Yacht Brokerage website - Comments please.

Jerry. · Apr 12, 2004

Toby A Inkster said:
Imagine I ran a restaurant and I'd just had a plumber come in and do some
work on the customers' toilets. I'm unsure about the quality of the
plumbing work -- whether or not the pipes are likely to burst in the next
few months, say.

Who should I turn to for advice:

- a panel of plumbing experts; or

- my customers, as they're the ones who are going to *use* the
actual toilets?

As I see it, there are two issue here, a technical one, are the pipes going
to burst and a 'user' one, are those who are use the 'product' able to do
so - to carry your wash room example one stage further, although the plumber
has made a technically brilliant job of installing the new facilities he has
installed urinals into the ladies WC and only cold water for washing !

It will be the customers who will be complaining not the panel of plumbing
experts, the plumbing being a first class job...

In other words, can the site be used and are they comfortable with the level
of refinements - no one 'needs' hot water but most will expect it, you don't
need anything more than '<body><h1>A heading</h1><a href="pagetwo.htm">Link
to next page</a><p>Some....text.</p></body>' to get your message across but
most people 'these days' expect more.

Geoff Berrow · Apr 12, 2004

As I see it, there are two issue here, a technical one, are the pipes going
to burst and a 'user' one, are those who are use the 'product' able to do
so

So, in other words, it is wrong to ask just one of either group. You
have to ask them both.

Matt Probert · Apr 12, 2004

<uk.net.web.authoring , Angie Gibson , (e-mail address removed)>
<[email protected]>

Wouldnt like to come home to you with a broken pay packet

Its far from being the worst website i've seen and the so called experts
on here often talk out their arse & are blinded by their own hatred .

Would you like to name names? Most of us here produce or are
responsible for successful web sites - sorry just seen the group
cross-posting, I'm from alt.www.webmaster, I don't use the html
groups, too much flaming.

Dont you think more comments from the average joe would be more valuable
as its them who would be using the actual website .

I disagree. If the 'average joe' (why an Americanism from a Brit?) can
not use the site, they'll simply leave and say nothing. At least here
one can get the hard truth and realise one's "web designer" is a
cowboy.

Matt

Scott Bryce · Apr 12, 2004

Jerry. said:
As I see it, there are two issue here, a technical one, are the pipes going
to burst and a 'user' one, are those who are use the 'product' able to do
so - to carry your wash room example one stage further, although the plumber
has made a technically brilliant job of installing the new facilities he has
installed urinals into the ladies WC and only cold water for washing !

A competent plumber will hook up the hot water and put the urinals in
the correct bathroom.

The OP asked competent plumbers whether the site has been plumbed
correctly. The answer is "no." If the OP wants to conduct a usability
study, that's fine. It will confirm what the competent plumbers have
already pointed out.

John Bokma · Apr 12, 2004

Whitecrest said:
I hear all the time that it is not what "I the developer" want, but
what the VISITOR wants. What if the visitors wants that. Then is it
ok?

Sometimes. Sometimes you must show the visitor something new, to learn
it new wants.

{R} · Apr 12, 2004

In uk.net.web.authoring on Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:27:34 GMT,
(e-mail address removed) (Matt Probert) wrote:
} On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:43:35 +0100 CW
}<[email protected]> broke off from drinking a cup
}of tea at ncc-1701 to write:
[...]
}>Its far from being the worst website i've seen and the so called experts
}>on here often talk out their arse & are blinded by their own hatred .
}
}Would you like to name names?

www.cunard.com which I just happened to be trying to get some sense out
of, at the moment.

}I disagree. If the 'average joe' (why an Americanism from a Brit?) can
}not use the site, they'll simply leave and say nothing.

Yup.

{R}

Whitecrest · Apr 12, 2004

Sometimes. Sometimes you must show the visitor something new, to learn
it new wants.

Ah finally progress. So it is ok for the visitor to want something that
someone else might not like. Hey! I bet that is why when you search
goggle for something you get multiple web sites! Because different
people like the same content presented differently.

