On Dec 11, 2011 10:03 PM, "Daniel R. Tobias" <d...@tobias.name> wrote: > > While the design and user interface of Wikipedia certainly has things > that could stand improvement, I generally like the fact that it's not > run by a "billion dollar budget" commercial outfit brimming with > meddlesome marketing and management types and artsy graphical > designers, aimed at producing a site design that looks cool when > demoed in PowerPoint presentations, shoves lots of annoying, > intrusive ads at the user and is explicitly designed and structured > to maximize this even at the expense of actual content, and works > well (if at all) only in the particular browsers and platforms > targeted by the developer. > > Those sites are hard to navigate, hard to read, slow to load, prone > to crashing your browser, go out of their way to interfere with > normal browser operations like caching and back/forward buttons by > having crazy contraptions of scripts to reinvent those wheels in an > inferior way, and are generally a headache to use in comparison with > Wikipedia. >
This. A hundred times, this. Compare Quora and Wikipedia: I have reached the unenviable situation of having the rich-text editor lag while typing on my laptop (with 2Gb RAM and a 2.2GHz dual core CPU). It is 2011: beyond "flashiness", I have no idea why a webapp performs worse than the first version of Word I used back on my 386. But at least the user experience doesn't scare people by introducing the minimal costs of actually having to use one's brain, right? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
