,
between the ages of approximately 20 and 35 and having a reasonably
active lifestyle' (selling snowboarding gear or some such).

In a non-commercial context another notion of 'target audience' would
apply. I, for example, write web pages about the application of
javascript. Obviously the target audience is people with an interest in
javascript, and not people who's interests exclude javascript.

What I cannot see is how a target audience derived form the relationship
between the characteristics of individuals and the products, services
and content of a web site easily relates to the equipment, software and
general web browsing circumstances of those individuals. Unless the
products, services and content of the sites are themselves directly
related to web browsing.

So when I read someone asserting that their 'target audience' only use
IE, or only use broadband I suspect that it was the web developer who
divined the 'target audience' for their own convenience, rather than
that the target audience was deduced from the purpose of the web site in
question.

And in an e-commerce context I see that as the web developers getting in
the way of the business interests. They act to restrict potential
turnover, rather than maximise it. They may do so because they lack to
skills to do any better (and may even assert that it would be
restrictively expensive for them to acquire and apply those skills
(though they shouldn't expect to be believed when assessing the
potential cost of the application of skills they don't have)), but still
the business has a real target audience related to what it does, and it
is extremely unlikely that that target audience corresponds exclusivly
with the users of a particular web browser, or a particular type of
connection.

Richard.
 
D

dorayme

From: Travis Newbury said:
...I knew what you meant. Everyone
that read the post knew what you meant.

Well, fair enough, I was thinking maybe not since you used "fact" in quoting
me back in making a point of your own. Maybe to be diplomatic to me. If so,
nice of you. I doubt if everyone would know this English expression... :)
how many times do you see
people rip others apart by by misrepresenting what we all know they
mean? Or more often seen, misrepresenting ones post to mean the extreme.

I agree that this sort of thing goes on too much. The causes for folk not
reading between the lines and making charitable interpretations are complex.
And sometimes ugly. But there is little one can do to change these things
here.
Yes, but you have to agree that the general mood of the "experts" in the
group leans towards one size must fit all.

Well, this is not all that clear to me I am afraid. I still think you take
the mood *too* seriously and that underneath it is something more complex
which I have tried to describe.
The problem is what "adds to the site" means is in the eyes of the
beholder. What I believe constitutes "adds to the site" is probably
completely different from what Jukka (no offense Jukka) believes it
means. And what if the content "is" Flash?

It is not quite relevant that different people have different views as to
what adds to a site. The point I was making was that if you use Flash for
anyone who thinks it would be nice, then who here would object violently if
it is used with proper alternative backup as explained. In fairness, most if
not all the more knowledgeable people here have made this kind of point
quite often.

dorayme
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Ah this brings up a perfect example. I knew what you meant. Everyone
that read the post knew what you meant. But how many times do you see
people rip others apart by by misrepresenting what we all know they
mean? Or more often seen, misrepresenting ones post to mean the extreme.

No offence, but isn't that exactly what you are doing? Claiming that
people are saying that every site must fit this "one size fits all"
category, when in most cases, if not all, that is not what they are
actually saying.
Yes, but you have to agree that the general mood of the "experts" in the
group leans towards one size must fit all.

That's because as dorayme said, it is the best "overall starting
attitude to website design". Sure, there may be the occasional situation
where it isn't the best philosophy, but in the majority of cases it is,
and it is certainly a good place to start. Incidentally, I don't know of
anyone here who would consider themself an "expert". ;-)
We should probably rename this thread to something like "flame-free web
philosophies"

<g>
 
T

Travis Newbury

Mark said:
No offence, but isn't that exactly what you are doing? Claiming that
people are saying that every site must fit this "one size fits all"
category, when in most cases, if not all, that is not what they are
actually saying.

No I am saying the general "feel" of the group is one size fits all.
And I don't say that is wrong, only that I personally don't like it. I
personally like fun, color, pizazz, "the wow factor" movement, And I
completely understand I (because of PC) am on the losing side of that
argument. I see the web I like going away and being replaced with what
"I consider" a bland politically correct piece of vanilla paper...

