Website Paradigms: Are We Creating Bad Standards Unwillingly?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by fullposter, Dec 13, 2006.

  1. fullposter

    fullposter Guest

    [not native english speaker speaking, ok? - i posted also to another
    group being unsure whether html.critics was more appropriate and yet
    less read than this - so 2 posts on the whole]

    Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
    particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good posts
    that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some relative
    interest.

    Let's make this short review. Some extremely popular websites - which I
    know because I _use_ them, so if I do I can't imply they are bad in
    themselves. Yet, there is something to say.

    Flickr: you won't get very impressed by its front page. You won't say
    the palette of colours is well chosen : blue, fucsia, grey, azure,
    another sahde of blue and grey.
    You try http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/summer/ and you will see
    navigational options on bottom: written tiny, with a grey header almost
    invisible on white background (#999 9px "big" on #fff isn't exactly a
    lecture in legibility... or is it?)

    Craigslist: a typical ad certainly isn't in an enticing setting: a few
    lines of naked text, in an ocean of white.

    Ebay: a giant. Palette: red green azure grey blue yellow. You need a
    degree in Cryptoanalysis to find out where things are - I know it
    sounds ingenerous, but its complexity seems to have run out of control.
    If you browse the categroies then, you find the strangest colours
    included things like #d989a9 #6bd6ad #dddd33 or bg #7d81d7 with #0000cc
    on foreground.

    Myspace. I like it and most of is detractors judge it on contents that
    are user made, actually. However, you still find things like picture
    commands dispersed rather than grouped in one area where one would
    logically expcet them, and color palettes that you won't call well
    studied. Palette seems inconsistent also in the shared areas.
    Same thing for Hi5.

    Delicious: you find font 9 on bg white and text colour #888888

    Match.com: palette is #99cc00 #cccccc #d568a7 #c52481 #375092 #788dc4
    #ec008c #d6d6d6 #284b9e, navigational menus on bottom as tiny as they
    can be

    Monster com, palette: #663399 #a1b934 #c7d582 #330066 #875900 links on
    bottom bg white text #999999 about 8px

    Now, haven't we already created EXPECTATIONS in our users, if so many
    _great_ sites adopt these solutions that, thus, become a standard? BY
    standard I mean the expectations that the ongoing experience of surfers
    may instill in the surfers themselves.

    1) Texts should be small - fearing wasting paper I argue lol
    2) texts can be light gray, small, on white background
    3) options shouldn't be grouped
    4) colors must go as wild as possible. matching brown with purple as if
    it were a great combination
    5) commands should not be immediately apparent: they must be looked for
    and chased in a clustered interface, or must be semi transparent to
    make sure you won't find them too easily.

    I am interested in this because I developed a site, whose address i
    will NOT print here because it is not my concern to advertise it but to
    see if my thoughts can make any sense to some among you, where I use:

    1) big TEXT
    2) 1 colour: blue - background white text black
    3) big buttons to make commands immediately apparent.
    4) xhtml strict valid

    Do you know what? Some users get disconcerted: they say text is too
    big, blocks of commands strike too much the eye, the interface
    intimidates them as if it were howling its commands to them.
    Maybe: but how much of it is due to objective criticism, and how much
    of it is due to the fact we have educated our users that commands must
    be looked for until you remember where they are, and texts can be as
    small as possible, and colors run everywhere without any logic or
    consistency?

    We advocate standards, we advocate consistency, we advocate legibility.
    Where is the last time we have found it? And anyone of you out there
    has ever experienced that if you give legiblity, our surfers have been
    educated to find it like an insult rather than a feature - big text as
    something TOO clear?
    fullposter, Dec 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. fullposter

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "fullposter" <> wrote:

    > i do not put any
    > particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    > quality is not very high,


    I take the bracketed remark as a personal insult.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fullposter

    fullposter Guest

    No insult meant, go figure a personal one: I don't even know you.
    You were trying to confirm the point didn't you? LOL

    The post raises a topic. If one prefers concentrating on a bracket to
    feel offended, one can go with it. But then, how big our narcissism can
    be when every bracket is enough to make our self esteem feel shattered
    to the personal point.

    Quality many times is not very high. It's a fact. Why you thought I was
    addressing you, is something that you only may know.

    Now, anyone interested in the topic rather than in desultory brackets?


    dorayme ha scritto:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > "fullposter" <> wrote:
    >
    > > i do not put any
    > > particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    > > quality is not very high,

    >
    > I take the bracketed remark as a personal insult.
    >
    > --
    > dorayme
    fullposter, Dec 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Scripsit fullposter:

    > [not native english speaker speaking, ok? - i posted also to another
    > group being unsure whether html.critics was more appropriate and yet
    > less read than this - so 2 posts on the whole]
    >
    > Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
    > particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    > quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good
    > posts that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some
    > relative interest.
    >
    > Let's make this short review.


