Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
And I should have titled this thread better as well. Not that the design is bad, but the build process is lacking IMHO. Jeff Doc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick, > > Just by way of clarification, when I said "it _looks_ bad" I wasn't > referring to the visual aspect of the design, but rather the execution. > > Cheers > Steve > > On 06/10/06, Nick Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Also, I wouldn't even say it "looks bad" as visually it's much better > > than a lot of sites (aside from little things like overly faint and/ > > or small text). With that in mind the only way to really say it is > > bad design is if it is inappropriate to it's requirements... which we > > don't know. > > > -- > Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA > Director, User Experience Strategy > Red Square > P: +612 8289 4930 > M: +61 417 061 292 > > Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org > Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org > Member, Web Standards Group - www.webstandardsgroup.org > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
And I should have titled this thread better as well. Not that the design is bad, but the build process is lacking IMHO. Jeff Doc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick, > > Just by way of clarification, when I said "it _looks_ bad" I wasn't > referring to the visual aspect of the design, but rather the execution. > > Cheers > Steve > > On 06/10/06, Nick Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Also, I wouldn't even say it "looks bad" as visually it's much better > > than a lot of sites (aside from little things like overly faint and/ > > or small text). With that in mind the only way to really say it is > > bad design is if it is inappropriate to it's requirements... which we > > don't know. > > > -- > Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA > Director, User Experience Strategy > Red Square > P: +612 8289 4930 > M: +61 417 061 292 > > Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org > Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org > Member, Web Standards Group - www.webstandardsgroup.org > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Sorry Steve, I wasn't intentionally referring your point, I was just dismissing any general idea that it was bad design visual design. I need to be more discriminatory with my use of quotation marks next time. Nick Just by way of clarification, when I said "it _looks_ bad" I wasn't referring to the visual aspect of the design, but rather the execution. Cheers Steve On 06/10/06, Nick Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also, I wouldn't even say it "looks bad" as visually it's much better than a lot of sites (aside from little things like overly faint and/ or small text). With that in mind the only way to really say it is bad design is if it is inappropriate to it's requirements... which we don't know. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Nick,Just by way of clarification, when I said "it _looks_ bad" I wasn't referring to the visual aspect of the design, but rather the execution. CheersSteve On 06/10/06, Nick Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also, I wouldn't even say it "looks bad" as visually it's much betterthan a lot of sites (aside from little things like overly faint and/or small text). With that in mind the only way to really say it is bad design is if it is inappropriate to it's requirements... which wedon't know.--Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC , MBADirector, User Experience StrategyRed SquareP: +612 8289 4930M: +61 417 061 292Member, UPA - www.upassoc.orgMember, IxDA - www.ixda.orgMember, Web Standards Group - www.webstandardsgroup.org ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Yes I was thinking the same really. We cannot say this is a case of "bad design principles" without being fully aware of the requirements of the site. For example; if the point of the site was simply to be referred to in correspondence or if they wanted to have something for people who checked their site after receiving an @hansermusicgroup.com email etc, but did not want to get random search traffic then it may be appropriate(except of course for individuals with accessibility issues!). Also, I wouldn't even say it "looks bad" as visually it's much better than a lot of sites (aside from little things like overly faint and/ or small text). With that in mind the only way to really say it is bad design is if it is inappropriate to it's requirements... which we don't know. I'd say it's a little simplistic to run every site through a standards checklist without knowing its real intentions. Nick With all of that said, it's always difficult to judge a site from the outside, except on superficial grounds. Knowing the intent of the site is important, and the audience, so I would put one big caveat around the above two paragraphs and say "It _looks_ bad, but it might be right for the audience". *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Jeff,Who is the corporate site targetted towards? I don't think its actual musicians - they'd be more likely (IMO) to go to one of the specific brand sites. So for a corporate/group Web site - i.e. an umbrella site displaying the breadth of the range - the visual representation isn't bad per se. However, the execution fails on a number of levels. Christian's list provides a really good start for the flaws in this site, but the real danger for me is the possibility that this same style of presentation might be used on the brand-specific Web sites like www.kustom.com - that would be a disaster.For the corporate site, the code-level execution is going to act as one big sandbag - holding the site back from reaching out to its audience through search engines; limiting accessibility; limiting usability & usefulness; and (perhaps most importantly) setting a poor initial impression with respect to the company's products. On the surface it's hard to say whether the site is 'on message', but I'd be really surprised if that were the case. With all of that said, it's always difficult to judge a site from the outside, except on superficial grounds. Knowing the intent of the site is important, and the audience, so I would put one big caveat around the above two paragraphs and say "It _looks_ bad, but it might be right for the audience". Regards,Steve BatyOn 05/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:-- --Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBADirector, User Experience StrategyRed Square P: +612 8289 4930M: +61 417 061 292Member, UPA - www.upassoc.orgMember, IxDA - www.ixda.orgMember, Web Standards Group - www.webstandardsgroup.org ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