Obviously some see that as a good thing.
 
B

Brendan Taylor

No I am saying the general "feel" of the group is one size fits all.
And I don't say that is wrong, only that I personally don't like it. I
personally like fun, color, pizazz, "the wow factor" movement, And I
completely understand I (because of PC) am on the losing side of that
argument.

I've asked before, but I still don't understand. Why do you think
"political correctness" (a term I don't particularly like, "sensible
design" works better) and pizazz are mutually exclusive?
 
T

Travis Newbury

Brendan said:
I've asked before, but I still don't understand. Why do you think
"political correctness" (a term I don't particularly like, "sensible
design" works better) and pizazz are mutually exclusive?

Give me an example of a site with both.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
No I am saying the general "feel" of the group is one size fits all.
OK.

And I don't say that is wrong, only that I personally don't like it. I
personally like fun, color, pizazz, "the wow factor" movement,

I don't mind that stuff in the right context, but the content still
needs to be accessible. If the fancy stuff *is* the content, that's a
different matter, but in most cases it isn't. Just the other day I was
playing Flash games online - I don't expect them to be accessible to
anyone not using Flash - but they are a rare exception, and I went
looking for them specifically.
And I
completely understand I (because of PC) am on the losing side of that
argument. I see the web I like going away and being replaced with what
"I consider" a bland politically correct piece of vanilla paper...

Obviously some see that as a good thing.

I don't see it doing that at all, and no - it wouldn't be a good thing
if it did. There's nothing preventing most sites from both having the
"pizzazz", *and* being accessible, except the cluelessness of the
webmasters.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Give me an example of a site with both.

That doesn't answer the question. Whether it has been done or not does
not necessarily correspond with whether it is possible, or even how easy
it is.
 
D

dorayme

From: Travis Newbury said:
No I am saying the general "feel" of the group is one size fits all.
And I don't say that is wrong, only that I personally don't like it. I
personally like fun, color, pizazz, "the wow factor" movement, And I
completely understand I (because of PC) am on the losing side of that
argument. I see the web I like going away and being replaced with what
"I consider" a bland politically correct piece of vanilla paper...

Obviously some see that as a good thing.


OK. Lets forget the exact business of working out the meaning and status of
your idea of "one size fits all" and see your view as a challenge to show
that separating style from content, not using tables except for tabular
data, generally keeping away from frames and not well supported stuff like
internal scroll bars, judicious use of fixed widths etc etc etc can and do
result in good and interesting and useful websites some or many of which are
fun, colourful, have real style and so on.

But you are not allowed to say that because a site contains Flash and gifs
and pics of all sorts that this does not count. Because as far as I can see,
not too many are saying you should not use these things, rather that there
should be fallbacks for people who want to get at the info and bypass all
the fun...

dorayme
 
T

Travis Newbury

Mark said:
That doesn't answer the question. Whether it has been done or not does
not necessarily correspond with whether it is possible, or even how easy
it is.

Your right. Now that we know they are not mutually exclusive, can you
tell me how to make cartoon network usable by all, and 508 compliant
without eliminating any features.
 
T

Travis Newbury

dorayme said:
Because as far as I can see,
not too many are saying you should not use these things, rather that there
should be fallbacks for people who want to get at the info and bypass all
the fun...

Many sites exist just for the fun. Back to an earlier question I asked.
Can Flash be content?
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Many sites exist just for the fun. Back to an earlier question I asked.
Can Flash be content?

Absolutely. See my post from earlier. My point though is that those
sites are the minority on the web. Most sites *do* need to be accessible
to everyone.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Mark said:
Absolutely. See my post from earlier. My point though is that those
sites are the minority on the web. Most sites *do* need to be accessible
to everyone.