Man it is so simple when you look at it like that!

John Bokma · Apr 12, 2004

Whitecrest said:
Ah finally progress. So it is ok for the visitor to want something that
someone else might not like. Hey! I bet that is why when you search
goggle for something you get multiple web sites! Because different
people like the same content presented differently.

Man it is so simple when you look at it like that!

:-D. However, be careful not to give visitors new things that are so
complex they are convinced in 5 seconds they don't want it at all. I try
to stick to KISS as much as possible. Especially since most visitors to
my site seem to be info-shoppers, they use Google, come, look, and go.
If they need 10 minutes to figure out how to navigate the site, and 20
minutes to download a plug in, a reboot, etc....

Bill Logan · Apr 12, 2004

Scott Bryce said:
for washing !

A competent plumber will hook up the hot water and put the urinals in
the correct bathroom.

The OP asked competent plumbers whether the site has been plumbed
correctly. The answer is "no." If the OP wants to conduct a usability
study, that's fine. It will confirm what the competent plumbers have
already pointed out.

Not quite true. The OP asked if the look and navigation were
ok.
That tells me it is primarily a user issue. It can be that
a site does not meet the technical standards of (a few)
developers yet can at the same time be effective in
delivering what the user wants.
While IMO it is great if both what the user wants and good
coding standards coincide.
At the end of the day the real judge is, does the site
deliver what the visitor wants. If the answer is yes, the
methods and tools used to provide the delivery are of lessor
importance.

CW · Apr 12, 2004

<uk.net.web.authoring , {R} , (e-mail address removed)>
<[email protected]>

}I disagree. If the 'average joe' (why an Americanism from a Brit?) can
}not use the site, they'll simply leave and say nothing.

Yup.

Clearly its just me who doesnt possess any telepathic web skills .

Whitecrest · Apr 12, 2004

:-D. However, be careful not to give visitors new things that are so
complex they are convinced in 5 seconds they don't want it at all. I try
to stick to KISS as much as possible. Especially since most visitors to
my site seem to be info-shoppers, they use Google, come, look, and go.
If they need 10 minutes to figure out how to navigate the site, and 20
minutes to download a plug in, a reboot, etc....

I completely believe that 80% of the web sites (and 100% of the
ecommerce sites) be made as accessible as possible. But the other 20%
can go wild. Because they are catering to specific likes and dislikes
of the visitors. They know that some people can't see the site, and
search engines might not be able to navigate, that is ok because it is
giving the visitors what they want. THAT is the most important thing.

Neal · Apr 12, 2004

Not quite true. The OP asked if the look and navigation were
ok.

And we answered that they were not. Insufficiant contrast for readability,
and a screwed-up navigation system that is unavailable to some users and
poory designed for the rest.

That tells me it is primarily a user issue.

That's what we have been talking about.

It can be that
a site does not meet the technical standards of (a few)
developers yet can at the same time be effective in
delivering what the user wants.

The user wants to get to the goods. This nav system doesn't facilitate
that, and in some cases it makes it impossible. This is not an issue of
"code a page like me" - it's a matter of a common usability error.

While IMO it is great if both what the user wants and good
coding standards coincide.
At the end of the day the real judge is, does the site
deliver what the visitor wants. If the answer is yes, the
methods and tools used to provide the delivery are of lessor
importance.

In this case, I fail to see how the answer can be yes.

Whitecrest · Apr 12, 2004

At the end of the day the real judge is, does the site
deliver what the visitor wants. If the answer is yes, the
methods and tools used to provide the delivery are of lessor
importance.

Bingo!

Alan J. Flavell · Apr 12, 2004

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Bill Logan wrote:

[over-enthusiastic quotage now snipped]

The OP asked if the look and navigation were
ok.
That tells me it is primarily a user issue.

That's only partially right. It might look great in the one
mainstream situation that the author intended, and the navigation
might have given a fine impression of working in the one mainstream
situation that the author intended. But someone who's studied the
field can tell him where it's going wrong when the situation gets just
a little outside of that; whereas he'd maybe need to poll several
hundred disparate users, and evaluate their disparate answers, and
still might be no wiser about what it is that he did wrong to produce
the discontent that they're reporting.

