The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Whats' up with that? Why must all these freaking 'web design' (I use the term loosely in this context) agencies put a 200k Flash movie on thier "splash" page? Man, that's not a splash page, it's a freakin' tidal wave. A goddamn modem drowning whoosh of binary swamping my 56k modem with useless pap, when all I want to do is get to the innards of your site and learn about what you can do for me.
Skip intro! The very existence of the skip intro button belittles the Flash movie that it is encased in! The 'Skip Intro' button acknowledges the fact that what the user is seeing is worthless. If it were otherwise, why on earth would the user want to skip it!
If you are making web sites, do me a favour, stop putting tacky flash movies at the start that I don't need to look at. And if you do a splash page, make sure it is a splash, not a friggen' ocean of code.
Oh. And whilst I'm at it. The Internet lets me pick the bits I want to read without having to click "Next" or "More", I should be presented with a coherent menu system which lets me navigate directly to the bit I want to read.
Read a Human Computer Interface book for crying out loud!
Page:
If yer out tonight we may BIKE past it lol!!
yes quite an interesting report!might have to have a walk around there sometime.
Evenin....
Meet at the Hare & Hounds for a 17:45pm departure.
Route to be decided :)
The ground will be damp to wet so Longridge will have to be another day ;)
Did anyone see Brinscall Moor on Countryfile this Sunday? It showed the ruins that we ride past doing the Great Hill route :)
Meet at the Hare & Hounds for a 17:45pm departure.
Route to be decided :)
The ground will be damp to wet so Longridge will have to be another day ;)
Did anyone see Brinscall Moor on Countryfile this Sunday? It showed the ruins that we ride past doing the Great Hill route :)
I thought that 2advanced site might produce a split opinion, some people love it, some don't. I'm kind of in between. I saw it on a 56k modem at first, and it seemed to take ages, but when it came up thought it was gorgeous, though I do agree with Tyla that no site should have a "bast viewed with..." statement on the start.
The 2advanced site has obviously been thought about and lovingly put together, and these guys are winning awards and stuff, but how long does it take to put together something like that? And would you actually buy, say, software from a site like that? And does the average business have the money to spend on a site like that?
I think not. Something like that is great to showcase the potential of the Internet, but many companies just don't have the vision or the inclanation to build a web site like that.
As for how the .com bust can be brought into a discussion on web design, I think we were trying to point out that over-design can make a site fail to attract sales because people cannot use it. It's true that there are many badly designed sites out there that do make money.. Why is this? Because many badly designed sites are built on the cheap, this means that they can't afford to pay for a Flash site, or a mega-bucks 3d animations wotsit like MTV. They are simple and easy to use simply because the people who built them either do not have the skills or the money to build anything better. So the site is quick and easy to use. Take friendsreunited.co.uk. Not the best looking site, but it has worked.
The 2advanced site has obviously been thought about and lovingly put together, and these guys are winning awards and stuff, but how long does it take to put together something like that? And would you actually buy, say, software from a site like that? And does the average business have the money to spend on a site like that?
I think not. Something like that is great to showcase the potential of the Internet, but many companies just don't have the vision or the inclanation to build a web site like that.
As for how the .com bust can be brought into a discussion on web design, I think we were trying to point out that over-design can make a site fail to attract sales because people cannot use it. It's true that there are many badly designed sites out there that do make money.. Why is this? Because many badly designed sites are built on the cheap, this means that they can't afford to pay for a Flash site, or a mega-bucks 3d animations wotsit like MTV. They are simple and easy to use simply because the people who built them either do not have the skills or the money to build anything better. So the site is quick and easy to use. Take friendsreunited.co.uk. Not the best looking site, but it has worked.
funkygamer wrote:
> What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
I know these guys oddly enough... I've dealt with them in the past.
These guys produce 'Cutting Edge' 'High End' sites for promotion as well as a wide range of Multi Media projects. This site expreses their abilities extreemley well but...
No site shuold ever contain a "Best viewed with" on the front page. This will automatically make this site inaccessable to hundreds of users because of the minimum requirements...