It is ironic that this is being done by a Marketing Department when you consider that they should be the very ones chasing for search engine welcoming content. Starting from the very top the titles are not too bad but even the urls need work: dh.html > davitt_and_hanser.html olp.html > olp_guitars.html In fact I can stop there as others have commented on the rest but I think it's really a case of showing facts like stats and how deeply Google, for example, are indexing the site. Right now the Google bots have clearly indexed the site but only appear to have got as deep as the front page: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahansermusicgroup.com Results like that look unimpressive coming from a Marketing Department. If you really want to demonstrate how invisible it is use the Firefox Web Developer extension to hide the images! Nick Thank you for your comments. And yes, I am looking for stronger arguments regarding why we should not be building our websites like this. I was in charge of the building of these brand sites for the last three years. Now after reorganization, I am moved out from under the direction of the IT Manager and now I am in the Marketing Department under the supervision od the new Creative Director who has hired a new web designer to work with him locally in his satellite office. This site is what I got to put up for the new HMG site. And the others that are coming are no better. We went from square one 3 years ago to about 60-70 per cent of the way towards having our sites compliant and accessible and now we have gone back to square one IMHO. So good arguments are appreciated and is what I was intending this post to provoke. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
OK then: 1) Completely invisible to Google and other search bots 2) Tiny type that is readable only by 20-year old eyes, and it gets even smaller the further you drill into the site. 3) No response to UA changes in type size to resolve #2 4) Patently inaccessible to those with disabilities. There's not even so much as a single "alt=" 5) Incredibly wasteful of real estate on any screen larger than 800x600 6) Because of all the photos, it loads slowly even on my T1 line 7) Why is a shot of their corporate headquarters meaningful for a music company? A bank, fine. A music company? 8) The text is drivel. To wit: The Davitt & Hanser Music Co. hopes to get its hold on... "Hopes to get its hold on"? What are they? Rapists? 9) The bottom left link is broken (the bottom left photo) Need more? I have dozens... Like the quote from Jack Hasner from " " Magazine... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles So good arguments are appreciated and is what I was intending this post to provoke. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Need I say anymore? > > > > www.hansermusicgroup.com > > > > Thoughts? > > We all know the site is bad and *why* it's bad... so what's the point > of discussing it? Unless there's something standards-related to gain > from this discussion, there's no real point to having a bunch of > replies that say "yes, it sucks." But I'm not a moderator or anything > and I'm certainly not saying this is against list policies... I'm just > saying it's a waste of time. If you would like us to share arguments > you can use to convince the site designer to change it, then that's > totally different. In which case I would say: this will never market > well... it does nothing at all for search engines which pretty > much ruins the whole point of having an "info/about us" site like > this. It's just too bad that the guys at Hanser got ripped off. > > -- > -- > Christian Montoya > christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com > Thank you for your comments. And yes, I am looking for stronger arguments regarding why we should not be building our websites like this. I was in charge of the building of these brand sites for the last three years. Now after reorganization, I am moved out from under the direction of the IT Manager and now I am in the Marketing Department under the supervision od the new Creative Director who has hired a new web designer to work with him locally in his satellite office. This site is what I got to put up for the new HMG site. And the others that are coming are no better. We went from square one 3 years ago to about 60-70 per cent of the way towards having our sites compliant and accessible and now we have gone back to square one IMHO. So good arguments are appreciated and is what I was intending this post to provoke. Jeff *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Ok that's very clear and is exactly what I thought you were getting at.And good counsel to follow in my own designs.maOn 10/4/06, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 10/4/06, Christian Montoya < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > > Need I say anymore?> > >> > > www.hansermusicgroup.com> > >> > > Thoughts?> >...> > this will never market > > well... it does nothing at all for search engines which pretty> > much ruins the whole point of having an "info/about us" site like> > this. It's just too bad that the guys at Hanser got ripped off. On 10/4/06, Mark Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Christian,>> For the less experienced could you "unpack" your statement some. > That is, tell us more about the *why*.>> maAs I said, without any textual information on the page (look at thesource... just a bunch of img tags without even alt attributes),there's nothing for a search bot (that's a machine that doesn't have eyes) to pick up. A search bot goes through that page and says,"there's nothing here but a bunch of images and _javascript_. I have noinformation. I can't tell what's going on."Heck, the page doesn't even have META descriptions or keywords! Not that search engines like Google pay attention to that stuff anymore,but after you read the title of the page, there's nothing left toexamine. This is not how you make a site search-engine friendly.-- --Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com*** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]*** -- Best,Mark 617-538-6803 (mobile --- day or anytime)617-249-1539 (f)"One thing I ask of the Lord...that I may witness the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living (Psalms 27: 4, 13 --- my loose trans. of the Hebrew Masoretic text, Stuttgartensia)" ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
