| 9:53 pm on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
this is where developers, and designers split ...
developers dont think what it will "look" like, more how it will act.
hence the Dr's site... it has no visual stimulation at all, and he only seems to care about how fast it loads...
which with todays technology, is becoming less and less of an issue....sure people are still on some dial ups, but even DSL can handle a good home page over several hundred K, in just a second or two...
Cable and up...its not significant anymore...
you have to agree that most of the sites you visit these days pop up in a snap... its a past issue when we used to sit there....tapping the mouse...watching the page unfold before you very eyes... each div element and img gradually appearing...
design can be implemented just as development is these days.. just know your role sucka..!
| 10:02 pm on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Unless you are already familiar with it arriving at Neilsen's website is not a pleasant experience. I would not spend any more than two or three seconds there if I arrived now for the first tme.
In fact I do already know about it and I find it difficult to find anything on it and it is not a pleasant experience. Whatever he preaches I believe that aesthetics are important.
| 4:44 am on Jan 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Since we're bashing Nielsen, I'll donate $0.02:
useit.com is a liability to its author. It uses bulky inline CSS, while it would take about 2K of external cacheable CSS to make it look fantastic.
I hope Jakob is reading this
As for WebmasterWorld, I say leave the logo alone. And this site doesn't need a huge redesign; just some loving touches to make it less boxy, fix margin alignments and gutters, composition, typography, and liven up the drab grey palette.
Y'all could create a Greasemonkey script to customize WebmasterWorld; I would love to see what you come up with. Let's make it a contest!
| 8:39 am on Jan 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
MArcia, I'm not particularly bothered by minimalist, but in the same way you wouldn't expect a consultant to turn up to your business with a 1990's mobile phone, and in torn jeans and a Gun's 'n' Roses t.shirt, because you expect a certain "look¦" from people you are paying to help your business, is it unreasonable for a website to have to portray a similarly smart and modern image? Both the consultant, and this site may be the most valuable resource to your business, but first impressions definitely count.
| 9:16 am on Jan 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|you wouldn't expect a consultant to turn up to your business with a 1990's mobile phone, and in torn jeans and a Gun's 'n' Roses t.shirt |
So that's what I've been doing wrong.
| 5:12 pm on Jan 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I think Jacob Neilsen's website is ugly and very difficult to navigate |
How in the world could this navigation [webmasterworld.com] or this navigation [webmasterworld.com] be made clearer, and topical forums be made easier to locate?
IMHO, navigation doesn't get more intuitive or easier to use.
|you expect a certain "lookŠ" from people you are paying to help your business |
Aha, there's the point that's missing it and getting the signals crossed! A subscription here isn't about paying a consultancy to help your business; that isn't what it's all about.
Added, a hint:
See the favicon.ico and what its symbolism is? That's what it's all about. ;)
[edited by: Marcia at 5:27 pm (utc) on Jan. 13, 2009]
| 6:15 pm on Jan 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Marcia, it probably couldn't be made much clearer but I wasn't talking about this site. I was talking about Jakob Neilsen's.
Anyway the topic is the WW logo as opposed to the navigation. ;)
| 7:06 pm on Jan 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Cross-reference: What is the WebmasterWorld favicon [webmasterworld.com]?
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 38 ( 1  ) |