| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Comments:
<0> e-head: But being consistent is very important. Being consistent doesn't mean not being unique, it just means making things usable.
<1> img.onclick=function() { .. } or new Function
<0> e-head: Color overload, yes, if you use 256 colors on your page. But using a set of five or so, even less, (within that range, kind of like a font family...) is fine.
<2> Consistancy is the hogoblin of little minds.
<1> much better konrads
<2> That's actually a famous quote.
<2> hobgoblin.
<3> JibberJim, eh?
<0> e-head: The point behind usability includes not overloading someone with color. Usability, and link color, doesn't mean throwing 1024, 256, or even 16 colors on a page, it means being consistent and ensuring things are easily found.
<4> Nanobot: frankly it appear confusing. Why not simply write that HTML is a markup language written in SGML?
<2> Anyway, I could post many many websites that have been recognized for there design excellence that violate yall's rigid axiom.
<1> konrads img.onclick=new Function(" what you had in the attribute")
<5> Windrose: Which part is confusing?
<4> Nanobot: the one you just quoted.
<2> Actually, I already posted one.
<4> Nanobot: WHICH subset of SGML is HTML written in?
<6> e-head, We speak as professional web developers. Plenty of "pretty" sites are horribly designed and hard to use.
<3> JibberJim, okay, i can rewrite that
<0> Because truthfully, people don't like having to guess where things are. I was at a website just the other day that was extremely confusing. Had I not really, really wanted something from it and had I not had the time to find it, I would't have stayed.
<0> e-head: But you asked for our opinion here.
<5> "XHTML is a markup language meant to eventually replace HTML on the Web. For the most part, an XHTML 1.0 document differs from an HTML 4.01 document only in the lexical and syntactic rules: HTML is written in its own unique subset of SGML"
<2> That's definitely true.
<6> Lots of designers use Flash websites because they think it makes them cool
<2> of course
<6> doesn't mean they're right
<4> Nanobot: which unique subset?
<5> I basically did say that
<5> The HTML SGML declaration
<2> I asked for your opinion. I appreciate it. I guess I was just trying to explain my reasoning.
<2> Of course, a lot depends on your audience.
<4> Nanobot: how is that a subset?
<5> It defines the the SGML rules that apply in the document and which characters are used for which purposes
<4> Nanobot: or do you mean that HTML doesn't use all the features in SGML? That doesn't mean it uses a /subset/ of SGML.
<5> You could call it an application, but I think that's even more confusing here
<0> e-head: And you have a blog here from the looks. A blog is read by people. People should be able to find things.
<2> If you are a graphic designer, artist, photographer, flash artist, architect, runway model, etc... having a "flashy" site may be more important than having a "useable" site.
<2> That's not true.
<0> It's not? People shouldn't be able to find things?
<0> A website should not be able to be navigated?
<2> If it is the blog of a runway model or fashion designer, then flashiness could be important.
<4> Nanobot: not particularly, since 'application of' is exactly the terminology people will find in the spec.
<6> Synktar, certainly not. Its better to sacrifice usability to make it "pretty".
<0> I didn't talk about flashiness, I said being able to find something.
<4> Nanobot: or, all right, "an SGML application"
<2> Synktar: but now you are being ridiculous. My website is not as complicated as quantum mechanics. Surely you are intelligent enough to figure it out.
<5> But how many readers will understand that terminology? It sounds confusing in this context
<4> Nanobot: imho - and nothing else: not as confusing and misleading as what you've got. It simply /isn't/ a subset of anything.
<6> e-head, Sure we are, doesn't mean we'll _come back_. If your website isn't easy to use then there's no reason for me to return. There are hundreds of blogs out there. :)
<0> Zeros: But how much usability? And besides, I never said to get rid of any usability for prettyness, do I'm unsure of where the both of you are coming from
<4> Nanobot: I'd suggest using the terminology from the spec, or plain language.
<0> I just said it should be able to be read.
<6> Synktar, That statement was 100% facetious.
<2> You were initially shocked after mousing over the sidebar once, but you managed to figure it out after that.
<0> That was my next question.
<3> yahoo ui lib and some others have attachevent routines
<3> JibberJim, ^
<4> Nanobot: "HTML is a markup language written in SGML, whereas XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 are very similar languages written in XML - XML, in turn, is a subset of SGML". For example.
<6> e-head, right. And I know it would be annoying to have the page blink at me all the time :p
<2> See... I think you guys are getting trapped into rigid thinking. Rigid axioms.
<0> e-head: Just because we figured it out doesn't mean we like it. And as Zeros said, there's hundreds, even thousands, of blogs out there.
<0> I'm not going to read one that annoys me when I can get one with the same quality content and a nicer design.
<1> konrads - yeah but there's no need to be more complicated than necessary
<0> For example, a Wacom tablet. Their website is horrible, in my opinion. I had the hardest time finding certain specifications unless I knew the exact model I wanted.
<2> Some designers thing the page is MORE readable by relegating less important links to a "grayed out" state, or a less obnoxious color.
<4> e-head: yeah, they do. Ever considered they might be wrong?
<4> e-head: that THEIR thinking is rigid?
<3> JibberJim, hmm, okay, i'll try with Your approach
<0> It went back and forth, back and forth.
<0> Anyway, I have to finish this report up here. Be back in a bit.