There a few other issues I have with this site:
Fontsize... anyone else have trouble reading it? Onf of the wonders of Flash, is the ability to scale in real time, surely they could have put in an option to increase the font size without users having to sqint at it?
The Colours... I like the theme, I love dark sites (It's the Goth in me)But again, reading the text is a little hard here.
I know I've banged on about this before, but this ain't usable... These people are supposed to be "up there" with the cutting edge but have managed to produce a homepage that is unusable bu a majority of users... There have been studies into screen colours an fonts, font sizes, distracting animations etc, all of which have been studies performed over the last 10 years, and if any thing, one of the results it that USERS DO NOT LIKE DISTRACTING REPETATIVE ANIMATIONS!! (Forrester 2001)...
It's a good site, displaying what these guys can do, and some of the examples are actually much better than their own site...
But it's also bad becuase it alienates users on the homepage and is barely readable... and has anyone tried book marking it or using the back button on your browser?
Again, Bad and unusable flash...
> What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
I know these guys oddly enough... I've dealt with them in the past.
These guys produce 'Cutting Edge' 'High End' sites for promotion as well as a wide range of Multi Media projects. This site expreses their abilities extreemley well but...
No site shuold ever contain a "Best viewed with" on the front page. This will automatically make this site inaccessable to hundreds of users because of the minimum requirements...
There a few other issues I have with this site:
Fontsize... anyone else have trouble reading it? Onf of the wonders of Flash, is the ability to scale in real time, surely they could have put in an option to increase the font size without users having to sqint at it?
The Colours... I like the theme, I love dark sites (It's the Goth in me)But again, reading the text is a little hard here.
I know I've banged on about this before, but this ain't usable... These people are supposed to be "up there" with the cutting edge but have managed to produce a homepage that is unusable bu a majority of users... There have been studies into screen colours an fonts, font sizes, distracting animations etc, all of which have been studies performed over the last 10 years, and if any thing, one of the results it that USERS DO NOT LIKE DISTRACTING REPETATIVE ANIMATIONS!! (Forrester 2001)...
It's a good site, displaying what these guys can do, and some of the examples are actually much better than their own site...
But it's also bad becuase it alienates users on the homepage and is barely readable... and has anyone tried book marking it or using the back button on your browser?
Again, Bad and unusable flash...
> funkygamer wrote:
> What do people think of this site
> http://www.2advanced.com ?
*drools* I love this website, I hate how people can make really good looking websites makes me depressed when I look at mine.
> What do people think of this site
> http://www.2advanced.com ?
*drools* I love this website, I hate how people can make really good looking websites makes me depressed when I look at mine.
funkygamer wrote:
> Yes. But there were
> also plenty of old skool business men in cheap suits who didn't have a clue what
> they were doing with the Internet, but who raised millions and then wasted it on
> building a web site that, well, didn't work... Boo is a case in hand, but there
> were others.
Sure, I can come up with sites that provided smart design, functionality, content, and still they failed. And if I think hard enough I could probably mention some sites that had lousy design, lack of functionality, no content hardly and yet succeeded. Theres so many factors thrown in, its difficult to use the .com desmise as an argument for anything. And I don't really see how it got brought into a discussion about site design. Good or bad design, both types went down in .com fall. Not sure why Tyla mentioned it in the first place. :)
> What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
Its a technically impressive site I must admit but I don't like it. :) The way flash renders stuff makes it heavy on the eyes for reading for my taste. Especially true on that site where we have a very limited colour scheme (grey with a hint of blue). I guess that site violates some design principles too, its quite busy, meaning its really difficult to see a focal point of where you should start or should even be looking. Theres plenty enough content there it seems, but it gets lost in the design somehow.
-G
> Yes. But there were
> also plenty of old skool business men in cheap suits who didn't have a clue what
> they were doing with the Internet, but who raised millions and then wasted it on
> building a web site that, well, didn't work... Boo is a case in hand, but there
> were others.
