I just found an interesting website.

[Chaddy2222]

That's an inappropriate generalisation. It's a generalisation because
you've identified one group (teenagers with good eyesight) and then
generalised them as representing all users. It's an inappropriate
generalisation, _not_ because burger-munching couch potatoes don't get
haemorrhoids (they do), but because you've argued that what works for
one site will thus work for all sites.

You might regard this as the fallacy of affirming the consequent
instead. The fact that an audience can do something doesn't mean that
they _should_ be forced to do it. We're arguing in favour of
appropriately-sized fluid-designed sites here, not sites with a
rigidly fixed "large print" approach. They're nearly as bad as the
rigid small-print sites. Having accessibly-sized text doesn't mean
that users can't also have small text, if they prefer it and can read
it.

Whether your argument here stands or falls though, that cited site is
simply poor technical execution by anyone's standards. There's just no
excuse for it.

I agree. I think the main point is that for websites offering web
design services need to work and work well, on any browser on any OS
and with any configeration, why, well you would really need to wonder
about the designers skills if the site was not accessible or did not
function correctly.

 

[Chaddy2222]

When making a page readable over a large range of settings is so
easy, why would one do anything else?

Well the main reason would be if it increased your sales, or helped
your bottom line. If I learn what excites my target audience, and I
give it to them, then my sales go up even if I designing like that
makes the site unusable to some non target audience visitors.

If I am selling hemorrhoid cream, then I will more than likely get the
most sales if the site can be viewed, and navigated easily by an older
audience like your Mom. With the exception of maybe a application
training video [oh the visuals that brings], the site would probably
be very straight forward. Putting fancy Flash menus is meaningless to
someone that has hemorrhoids.

But, if I am selling a cool ass video game that is directed at couch
potato 12-17 year old boys who spend every moment of their lives
either masturbating or playing this game, then I will have a shit load
of fancy Flash, lots of suggestive boobalishious images and videos for
them to see. Your Mom would probably never be able to use the site,
and I might even lose a sale to you if she tried to go to the site and
buy you a birthday present, But I am pretty sure that the sales I
gain by giving my target audience (read that as the people that LOVE
this kind of stuff) exactly what they want will far outweigh the few
I lose because someone not in my target audience (your Mom) can not
use the site for one reason or another.

That is why you might not want to make your pages readable over a
large range of settings. And your right, making a site that spans all
configurations is easier than the one I described.

In the case of the site you discribe, you kind of need a bit of both,
in fact that is the kind of site where a splash page would actually
work well, you would provide a link to the interactive site, with
video etc, then you would also provide a link to an online store, so
if people (eg the parents), who were not interested in wasting time
online, but who were being pested by their children, (lots are), to
buy a specific game then they could go their to the online store and
choose the product, pay for it and leave and everyones happy, a lnk to
the online store could also be provided through the interactive site.