Oh I completely agree with you. You can find a million times where I
say that most sites, especially if they depend on their website for
revenue, should be accessible to as many people as possible. But what I
have a problem with is "need to be". I don't believe the web should be
regulated so a site "has" to be accessible, or usable. Yes, if I am
selling widgets it only make sense to have my site accessible, and
usable by as many as possible. But if I as a retailer find that my
sales go up if I use fancy javascript or flash menus, and cookies or
[enter your own favorite accessibility or usability issue here]. Then I
feel it is the right of the web site owner to do as they please, with
total disregard for any sales they may be turning away because of
accessibility or usability issues.

I am completely against any form of regulation on the web. And forcing
a site to be accessible or usable to all would be a regulation. Yes it
might be dumb for a site to take that route, and in most cases it
probably is dumb. But I would rather have sites learn from their
stupidity or g out of business because of it than to regulate what they
can or can not do.
 
M

Mark Parnell

Previously in alt.html said:
Oh I completely agree with you. You can find a million times where I
say that most sites, especially if they depend on their website for
revenue, should be accessible to as many people as possible. But what I
have a problem with is "need to be".

I don't, but I think we're getting into semantics now. I'm not talking
about "need" in the sense of "are required".
I don't believe the web should be
regulated so a site "has" to be accessible, or usable.

I agree, though e.g. Government sites are an exception, IMHO.
Yes, if I am
selling widgets it only make sense to have my site accessible, and
usable by as many as possible. But if I as a retailer find that my
sales go up if I use fancy javascript or flash menus, and cookies or
[enter your own favorite accessibility or usability issue here]. Then I
feel it is the right of the web site owner to do as they please, with
total disregard for any sales they may be turning away because of
accessibility or usability issues.

I am completely against any form of regulation on the web. And forcing
a site to be accessible or usable to all would be a regulation. Yes it
might be dumb for a site to take that route, and in most cases it
probably is dumb. But I would rather have sites learn from their
stupidity or g out of business because of it than to regulate what they
can or can not do.

Fair enough. As I said above, I'm not talking about forcing them to
comply. What I am saying is that for a site to be successful, it *needs*
to be accessible, in the same way that for me to survive crossing a busy
road, I *need* to be careful. Yes, there may be exceptions, but they are
a small minority.

Methinks we actually agree on most points; we're just arguing it from
different perspectives. :)
 
D

dorayme

From: Travis Newbury said:
Many sites exist just for the fun. Back to an earlier question I asked.
Can Flash be content?

If the content cannot be delivered in any other way then the following is
true: The content cannot be delivered in any other way. Now, don't be coy,
how about actually naming any obviously non-lunatic on this newsgroup you
reckon would suggest that such sites should not exist at all in that case?

dorayme
 
D

dorayme

From: Travis Newbury said:
Oh I completely agree with you. You can find a million times where I
say that most sites, especially if they depend on their website for
revenue, should be accessible to as many people as possible. But what I
have a problem with is "need to be". I don't believe the web should be
regulated so a site "has" to be accessible, or usable. Yes, if I am
selling widgets it only make sense to have my site accessible, and
usable by as many as possible.

That is not the impression you gave at the very beginning of this thread
when it was still called Trading Post. You were quite happy that the site
concerned was as slow as hell in operation on dial up. You were quite happy
that it seemed ok to you on broadband! Nothing else seemed to matter?
I am completely against any form of regulation on the web. And forcing
a site to be accessible or usable to all would be a regulation. Yes it
might be dumb for a site to take that route, and in most cases it
probably is dumb. But I would rather have sites learn from their
stupidity or g out of business because of it than to regulate what they
can or can not do.

Force? Any? Form? Regulation? Who is forcing what? I am wondering who you
are actually disputing? Who recognises you as criticising them in
particular? Name some names. C'mon Travis, lets have it all out, pick on
someone (not me) and lets see if they do say what you claim they are doing
and saying. In the end, it has to come down to individuals. You are making
these general claims, but get down to specifics. Name and accuse
individuals. You will never be as unpopular as me, ever, so don't worry...
:)


dorayme
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top