Question please!!!

[WebcastMaker]

PU? What does that mean?

That is what you say when you smell someone else's fart.

I appreciate your feedback, not especially your
wording, though...
Images are intentionally left out...
If you don't like the color scheme I have picked,
well, I could choose another, and some others
wouldn't like that...
But if the text is difficult or unpleasant to
read, then that is a problem....
My pages are meant to be as informative as
possible...,

They probably are informative, but I never got around to reading them
because I did not like the "feel" of the page, and went to a different
page.

The point I was making was not if your page was good or not, but that
different strokes for different folks. You have to come up with the
design that works for YOUR content. There are guidelines we follow, but
these are only design guidelines, not set in stone.

YMMV

 

[Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen]

That is what you say when you smell someone else's fart.

Aha! I'll try to be just as polite to you, then... ;-)

They probably are informative, but I never got around to reading them
because I did not like the "feel" of the page, and went to a different
page.

Disable styles, then, or use your own
stylesheet... It's up to you!

The point I was making was not if your page was good or not, but that
different strokes for different folks. You have to come up with the
design that works for YOUR content. There are guidelines we follow, but
these are only design guidelines, not set in stone.

My guidelines don't go into the "feel" of pages,
only what *generally* makes a site inacessible or
distracts the reader from the content, and what
content I think is reasonable for a (genealogy)
site. Do we agree now?

 

[Jeffrey Silverman]

Well, the visitor don't care about any of that. They want a site that
works, will get them to content, and won't piss them off.

So, consider every visitor you might get and proceed to design a site that
works for them, gets them to the content, and doesn't piss them off

Neal, I think you mean *you* don't care about any of that.

I have talked with a lot of people -- designers, writers, programmers, and
"normal" people -- about site design on the way to creating a site for
them. I think that a "good" site depends on much more than just its
content or accessibility of that content.

Flashy flash, images, and colors are all some people need for a site to be
"good" to them.

In fact, the things that make a site "good" are so highly variable that it
is a very hard question to answer. Even the metrics that are "objective"
are not always relevant. For example, what good is consistent navigation
and layout to a highly experimental artist's website? and that site may
validate perfectly, and be "good" in other ways.

However, I strongly feel that the content is the key, and will dictate
what is needed to make a particular site "good".

I suppose there are some purely objective metrics that should be adhered
to such as validation (i.e. properly written HTML and CSS) and site
navigation, layout, and information hiearchy. But all rules are meant to
be broken, as long as you can break them well.

 

[Sam Hughes]

Hell, THAT is a site I would consider bad design! Sure it validates,
but it looks and reads like hell. Bland boring, nasty colors,text
across the entire screen, no images.

I was reading Poe the other day. There were no images on any of that
book's pages. How boring!

The page in its present state is very useful, as it contains nothing but
information. Though, I would add a table of contents at the top, so that
people can know what information the page has without scrolling down
tediously.

Perhaps you think that the quality of Web design is proportional to the
number of images in the design. Or perhaps it follows a logistic function,
or perhaps exponential decay, with

quality = -a*e^(-x) + b,

x being the number of images, a and b being positive constants.

Which model do you think we should follow?

 

[Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen]

The page in its present state is very useful, as it contains nothing but
information. Though, I would add a table of contents at the top, so that
people can know what information the page has without scrolling down
tediously.

Thanks, good idea, I have done that now.

 

[WebcastMaker]

Disable styles, then, or use your own
stylesheet... It's up to you!

It is not common knowledge. You visitors probably don't know how to do
that. Which means that your decisions are important.

My guidelines don't go into the "feel" of pages,
only what *generally* makes a site inacessible or
distracts the reader from the content, and what
content.

My guidelines do include feel. And "feel" has nothing to do with
accessibility, nor does it distract the user from the content. So we
agree to disagree.

I think is reasonable for a (genealogy)
site.

I think this is a better genealogy site. http://tinyurl.com/54qoh

It appeals to me more than yours did, and given the choice I would
choose it. But see, this is where personal preference comes in.

 

[WebcastMaker]

I was reading Poe the other day. There were no images on any of that
book's pages. How boring!

What a silly comparison. Google the group and you will find the web is
NOT a book or a magazine so the comparison is silly

The page in its present state is very useful, as it contains nothing but
information. Though, I would add a table of contents at the top, so that
people can know what information the page has without scrolling down
tediously.

I did not say it was not informative, or useful, I said it did not
appeal to me. Therefore I will go elsewhere to get my genealogy
information.

Perhaps you think that the quality of Web design is proportional to the
number of images in the design. Or perhaps it follows a logistic function,
or perhaps exponential decay, with
quality = -a*e^(-x) + b,
x being the number of images, a and b being positive constants.
Which model do you think we should follow?

I can not say which model YOU should follow. I am not you. And you,
are not everyone.

 

[Day Brown]

What a silly comparison. Google the group and you will find the web is
NOT a book or a magazine so the comparison is silly

I wouldnt call it silly, but perhaps understandable, that this screen,
which is so adaptable to images, has not been well setup to present
text. Of course, books are for people with longer attention spans than
webpages, which rarely run more than 10 minutes worth of reading.

I can see where Attention Deficit Disorder may not be limited to kids.
But I can also see ways to present text on this screen, even long works
like Gibbon, in a much more readable manner. I think there is a clue in
the fact that the old Fido BBS newsgroups were easier to deal with even
though, and perhaps because, they were more limted to ASCII.