On 10/4/06, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Need I say anymore? > > > > www.hansermusicgroup.com > > > > Thoughts? > ... > this will never market > well... it does nothing at all for search engines which pretty > much ruins the whole point of having an "info/about us" site like > this. It's just too bad that the guys at Hanser got ripped off. On 10/4/06, Mark Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Christian, For the less experienced could you "unpack" your statement some. That is, tell us more about the *why*. ma As I said, without any textual information on the page (look at the source... just a bunch of img tags without even alt attributes), there's nothing for a search bot (that's a machine that doesn't have eyes) to pick up. A search bot goes through that page and says, "there's nothing here but a bunch of images and javascript. I have no information. I can't tell what's going on." Heck, the page doesn't even have META descriptions or keywords! Not that search engines like Google pay attention to that stuff anymore, but after you read the title of the page, there's nothing left to examine. This is not how you make a site search-engine friendly. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Christian,For the less experienced could you "unpack" your statement some.That is, tell us more about the *why*.maOn 10/4/06, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Need I say anymore?>> www.hansermusicgroup.com>> Thoughts?We all know the site is bad and *why* it's bad... so what's the pointof discussing it? Unless there's something standards-related to gainfrom this discussion, there's no real point to having a bunch of replies that say "yes, it sucks." But I'm not a moderator or anythingand I'm certainly not saying this is against list policies... I'm justsaying it's a waste of time. If you would like us to share arguments you can use to convince the site designer to change it, then that'stotally different. In which case I would say: this will never marketwell... it does nothing at all for search engines which prettymuch ruins the whole point of having an "info/about us" site like this. It's just too bad that the guys at Hanser got ripped off.Christian Montoyachristianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***-- Best,Mark 617-538-6803 (mobile --- day or anytime)617-249-1539 (f) "One thing I ask of the Lord...that I may witness the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living (Psalms 27: 4, 13 --- my loose trans. of the Hebrew Masoretic text, Stuttgartensia)" ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Need I say anymore? www.hansermusicgroup.com Thoughts? We all know the site is bad and *why* it's bad... so what's the point of discussing it? Unless there's something standards-related to gain from this discussion, there's no real point to having a bunch of replies that say "yes, it sucks." But I'm not a moderator or anything and I'm certainly not saying this is against list policies... I'm just saying it's a waste of time. If you would like us to share arguments you can use to convince the site designer to change it, then that's totally different. In which case I would say: this will never market well... it does nothing at all for search engines which pretty much ruins the whole point of having an "info/about us" site like this. It's just too bad that the guys at Hanser got ripped off. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Hah! So much for a cursory scan. All I did was look at the design. -- Marc Luzietti Flagship Project Bayview Financial, L.P. (305) 341-5624 > For its intended audience, I don't see the problem. It's targetted at > artists, > who usually have a higher threshhold for PIA designs and prefer more > interesting layout, typography, design, etc. Not every website is intended > for the lowest common denominator. Yeah, but how would these designers find it? No text = no Google Juice. I don't think OCR scanning is part of the Algo yet. -- Chris Heilmann *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
What, the fact that there is none? > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles > > I do see a glaring CSS mistake though. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
For its intended audience, I don't see the problem. It's targetted at artists, who usually have a higher threshhold for PIA designs and prefer more interesting layout, typography, design, etc. Not every website is intended for the lowest common denominator. Yeah, but how would these designers find it? No text = no Google Juice. I don't think OCR scanning is part of the Algo yet. -- Chris Heilmann Book: http://www.beginningjavascript.com Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
I'm a big fan of the way its only response to resizing of the text is to scoot further and further down the page. Nothing else changes. Very user friendly. > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [WSG] Bad Design Principles > > Thoughts? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
For its intended audience, I don't see the problem. It's targetted at artists, who usually have a higher threshhold for PIA designs and prefer more interesting layout, typography, design, etc. Not every website is intended for the lowest common denominator. I do see a glaring CSS mistake though. -- Marc Luzietti Flagship Project Bayview Financial, L.P. (305) 341-5624 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org 10/04/2006 11:25 AM Please respond to wsg To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org cc: Subject: [WSG] Bad Design Principles Need I say anymore? www.hansermusicgroup.com Thoughts? -- Thanks! Jeff *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
Matthew Pennell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > www.hansermusicgroup.com > > > > Thoughts? > > > But at least it all fits above the fold in 800x600! And we all know that's > what matters... ;) > I have already thrown all the obvious out to the new Creative Director and new web designer but nothing has stuck yet. The reply to someone's browser having javascript and images turned off..."that is the least of my concerns." I am almost speechless. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Bad Design Principles
On 10/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: www.hansermusicgroup.comThoughts?But at least it all fits above the fold in 800x600! And we all know that's what matters... ;) ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
[WSG] Bad Design Principles
Need I say anymore? www.hansermusicgroup.com Thoughts? -- Thanks! Jeff *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