Sure, I can come up with sites that provided smart design, functionality, content, and still they failed. And if I think hard enough I could probably mention some sites that had lousy design, lack of functionality, no content hardly and yet succeeded. Theres so many factors thrown in, its difficult to use the .com desmise as an argument for anything. And I don't really see how it got brought into a discussion about site design. Good or bad design, both types went down in .com fall. Not sure why Tyla mentioned it in the first place. :)
> What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
Its a technically impressive site I must admit but I don't like it. :) The way flash renders stuff makes it heavy on the eyes for reading for my taste. Especially true on that site where we have a very limited colour scheme (grey with a hint of blue). I guess that site violates some design principles too, its quite busy, meaning its really difficult to see a focal point of where you should start or should even be looking. Theres plenty enough content there it seems, but it gets lost in the design somehow.
-G
funkygamer wrote:
What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
I think that site is pretty damn amazing. I've got a 56k modem and it didn't take very long to load at all. If I had to gripe about it though, I didn't really like the 'Site Requirements' on the homepage. I've been interested in creating websites now for about a year now and I've always thought that it is your job to make sure that the site will be allowed to be viewed by everyone, not just people who have the right software.
What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
I think that site is pretty damn amazing. I've got a 56k modem and it didn't take very long to load at all. If I had to gripe about it though, I didn't really like the 'Site Requirements' on the homepage. I've been interested in creating websites now for about a year now and I've always thought that it is your job to make sure that the site will be allowed to be viewed by everyone, not just people who have the right software.
Garin wrote:
>.com businesses went bust because of flawed business
> models based upon unrealistic predictions of what the
> market was and what it was potentially going to be. They
> were trying to tap into revenue streams that basically
> didn't really exist yet.
Yes. But there were also plenty of old skool business men in cheap suits who didn't have a clue what they were doing with the Internet, but who raised millions and then wasted it on building a web site that, well, didn't work... Boo is a case in hand, but there were others.
I take Fogmasters point that yes, it is nice to have some sound and interaction, but right now, I'm in favour of limiting Flash to particular areas of sites, for instance, a Flash game, or the ability to send a Flash based e-card.
> Agencies may have been delivering the wrong product, but
> thats a bit further than site design and its basic
> principles, no?
Good point, many agencies are still delivering pap sites that cost an arm and a leg.
What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
>.com businesses went bust because of flawed business
> models based upon unrealistic predictions of what the
> market was and what it was potentially going to be. They
> were trying to tap into revenue streams that basically
> didn't really exist yet.
Yes. But there were also plenty of old skool business men in cheap suits who didn't have a clue what they were doing with the Internet, but who raised millions and then wasted it on building a web site that, well, didn't work... Boo is a case in hand, but there were others.
I take Fogmasters point that yes, it is nice to have some sound and interaction, but right now, I'm in favour of limiting Flash to particular areas of sites, for instance, a Flash game, or the ability to send a Flash based e-card.
> Agencies may have been delivering the wrong product, but
> thats a bit further than site design and its basic
> principles, no?
Good point, many agencies are still delivering pap sites that cost an arm and a leg.
What do people think of this site http://www.2advanced.com ?
I have to say that after redesigning my site, I decided to add a flash intro. Its a very basic thing, pretty much because I've only just started using flash.
I do a bit of basic web site design work, and I do admit I'm not very good, but my target market is people who dont know anything about the internet, and to these people, I think, Flash looks good. It looks, well, flash. It makes a good impression on the user, and if done right can look ok.
Flash has its place in webdesign, I absolutly hate complete flash websites, they may be all singing and all dancing, but the functionality just isnt there. I prefer HTML, probably because thats what I know..
I do a bit of basic web site design work, and I do admit I'm not very good, but my target market is people who dont know anything about the internet, and to these people, I think, Flash looks good. It looks, well, flash. It makes a good impression on the user, and if done right can look ok.
Flash has its place in webdesign, I absolutly hate complete flash websites, they may be all singing and all dancing, but the functionality just isnt there. I prefer HTML, probably because thats what I know..
Page: