How not to change a website: a reader's view

[Joy Beeson]

I clicked on Weather Underground this morning to see how long the
snowfall would last, and discovered that instead of a nice simple
layout (current conditions on the left, predictions on the right,
summary at the top, details below) there was data all over the place,
and I had to page down and down and down to find the summary.

Ordinarily, my reaction would have been "Oh, well, I'll learn my way
around, and find out how many times to push "page down" for each
feature. And this much extra area must contain some extra
information."

BUT there was a banner at the top that said "Miss the old site?
_Classic view_." I hadn't had breakfast yet, so I clicked "classic
view" so I could find the data I wanted at once -- and found a
completely new and hitherto unheard of format that, near as I could
tell without making a long and careful study, didn't contain *any*
information. (Well, there was a television script that probably did
contain the prediction, but (see "no breakfast") I didn't feel like
reading past the introduction.)

Moral: if you don't want your readers deciding that your rival is
better after all, make deleted sure that the link that says "click
here for the old one" does, in fact lead to the old one.

Since you probably don't have the resources to maintain the old one,
better by far to say "Zippedy Doo Dah! New Format!" and link to a map
of the new site.

Who cares what the weather is going to be? I'm going to go fry an
egg.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I clicked on Weather Underground

Your story was interesting, but I cannot see the situation myself, as
googling for those words gives several plausible alternatives, and those
that I checked had nothing like you describe.

So how about a URL?

 

[Lewis]

In message <[email protected]>

I clicked on Weather Underground this morning to see how long the
snowfall would last, and discovered that instead of a nice simple
layout (current conditions on the left, predictions on the right,
summary at the top, details below) there was data all over the place,
and I had to page down and down and down to find the summary.

It's quite hideous and I've stopped going there.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

The first google result for Weather Underground is
www.wunderground.com .

Yes, that sounded promising.

Clicking on that link takes you to a weather page.
Indeed.

And at the top of www.wunderground.com is a link that says "Miss the
old site? _Classic view_".

Not on my screen. Searching for "classic" gives no result on that page,
whether I search normally or in HTML source.

So apparently, in addition to other possible issues, the page seems to do
some clu... questionable personalization. Among other things, in the main
horizontal menu, one of the items is "Sääkarta & Radar", where the first
word is apparently a misspelling of the Finnish word for weather map. I also
see some mixed language elsewhere on the page.

And the page says that my current location in Helsinki, Finland, which is
about 15 kilometers off. That's understandable in a way, since it probably
does geolocation on the basis of ISP, which is... er... coarse.

It got worse when I tried it on my mobile "phone" (you know those
pocket-size devices for Angry Birds, also capable of Internet connections
and even telephony), with GPS enabled (so I expect an accuracy of a few
hundred meters if not better). Some hours ago the page said my current
location is Lahti, Finland (about 100 km off), and now it tells me I'm in
Jyväskylä, Finland (over 270 km off).

www.wunderground.com

Technically, that's a URL, but a relative one, with no base address set.

 

[Tim Streater]

Yes, that sounded promising.


Not on my screen. Searching for "classic" gives no result on that page,
whether I search normally or in HTML source.

So apparently, in addition to other possible issues, the page seems to do
some clu... questionable personalization. Among other things, in the main
horizontal menu, one of the items is "Sääkarta & Radar", where the first
word is apparently a misspelling of the Finnish word for weather map. I also
see some mixed language elsewhere on the page.

And the page says that my current location in Helsinki, Finland, which is
about 15 kilometers off. That's understandable in a way, since it probably
does geolocation on the basis of ISP, which is... er... coarse.

Enter your postcode then. It's got us to within about 4 miles and found
the nearest weather station.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Enter your postcode then. It's got us to within about 4 miles and
found the nearest weather station.

I'm not sure I should try and fix the problems of a page that is apparently
_meant_ to do geolocation (at least Firefox prompted for permission to do
that) and fails miserably.

But for the fun of it, I entered my postcode (02210), and now it says I'm in
Boston, Massachusetts. This is something new - wrong continent. I don't dare
to try anything more, as it might relocate me on another planet, or in
another galaxy.

 

[dorayme]

And at the top of www.wunderground.com is a link that says "Miss the
old site? _Classic view_".

Not on my screen. Searching for "classic" gives no result on that page,
whether I search normally or in HTML source.

So apparently, in addition to other possible issues, the page seems to do
some clu... questionable personalization.[/QUOTE]

When I went to it for the first time it showed the Sydney weather
prominently, it did not mention my street nor much about me. I
did not enter any location. But I did look to see where I could
tell them that Joy Beeson fries eggs for breakfast.

I notice it has <html!> at the top. The W3 CSS validator should
maybe stop saying the truncated

"Property border-radius doesn't exist in CSS level 2.1 but exists
in : 3px 3px"

 

[dorayme]

In message <[email protected]>


It's quite hideous and I've stopped going there.

What is *hideous" about it?

 

[Lewis]

What is *hideous" about it?

Well, the massive amounts of wasted white space on a page that I am
going to to get INFORMATION is pretty bad. 400 pixels of essentially
nothing at the top of the page is another huge turn off.

 

[dorayme]

Well, the massive amounts of wasted white space on a page that I am
going to to get INFORMATION is pretty bad. 400 pixels of essentially
nothing at the top of the page is another huge turn off.

There is no *massive amount* of wasted space here in Sydney first
up. Perhaps I am getting one of the better and appropriate pages
straight off and you are unlucky from all its sniffin' and
inquisitiveness.

<http://www.wunderground.com/>

About the weather, it is scattered cloud here and that is an
improvement from very cloudy this morning. This means that it is
probably worth driving to the beach and having a swim this avo.

 

[Lewis]

There is no *massive amount* of wasted space here in Sydney first
up. Perhaps I am getting one of the better and appropriate pages
straight off and you are unlucky from all its sniffin' and
inquisitiveness.

I get 'menu' of sorts at the top of the screen. Below that is some
graphics, some white space, and another menu.

Below that is a header, some more space, and then, finally, some
information abotu current temperatures. But very little information.

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/392110/wunder.png>

that screenshot is 393 pixels high and the only actual INFORMATION is
the current temp and 'partly cloudy', that's ALL.

there is nothing there showing the next few days, much less the next few
hours. Nothing about wind chill, wind speed, or anything that a glance
outside to the thermometer wouldn't give.

When I used to go there I had just about all the info I needed,
including five day forcast, a weather map, highs and lows for the next
few hours, and all without scrolling.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

But for the fun of it, I entered my postcode (02210),

[...]
You obviously have reading issues.

I often do, for example on pages that have tiny font size or bureaucratic
language. Don't you?

Which part of "for the fun of it" did you fail to understand?

If you are in another country, it's not called a ZIP code is it?

How would you know that? Americanisms abound.

So why would you put a postal code in a zip code field?

Because there are so many web pages with forms that contain an obligatory
field for zip code, and entering a postcode tends to make them happy.

 

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, that sounded promising.


Not on my screen. Searching for "classic" gives no result on that page,
whether I search normally or in HTML source.

So apparently, in addition to other possible issues, the page seems to
do some clu... questionable personalization. Among other things, in the
main horizontal menu, one of the items is "Sääkarta & Radar", where the
first word is apparently a misspelling of the Finnish word for weather
map. I also see some mixed language elsewhere on the page.

And the page says that my current location in Helsinki, Finland, which
is about 15 kilometers off. That's understandable in a way, since it
probably does geolocation on the basis of ISP, which is... er... coarse.

All of that matches my own observations. Again, the location isn't
hopelessly wrong, but it's not right either (again probably about 15 km
off). Probably you need to be located in the US to get the full
experience. Curiously, though, they don't seem to attempt to write
anything in French -- the word paired with "Radar" is, boringly, "Map".

 

[Norman Peelman]

All of that matches my own observations. Again, the location isn't
hopelessly wrong, but it's not right either (again probably about 15 km
off). Probably you need to be located in the US to get the full
experience. Curiously, though, they don't seem to attempt to write
anything in French -- the word paired with "Radar" is, boringly, "Map".

GeoLocation can only be so accurate... it will mostly get it right,
sometimes be a little off, and sometimes be completely wrong. The idea
is that most people see the right place and everyone else is given the
option to enter the correct info (and save as a preference).

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

GeoLocation can only be so accurate... it will mostly get it right,
sometimes be a little off, and sometimes be completely wrong. The idea
is that most people see the right place and everyone else is given the
option to enter the correct info (and save as a preference).

Yes, but here the issue is that a site that apparently tries to use
geolocation, and has excellent reasons for that, seems to fail miserably
with it.

 

[Tim Streater]

You obviously have reading issues.

The site says "Type your zip code, city, state, airport code or
country".

If you are in the USA, 02210 is the ZIP code for Boston, MA.

If you are in another country, it's not called a ZIP code is it?

So why would you put a postal code in a zip code field?

Worked for me. It gives a location 4 or 5 miles away from here, and
found the nearest weather station.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Yes, but here the issue is that a site that apparently tries to use
geolocation, and has excellent reasons for that, seems to fail miserably
with it.

Yes, when I had the unfortunate "pleasure" of a satellite ISP, similar
geolocation type sites like

http://www.titantv.com/

kept offing me stations in Kansas a mere 1000 miles away.

 

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, when I had the unfortunate "pleasure" of a satellite ISP, similar
geolocation type sites like

http://www.titantv.com/

kept offing me stations in Kansas a mere 1000 miles away.

It's a bit like browser-sniffing: sites shouldn't try to guess where
you are on the basis of insufficient and unreliable information. What's
so unreasonable about expecting users to _tell_ the site where they
are, at least on the first visit?

This morning the weather site told me I was in Cap Pomègues, which
surprised me a bit as I wasn't sure I'd heard of such a place. Google
Maps hasn't heard of it either, though it has heard of an island called
Île de Pomègues, and that, indeed, is what I assumed was meant. "Cap
Pomègues" seems to be a transmitter on the island, but it doesn't seem
to be a recognized geographical location. If you do a search for it
you'll get lots of weather sites, but not much else (not among the
first 30 hits, anyway). Nothing in Finnish, but there is one in
Estonian, which Jukka can doubtless read.

 

[Tim Streater]

My guess is your postal code has no 'matching' zip code, so the system
knows the code you entered isn't a ZIP code.

Quite. But you do have the option to enter as follows:

Type your zip code, city, state, airport code or country

It's not heard of my village but that's perhaps not surprising.

 

[dorayme]

It's a bit like browser-sniffing: sites shouldn't try to guess where
you are on the basis of insufficient and unreliable information. What's
so unreasonable about expecting users to _tell_ the site where they
are, at least on the first visit?

Nothing wrong with "taking a wild guess where you are but if it
is wrong, please enter your location." if the guesses are not
really so wild for a lot of users. There is a natural bias
against error in this usenet group and so rational discussion
with you lot is probably impossible. <g>