If I had a dollar for everytime that I had given some a www-less URL verbally and they've just entered www. blah out of habit, I'd be a millionaire!
Ubergeek: "Ok, enter the URL 'news.google.com'" N00b: [enters www.news.google.com] Ubergeek: "No, no no, no WWW!" N00b: "news.google.com, without www? wow, does that work? That's amazing! How about the http://? I can leave it out? OMG!" -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Fixed Width Design I agree. I've long advocated easy to remember URLs because, although most of "us" do as Gary says and get URLs directly from email, I've observed that a *lot* of users don't know that they can copy URLs from the browser so type them out when passing them on, or do it verbally, so it is important to have easy to remember URLs and to ensure that content is easily accessible from the top of the site. An easy to type URL is more likely to be passed on by people e.g. saying something like: " I saw a great article at zeldman dot com, just go to the 'articles' section and look for 'standards'" is, in my experience, how most people pass on URLs... On a related note, when will people stop saying "dot" and "slash"? Can't we move forward and instead of announcers after TV programmes saying wwwDOTbbcDOTcoDOTukDORWARDSLASHeastenders just www (very short pause) bbc (very short pause)co(very short pause)uk slash eastenders, using the punctuation like puncttuation. Wouldn't that work if it were adopted as a convention? It's make URLs easy to remember.(in fact we could drop the "www" like we dropped the "httpcolonslashslash" See Malcom Gladwell's "Tipping Point" for an excellent discussion of "The Stickiness Factor" - there are lessons throughout the whole book for designers and web site creators. On 11 Dec 2003, at 23:37, Taco Fleur wrote: > http://www.notestips.com/articles/2003/1/ or > http://www.notestips.com/articles/limitPageWidth > Would have been better. > > Is this something for "Standards" or out of scope? ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ ***************************************************** ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