Part of the problem is the ubiquitous white background of .pdf manuals I
see for technical equipment and software. It looks like it is trying to
copy the white paper black ink format of hardcopy. but- paper is a
reflector of light, while this screen with a white background is an
emitter. Which may not be such a big deal in well lit offices with
overhead flourescents, but results in glare in the subdued lighing
commonly used in homes.

So- yee havta be aware of where the reader will be when reading.

 

[Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen]

I think this is a better genealogy site. http://tinyurl.com/54qoh

It appeals to me more than yours did, and given the choice I would
choose it. But see, this is where personal preference comes in.

I just want to point out that there are at least
three different kinds of genelogy sites...
1) Fee based like Ancestry.com
2) Free like http://ellisislandrecords.org/
3) Personal homepages, like mine

It would be somewhat unfair to compare sites from
different categories.
My goal is to connect with people who have the
same ancestors as myself, not to sell CDs! I need
to present what I have in a way so that people can
find out whether or not I have their ancestors. I
want my pages to be clear and easy to navigate as
well as visually appealing enough to browse
through. I can't imagine that someone looking for
Norwegian ancestors, and end up on my pages, will
choke on the colors!

 

[WebcastMaker]

I just want to point out that there are at least
three different kinds of genelogy sites...
1) Fee based like Ancestry.com
2) Free like http://ellisislandrecords.org/
3) Personal homepages, like mine

It would be somewhat unfair to compare sites from
different categories.

Snore.... Look you threw the linkup, asked, and I gave you my response.
Sorry I fell your site is bland and boring.

 

[Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen]

Snore.... Look you threw the linkup, asked, and I gave you my response.
Sorry I fell your site is bland and boring.

Not really, originally, I just pointed to the
advice I had on the page I already had made,
instead of posting them directly in the message.
I don't care if you think it is bland and boring,
because I don't think we have common ancestors
after the Black Death. But who knows, I am getting
a hunch I may have English-American ancestors now,
the name Joseph Bourne looks "suspicious"...

 

[Day Brown]

Not really, originally, I just pointed to the advice I had on the page I
already had made, instead of posting them directly in the message.
I don't care if you think it is bland and boring, because I don't think
we have common ancestors after the Black Death. But who knows, I am
getting a hunch I may have English-American ancestors now, the name
Joseph Bourne looks "suspicious"...

Whatever, it looks like yer critic prefers eye candy. I'm a bastard, so
I aint interested in geneology, but I can see that if I was, the issue
of boring would not be a problem. Presenting data in a simple fashion
that actually has something worthwhile to say, should not be dependent
on the aesthetic values of webmasters who have reputations of innovation
to maintain.

 

[WebcastMaker]

Whatever, it looks like yer critic prefers eye candy.

Not eye candy, but I like things that are pleasing to the eyes. There
is a difference

data in a simple fashion
that actually has something worthwhile to say, should not be dependent
on the aesthetic values of webmasters who have reputations of innovation
to maintain.

You are right, it "should not" be dependant. But in reality, it is.
People in general like eye candy. They like it on TV, they like it in
Magazines, and book covers, and packaging, and just about everything.
including web sites.

(Keep in mind, "eye candy" has NOTHING to do with accessibility. The
two can live in harmony)

 

[Day Brown]

(Keep in mind, "eye candy" has NOTHING to do with accessibility. The
two can live in harmony)

Care to define 'accessabilty'? The problem I cope with, is how to present
text on this screen in two columns, so that it reflows from the bottom
of the left hand column to the top of the right, just as we see in
printed media. Closest I've seen so far is <frames>, but often I see
that the user hasta scroll the mouse to see the bottom of the frame.

There dont seem to be any way to determine the number of lines on the
user's browser window. The only option I've seen so far is to make a
screen cap jpg or gif, which can be 'sized' to fit whatever the browser
leaves. Whether text is wider or taller dont matter a whole lot if the
font is not too fancy.

 

[WebcastMaker]

The problem I cope with, is how to present
text on this screen in two columns, so that it reflows from the bottom
of the left hand column to the top of the right, just as we see in
printed media.

Other than "because I want to", which is a valid reason, why do you
need to do this?

 

[Karl Groves]

Neal, I think you mean *you* don't care about any of that.

I have talked with a lot of people -- designers, writers, programmers, and
"normal" people -- about site design on the way to creating a site for
them. I think that a "good" site depends on much more than just its
content or accessibility of that content.

Flashy flash, images, and colors are all some people need for a site to be
"good" to them.

Bullshit.
The truth is that yes, an attractive website goes a long way toward
impressing users. However, I've seen no end to the frustration experienced
by users who couldn't use an attractive website any better than an ugly one.
In a task-based interaction, an ugly/ plain website will always win over a
flashy one.

-Karl

 

[WebcastMaker]

Bullshit.
The truth is that yes, an attractive website goes a long way toward
impressing users. However, I've seen no end to the frustration experienced
by users who couldn't use an attractive website any better than an ugly one.
In a task-based interaction, an ugly/ plain website will always win over a
flashy one.

The key to this statement is "In a task-based interaction". Absolutely,
in your checkout, or at some critical point in a process, by all means
the objective should be functionally over pizzazz.