<2> There thinking is out of step with the "rules". They are the ones taking risks.
<4> e-head: you sure?
<2> And, personally, I think they are right.
<4> Sounds to me like they are in step with a different set of rules, equally rigid in their own way.
<0> e-head: Making snappy designs doesn't mean they can't be usable. There's nothing that says a usable website has to be ugly.
<2> That's obviously why I have done the same thing at them.
<6> Synktar, My girlfriend sent me a link to a company that sells watches. Said she wanted one.. they had a Flash website, where you couldn't scroll the list of watches. You had to hold the mouse on a button and let the list scroll one at a time.. and they had 100 of them.
<6> I gave up after the 10th one and told her to describe it
<2> of course not Synktar
<0> Zeros: I would't of bought one.
<6> Synktar, I didn't :p
<2> I just disagree with you guys over this "law" that all links have to be the same color.
<0> The only reason I kept on the Wacom website is because I really, really want one.
<0> But anyone else who isn't sure if they want one, well, let's just say I doubt they'd spend an hour and a half trying to find specifications of a model.
<0> Trying to find out which one they want, hehe :)
<2> If it's fairly obvious something is a link, I don't need it colored necessarily, unless it's important for some reason. I like the predominant amount of text on a page to be from black to gray. It's easier on the eye.
<4> e-head: yes, it is. But you could, for instance, underline links in a discreet colour.
<6> Synktar, industry leaders get a lot of lead way because they're the leaders. Waycom is /the/ standard when it comes to tablets so their unfriendly website probably doesn't hurt business that much.
<6> Not that they shouldn't redesign it... they need to.
<2> That's not a bad idea Windrose. I've done that before.
<0> Yeah, it really sickens me sometimes.
<0> Just remember, "the mighty have fallen"
<2> The idea is to make them less garish, however that can be done.
<0> And, to that, the mighty can fall.
<2> You guys are not fans of Zeldman's I suppose.
<4> e-head: I quite like black text with a discreet green underline which changes colour on hover.
<2> He leans more towards the "design" side of things, as do I.
<2> I mean, I think it's a balance.
<2> But, I don't believe in rigidly adhering to rules, whatever they may be.
<0> Jeffrey Zeldman?
<2> yeah
<0> Just saw his website for the first time.
<0> At first glance it looks okay
<2> Based on what you've said, I wouldn't image you like him.
<2> imagine
<2> He breaks some of your "rules"
<0> Then again, I just opened it and haven't had much time to take a look at it.
<0> The links on the right in the lower portion are simply bolded.
<2> He is a fairly well known designer. Known for going his own way on occation.
<2> On Zeldman's site?
<0> Had I not made the ***umption and if I wasn't looking for something wrong since you said you doubted I'd like him, I wouldn't of known they were links
<0> I believe it's his website. Has that green on it.
<0> Am I at the right place?
<2> yeah, that's it.
<6> I think Zeldman can be a little preachy, that's why I'm not thrilled with him. I don't know about everyone else in here.
<2> See, I actually sort of agree with you Synktar
<6> Kind of full of himself
<2> I think Zeldman's site is a little confusing.
<0> Anyway guys
<0> (and gals, Zeros :P)
<2> But, his site looks nice.
<0> I have to go finish this report up
<2> see ya
<7> aroo.
<2> So, you realize a few years ago people were admonishing against having links in a color other than blue!
<2> You can google and find the (very serious) threads on the matter.
<4> Actually ... the argument was mostly "Don't change the UAs default rendering of links - that's what people are used to"
<2> I think too much importance is put on useability. It's like we (as designers) are still coddling the public. I think we've reached a point where the average user is more savy than we give them credit for.
<2> Windrose: you are right, and it's default is blue.
<2> Ugly as hell. I'm glad designers change it. :)
<6> Um, making links the same color as the paragraph text is just like making doors in your house look like walls. Both are bad ideas for people who are new to the place. :p
<2> By that reasoning, all websites would basically have the same color scheme.
<0> e-head: What about people with text-to-speech devices?
<0> Usability seems important there
<2> Yeah, but colors hardly effect that.
<4> e-head: not necessarily, no. Some UAs have blue as default.
<2> Those devices just follow anchor tags, whatever their color.
<6> On a different note: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4915875929930836239&q=windows+386&hl=en wow, someone at MS was really stoned when they came up with this marketing scheme
<8> heh, funny how that one made the rounds
<0> But you didn't specify colors: "<2> I think too much importance is put on useability."
<3> JibberJim, that solved the onclick problems
<3> let's see about that error
<0> Anyway, on to this report for real now. I just had to jump in once more.
<7> if you want to be accessible, consider the most common forms of colour blindness when choosing link colours, if you want them to be visible
<7> a larger percentage of the population is colour blind than uses browsers other than MSIE, heh
<6> That's "Red/Green" color blindness for people who don't know that already. :p
<6> Binds on the X chromosome.
<7> although if your site makes extensive use of red/green text, it's either Christmas or you have bad taste
<6> I'd hope so
<7> there's one other common set of colours that a lot of people have trouble with, though not as common as the red/green one
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
requant DEMO
#suse
#gcc
#perl
#centos
ubuntu partial re-install
#python
#php
USB WiFi transmitter
grep ungreedy bash
|
|