RE: Ouch- was: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
Hi Terrence I try to avoid personal attacks and I thought twice before sending and once before the graphic designer attack. After sending it I realized I should have at least re-read the thing before hitting the send button. What I was referring to was this line: why you would search specifically for a date is beyond me. Do you really search alertbox in that manner? I just use the search box if I am after specfic content =) To avoid conflict and confusion this could have been better worded, just as my response could have benefited significantly by more thoughtful prose. Regardless of Jakob's web site, my point was that we shouldn't presume how someone is going to look at information and should try to offer the content as effectively as possible. Granted, we could use a span to wrap the dates and CSS to present them more attractively. This would create cleaner code and more flexibility in presentation. I think that would go way above Jakob's head. Placing this information in a table with title, date, summary, etc would be a nice alternative. I don't mean to judge you as a person or a programming. I meant to debate the concept of presenting information. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terrence Wood Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:25 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: Ouch- was: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right! Hi Ted, I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. I really don't see how my previous post connects to the bigger concept of what conscientious responsible web developer's should strive for, in fact I don't even understand what you by that. Should I take it that you consider me as not conscientious nor responsible, or if I'm not with you, I'm against you? My post was not a personal attack on Nick, nor was it dismissive of his POV. Admittedly, I got the impression he was struggling to come up with an example of how alertbox is difficult to use and perhaps that has tainted my message, but I was genuinely interested in whether he truely wanted to select his articles based primarily on date. I never said that date based scanning was irrelevant - I stated that, in this case, it was secondary to the title, and in fact pointed out what (in my view) the purpose of the dates were. I didn't design alertbox, obviously, so it's anyones guess as to how it is intended to be used, but I really sincerely believe that alertbox is about as easy to use as it gets. Surely, part of usability is pruning out the complexities of an interface? Less complexity, and fewer decisions to make, in theory, should make things more obvious and easier to use. And, surely one way to do that is by not trying to cater for every possible use case? I suggest that a scanning for single word pattern say, intranet, is far easier to do than scanning a variable date range (2000 or 2001) which is the minimum of two matches and twice the mental load. It's also easier to do using your browsers find function. Would you have tried to search the list by date prior to Nicks post, or were you using that as an excercise to see if it was difficult to get results? Did you search first for the word Intranet, and then the date, or the other way around (as Nick suggests you should be able to do)? Is publication in 2000 and 2001 the primary criteria, or is it more important that it concerns Intranets? Lastly, I wonder about the wisdom of taking cheap shots at graphic designers on a list frequented by designer types, such as myself... but maybe I'm being overly sensitive to criticism? kind regards Terrence Wood. Drake, Ted C. said: > Hi Terrence > > I think your argument is against what we, as conscientious responsible web > developers should strive for. Nick states he finds the list difficult to > read. That is an honest reaction, frankly I agree with his analysis of a > table would be better. > > But you defended the list by assuming a date-based scan of the items is > not > relevant. We should be providing information in the most compelling manner > possible. A great web developer anticipates the many ways a person will > look for and at the data and prepares the page accordingly. > > Sure, it's easier for us to dismiss people for not using the site as we > anticipated. But those people are still called graphic designers. (Sorry, > I > went to art school and we always sought the cheap shot at the graphic > designer students a floor below) > Seriously, that is what usability and accessibility is all about. Make > your > content easy to use. Don't dismiss someone for wanting to use it > differently. > > By the way, after looking at the original post, I did go through and look > for dates. I was trying to look for one of his 10 best intranet posts >
Re: Ouch- was: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
Hi Terrence, My post was not a personal attack on Nick, nor was it dismissive of his POV. Admittedly, I got the impression he was struggling to come up with an example of how alertbox is difficult to use and perhaps that has tainted my message, but I was genuinely interested in whether he truely wanted to select his articles based primarily on date. I wouldn't say I was struggling at all. I would agree I was looking for a sensible, grown-up alternative to the kind of honest, gut-reaction that I get when I look at that site. I would say the poor visual quality does not encourage me to revisit the site when there are plenty of alternatives on the web that provide as good information that is also pleasant to use. Also for more perspective, I am interested in what Jakob Nielsen has to say. For example I just recently listened to an interview with him on ITconversations.com. So really what my reply to you was doing was actually stopping and trying to work out why I rarely visit his website. I never said that date based scanning was irrelevant - I stated that, in this case, it was secondary to the title, and in fact pointed out what (in my view) the purpose of the dates were. Well, I also had in my head the fact that in a dynamic site you can link table headers to sort their columns, which in this apparently "static" site was not an option, so I was probably thinking ahead a bit too much. In any case the point of the table was to have the user go, e.g.: I want to scan by title so I go down the title column, then across the description to see if the article was relevant, then to the date to see how up-to-date the information may be...or down the date column, etc. In other words using it exactly as a table is meant to be used. Oh and I didn't feel you were personally attacking me, Nick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: Ouch- was: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
Hi Ted, I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. I really don't see how my previous post connects to the bigger concept of what conscientious responsible web developer's should strive for, in fact I don't even understand what you by that. Should I take it that you consider me as not conscientious nor responsible, or if I'm not with you, I'm against you? My post was not a personal attack on Nick, nor was it dismissive of his POV. Admittedly, I got the impression he was struggling to come up with an example of how alertbox is difficult to use and perhaps that has tainted my message, but I was genuinely interested in whether he truely wanted to select his articles based primarily on date. I never said that date based scanning was irrelevant - I stated that, in this case, it was secondary to the title, and in fact pointed out what (in my view) the purpose of the dates were. I didn't design alertbox, obviously, so it's anyones guess as to how it is intended to be used, but I really sincerely believe that alertbox is about as easy to use as it gets. Surely, part of usability is pruning out the complexities of an interface? Less complexity, and fewer decisions to make, in theory, should make things more obvious and easier to use. And, surely one way to do that is by not trying to cater for every possible use case? I suggest that a scanning for single word pattern say, intranet, is far easier to do than scanning a variable date range (2000 or 2001) which is the minimum of two matches and twice the mental load. It's also easier to do using your browsers find function. Would you have tried to search the list by date prior to Nicks post, or were you using that as an excercise to see if it was difficult to get results? Did you search first for the word Intranet, and then the date, or the other way around (as Nick suggests you should be able to do)? Is publication in 2000 and 2001 the primary criteria, or is it more important that it concerns Intranets? Lastly, I wonder about the wisdom of taking cheap shots at graphic designers on a list frequented by designer types, such as myself... but maybe I'm being overly sensitive to criticism? kind regards Terrence Wood. Drake, Ted C. said: > Hi Terrence > > I think your argument is against what we, as conscientious responsible web > developers should strive for. Nick states he finds the list difficult to > read. That is an honest reaction, frankly I agree with his analysis of a > table would be better. > > But you defended the list by assuming a date-based scan of the items is > not > relevant. We should be providing information in the most compelling manner > possible. A great web developer anticipates the many ways a person will > look for and at the data and prepares the page accordingly. > > Sure, it's easier for us to dismiss people for not using the site as we > anticipated. But those people are still called graphic designers. (Sorry, > I > went to art school and we always sought the cheap shot at the graphic > designer students a floor below) > Seriously, that is what usability and accessibility is all about. Make > your > content easy to use. Don't dismiss someone for wanting to use it > differently. > > By the way, after looking at the original post, I did go through and look > for dates. I was trying to look for one of his 10 best intranet posts > around 200, and 2001. So the first thing I looked for was the years and > then > scanned by title. Luckily it was chronologically sorted. > > Respectfully > > Ted ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