    You spent the 15 seconds attention span that you typically get, at best,
    from an average reader. At this point, you haven't said a single word about
    the subject matter of your message, still less formulated a single statement
    about it.

    You did manage to insult some people, though.

    There's an HTML-related lesson to be learned. People write web pages quite
    often as you wrote your message - without even trying to get to the point
    during the precious few seconds that you can reasonably expect people to
    look at your message.

    There's good old advice on writing a column (for a newspaper or equivalent):
    start writing, and finish at the end of the paper, then cut off the first
    half and throw it away; then work on the remaining text (usually making it
    shorter, among other things). This might, with due modifications, be used
    when creating short web page, and also when writing a Usenet message that
    you regard as important.

    So get to the point early. Otherwise there's no reader left when you start
    getting to the point.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 13, 2006
    #4
  5. fullposter

    fullposter Guest

    But no Jukka: when I want to insult someone I don't do like that: i do
    like: hey you **** motherfucker what ahbout sucking some cock and
    swallowing?
    Now, that is insulting.
    Only kids get insulted by "many times quality isn't high". Come on, you
    credit me with little if you think that all I copuld be capable of when
    at insulting was that.
    If I meant to insult you, you couldn't finish reading for other
    reasons... lol

    You got bothered exactly at the line where the topic started, the last
    you quote:
    " Let's make this short review."
    Let's say the truth Jukka: you are here not to select the topics you
    like and contribute, but just to focus on as much as you find necessary
    to find an argument. And that's ALL you are interested in.

    So you can take my word, if I meant to insult you, you would feel
    insulted indeed.

    The attention span of the readers is not my concern. I am actually not
    addressing guys like you. I am addressing those who may like having a
    bit of leisure time and, with calm, enjoy reading posts. Also, guys
    intelligent enough that they know one can skip a line or two
    occasionally.

    You jnow we are in the hamburgers times: all want to get the point
    soon, and end up as fat as baloons.

    My post is not for you Jukka. It is clearly for those who may want to
    read 5 minutes.
    If you are such a busy man that you can't read finve minutes, how comes
    you find 4 to write a reply o that you are attending a newsgroup at
    all?

    Let's forget about it: I said quality is many times low, let's say it
    is almost always low. Guys like you and the other are the confirmation.
    Just a mistake guys, I should have remembered that if one wants a
    slightly more sophisticated intellectual discussion, one should not ask
    to you oin the first place.

    Good hamburger. And I won't follow the discussion any longer, sorry to
    have wasted MY time hoping there could be one normal person in here
    able to read 5 minutes. The last time you read a book was at school
    wasn't it?

    Newsgroups: a place for losers as ignorant as a stone. A mistake, never
    mind.
    Good bye, morons







    Jukka K. Korpela ha scritto:

    > Scripsit fullposter:
    >
    > > [not native english speaker speaking, ok? - i posted also to another
    > > group being unsure whether html.critics was more appropriate and yet
    > > less read than this - so 2 posts on the whole]
    > >
    > > Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
    > > particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    > > quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good
    > > posts that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some
    > > relative interest.
    > >
    > > Let's make this short review.

    >
    > You spent the 15 seconds attention span that you typically get, at best,
    > from an average reader. At this point, you haven't said a single word about
    > the subject matter of your message, still less formulated a single statement
    > about it.
    >
    > You did manage to insult some people, though.
    >
    > There's an HTML-related lesson to be learned. People write web pages quite
    > often as you wrote your message - without even trying to get to the point
    > during the precious few seconds that you can reasonably expect people to
    > look at your message.
    >
    > There's good old advice on writing a column (for a newspaper or equivalent):
    > start writing, and finish at the end of the paper, then cut off the first
    > half and throw it away; then work on the remaining text (usually making it
    > shorter, among other things). This might, with due modifications, be used
    > when creating short web page, and also when writing a Usenet message that
    > you regard as important.
    >
    > So get to the point early. Otherwise there's no reader left when you start
    > getting to the point.
    >
    > --
    > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    fullposter, Dec 14, 2006
    #5
  6. fullposter

    freemont Guest

    On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:08:49 -0800, fullposter writ:

    > Newsgroups: a place for losers as ignorant as a stone.


    You should feel right at home then.

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont© <-·¯`·..·¯
    freemont, Dec 14, 2006
    #6
  7. fullposter

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "fullposter" <> wrote:

    > No insult meant, go figure a personal one: I don't even know you.
    > You were trying to confirm the point didn't you? LOL
    >
    > The post raises a topic. If one prefers concentrating on a bracket to
    > feel offended, one can go with it. But then, how big our narcissism can
    > be when every bracket is enough to make our self esteem feel shattered
    > to the personal point.
    >
    > Quality many times is not very high. It's a fact. Why you thought I was
    > addressing you, is something that you only may know.
    >
    > Now, anyone interested in the topic rather than in desultory brackets?
    >
    >
    > dorayme ha scritto:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > > "fullposter" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > i do not put any
    > > > particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    > > > quality is not very high,

    > >
    > > I take the bracketed remark as a personal insult.
    > >
    > > --
    > > dorayme


    OK, lets take this slowly and have a discussion, a deep one.
    Please forgive me for feeling insulted before but it is not my
    fault. Things in brackets just trigger that in me. It is a wiring
    fault of mine. It happens when a stranger puts anything in
    brackets, no matter what. I am seeing someone about this
    condition.