And if you don't believe me, then I'd have to say you haven't been
paying attention to the various contributors' reports on this thread.

It can be that a site does not meet the technical standards of (a
few) developers yet can at the same time be effective in delivering
what the user wants.

Sure. The user can also commission a new house that looks great, even
though the roof will fly off in the next high wind. But it's "what
the user wants", so who cares about building regulations? Amongst
architects, such a designer would count as a charlatan, but who cares
about architects? Main thing is that it looks right, eh?

William Tasso · Apr 13, 2004

Matt said:
...
At least here
one can get the hard truth and realise one's "web designer" is a
cowboy.

unjustly harsh on cowboys?

Bill Logan · Apr 13, 2004

...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Bill Logan wrote:

[over-enthusiastic quotage now snipped]

Sure. The user can also commission a new house that looks great, even
though the roof will fly off in the next high wind. But it's "what
the user wants", so who cares about building regulations? Amongst
architects, such a designer would count as a charlatan, but who cares
about architects? Main thing is that it looks right, eh?

Exactly - architects may care what other architects think
but at the end of the day it comes down to what works for
the end user. If that is something that is built the way
some architects define as the correct way, fine. If it is
not, fine also.

Promoting standards and usability is great - for those that
lean in that direction. For others they are a non event. As
for a roof flying off in the wind. In a house that could be
dangerous to life. A web site that colapses because someone
creatively altered the defaults in their browser is hardly a
life or death issue.

Guest · Apr 14, 2004

Geoff said:
I noticed that Message-ID: <uhxec.32123$Y%[email protected]>
from Jerry. contained the following:

So, in other words, it is wrong to ask just one of either group. You
have to ask them both.

you wouldn't usually find them both in the same place, and if you
disturb the plumbers' meal to go look at the plumbing I don't think
they'd be pleased.

I think this has come about because it is crossposted.

Andy

news · Apr 15, 2004

Angie Gibson said:
A colleague of mine is having this website built, (URL below), but I'm not
happy about the way it looks or navigates, but would appreciate some
opinions from the people here as to what could be improved, or changed
before it progresses further, so I can advise them more accurately.

Thanks, Angie,
The URL is http://www.bristolyachtbrokerage.com

On your sales list, some indication on whether or not a picture is available
would be nice. I too would recommend darker text. And take a new picture
of the three guys with all of them smiling ;-)

Whitecrest · Apr 15, 2004

...And take a new picture
of the three guys with all of them smiling ;-)

Speaking of the three guys, The guy on the left is ok (but looks like a
failed American football player), the guy in the center looks like a a
cartoon from r.crumb (http://www.vividvision.com/crumb.html), and the
guy on the right looks like a rat.

I am not trying to insult any of them, but that's the first impression I
got. I am sure others do to. YMMV

webdev · Apr 23, 2004

Navigates fine. What's the perceived problem?

Rae MacLeman

Disabled comments based on IP?	6	Mar 4, 2012
Need help making the position of an infinite animation sticky	1	Dec 18, 2022
Hello all! Please help with your comments on my new website?	7	Oct 17, 2007
Please test my college project website	19	Aug 15, 2005
OT: a metacomment on feedback comments	4	Apr 23, 2009
Comments on ObjectiveView issue 9 (no, I'm not a spambot)	3	Dec 12, 2006
I want visitors to be able to leave comments...	6	Mar 26, 2006
Working on mobile css menu with plenty of frustration!	2	Dec 29, 2022

Yacht Brokerage website - Comments please.

Jerry.

Geoff Berrow

Matt Probert

Scott Bryce

John Bokma

{R}

Whitecrest

John Bokma

Bill Logan

CW

Whitecrest

Neal

Whitecrest

Alan J. Flavell

William Tasso

Bill Logan

Guest

news

Whitecrest

webdev

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest Threads