    As for your topic, I think what many might feel is that you
    seemed awfully naive to suppose it was some sort of specific
    topic, something new, something you were bringing to light. What
    is wrong with so many websites is the business, generally of
    alt.html, how to write good HTML and css, how and what to avoid
    from the general crumminess all around, among many more narrow
    technical issues.

    I suppose there are some specific interesting topics as to how
    bad habits spread and so on but really... you cannot expect to
    simply list so many faults with so many websites and consider we
    have ... lift off, Houston, for a great topic...

    (

    ooeee... I notice you know some very rude and naughty words in
    your reply to old Korpela... which reminds me... sorry if it
    seems illogical, I get that way when I use brackets to strangers:

    Can you please not top-post?

    )

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Dec 14, 2006
    #7
  8. fullposter

    Vince Morgan Guest

    "fullposter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > [not native english speaker speaking, ok? - i posted also to another
    > group being unsure whether html.critics was more appropriate and yet
    > less read than this - so 2 posts on the whole]
    >
    > Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
    > particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
    > quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good posts
    > that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some relative
    > interest.
    >
    > Let's make this short review. Some extremely popular websites - which I
    > know because I _use_ them, so if I do I can't imply they are bad in
    > themselves. Yet, there is something to say.
    >


    I won't enter into the first part, as the quality of my posts is almost
    always quite poor unfortunately.
    However, with regard to your observations as to layout on very busy and
    popular sites, I have to agree.
    I think the problem lies in ballancing the wishes of the customer with what
    is supposed to be good practice. Customers inherintly want their site to
    look, well, to look the way they wish to see it. What they desire is often
    the product of graphic artists, who themselves are wanting to make artwork
    that pleases the eye of the customer, and have little or no regard for the
    technicalities involved in marking it up.
    As you have observed (accurately I beleive) the persons using the net,
    visiting these sites, have become accustomed to the vaguearies of markup,
    and have develloped skills in this regard. I recently observed myself
    looking for a "contact us" link, and was surprised as to how quickly I found
    it, considering it's rather ridiculous location on the page.

    Very recently I have been involved in a discusion about layout options for a
    new site that involved the client, the artists, and myself. What the client
    sees from the artist he likes, or not. If he likes, then he looks to me
    expectantly. If my response is not altogether positive, what is he, a non
    technical person, to think? The artist only wishes to make the client
    happy, and will not be too supportive if his nice little silver on white bit
    at the bottom is criticised by a person of little artistic ability (me).
    The client recalls seeing many many sites that are very popular doing
    exactly what this artist is suggesting. He sees me trying to explain why
    this isn't considered good practice, and he's suddenly very tired.
    In the end I wither under the artists calm and self assured gaze and after
    passing some smelling salts under the clients nose, tell him that if that's
    how he want's it, that's how it will be.
    At that point I feel much like a web policemen who has had his gun relocated
    as a butt plug.

    Unfortunately, perhaps, freedom of speech translates into freedom of
    everything when it comes to the web. And certain restraints often need to
    be considered when your mind flashes to the "heres the invoice" part of the
    transaction.

    And, if you actualy consider your observations a different way, you may find
    yourself asking "who or what is driving the net in this direction" and I'm
    sure if you do you will see that every client/customer is indeed also a web
    surfer.

    You may know the rules. You may have the skills. But the person in the
    back seat, that possess none of these, will still insist on giving you
    directions.
    Vince Morgan
    Vince Morgan, Dec 14, 2006
    #8
  9. fullposter wrote:
    > But no Jukka: when I want to insult someone I don't do like that: i do
    > like: hey you **** motherfucker what ahbout sucking some cock and
    > swallowing?


    Your confused. I know several women that like me to talk that way...

    (Well, that puts a whole new light on the topic...)
    Travis Newbury, Dec 14, 2006
    #9
    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. Jo Blow

    documents on differing paradigms

    Jo Blow, Dec 25, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    325
    Jo Blow
    Dec 25, 2004
  2. crichmon

    C++: 4 paradigms?

    crichmon, Jul 18, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    1,759
    White Wolf
    Aug 1, 2004
  3. Eli Bendersky

    Paradigms in implementation of counters

    Eli Bendersky, May 24, 2006, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    797
    Mike Treseler
    May 31, 2006
  4. rantingrick
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,208
    Peter Pearson
    Jul 13, 2010
  5. pedz
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    217
    Scott Sauyet
    Jun 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page