RE: RE: Commercial and Not-For-Profit web site critique request...
by "Webmaster" <webmaster(at)webwham.com>
||Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:40:02 -0400
||"Robert Harrold" <rharrold(at)harrold.org>,
My site excludes no one, in fact, all are welcome. My statistics on who's
running what and from which OS, tells me that (at 300 to 400 sessions a
day - a session being 3 minutes or longer), someone is liking the sites...
The fact that people are viewing a graphically rich environment and have
taken the step to do so, should also lend them to the next level of
viewability... come into the 20th century (since asking to come into the
21st would be a bit much)...
800x600 is still the most popular resolution (the statistics gathered, and
posted earlier bear this out).
I've never "left a site" because I had to scroll (plueease)... how pompous
we are getting here... I asked for a critique, which means (to be critical,
to expound with one's personal criticisms of another's work). Thank you!
Let's all get off our high horses here and take a bath in the trough, so we
don't forget why we are here... to help others.
I'll always take the criticisms under observation, but it does not mean that
I'm going to necessarily be swayed by a single "threat of not continuing to
view" because I didn't design for less than 10% of the viewing population
(when that person didn't provide a fair critique). This is not a
professional criticism from a fellow Guild member (look back at mine to
others, I've ALWAYS tried to say something good as well as what could be
The mere fact that this is the VERY FIRST time anyone has said they "left
the site, right after viewing the main page", tells me they are more
concerned with having others follow their antiquated standard, than doing
anything to improve it.
A more constructive criticism would have gone thusly:
"While finding your site probably has many things to offer, and judging by
its size and number of areas, I believe it does; you may wish to think about
the word wrapping that is NOT occurring for those of us still using 1993 VGA
standards of 640x480."
You get the picture here...
ooooo... here we go again....
Webmaster at WebWham
Designing fine sites like the Williamsburgh Community Web Site -
From: Robert Harrold [mailto:rharrold(at)harrold.org]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 2:08 PM
To: webmaster(at)webwham.com; Robert Harrold; Bonnie Granat
Subject: Re: RE: Commercial and Not-For-Profit web site critique
640x480x256 is still used by many people and I address my comments
from the lowest common denominator and rather than to exclude them
as a matter of forethought.
> Who's site are you critiquing? WebWham and Williamsburgh are
> mine, not
> Bonnie's... Are your comments directed at these sites, or are
> you performing
> a critique on something of Bonnie's and just getting the thread
> out of order
> If the comments are about WebWham and Williamsburgh, as I
> mentioned to
> Bonnie, I will look at them at 640x480 to see if there is
> anything quick
> that can be done to resolve the need to horizontally scroll.
> However, I will
> not be redesigning the sites to exclusively support viewability
> at this low
> resolution (at the expense of making things too small for
> larger, more
> popular format viewing).
> BTW, the Williamsburgh site is best viewed at 16bit colour
> depth (or
> greater), due to the number of photos and images on the site.
> The less than
> average number of 256 colour depth systems viewing the site
> will not be
> disappointed until they reach the photos.
> Gil Tennant
> Webmaster at WebWham
> Designing fine sites like the Williamsburgh Community Web Site
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Harrold [mailto:rharrold(at)harrold.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:40 AM
> To: Bonnie Granat; webmaster(at)webwham.com
> Cc: hwg-critique(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Re: Commercial and Not-For-Profit web site critique
> > The need to scroll to the right made me leave
> > immediately. (640 x 480).
> > Sorry!
> > webmaster wrote:
> > >
> > > They've been up for a while, and I've had great comments
> > visitors to
> > > the sites, just wanted another professional's opinion...
> > >
> > > http://www.webwham.com Our NEW "little company"
> > - load time is slow
> > > here due to the large number of GIF images on the left (nav
> > buttons). The
> > > pages are faster once you get past the first page as the
> > thing to
> > > change is the banner graphic, the GIF nav button for the
> > itself, and
> > > the content on the page. I need to drastically reduce the
> > load time on
> > > Prod/Serv - now, how to do without losing clarity.
> > >
> > > http://www.williamsburgh.org This is a community
> > web site we maintain. I
> > > may change the background (getting tired of it, and it's
> > up since Oct.
> > > '97). The community loves this one and it's pretty fast and
> > browser friendly
> > > for the most part..
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think needs improvement (other than
> > what's already
> > > mentioned above).
> > >
> > > TIA.
> > >
> > > Gil Tennant
> > > Webmaster at WebWham
> > > http://www.webwham.com
> > >
> > > Creating fine web sites like the Williamsburg Community Web
> > Site:
> > > http://www.williamsburgh.org
> > --
> > Bonnie Granat
> > Technical Writing, Editing, & Consulting
> > bgranat(at)lynx.dac.neu.edu
> > http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/b/bgranat/index.html
> The first page loaded the text & layout in 29 seconds, with the
> page, graphics and all, finishing completely at 49 seconds.
> Your main body of text cuts of (requires scrolling to the
> right) beyond the
> 74th character on a line. Why not simply end each line,
> continueing onto
> the next at around 65 or 70? Then now one would have to scroll
> forth, back'n forth, in order to read the text.
> Since you have several sections relating to different topics
> down the
> page, why not put a line across the top of the page that can be
> that'll jump visitors down the page to the indicated topic?
> Didn't have time to go beyond.
> I'm using 100mhz Pentium
> 32mb Ram
> 28.8 modem/avg'd. 2.3kb throughput
> 640x480x256 on an old !BM 16"
> Opera v.3.21 browser, font Times New Roman,
> Regular, 10
> - --
> Robert F. (Bob) Harrold II
> rharrold(at)harrold.org -or- rharrold(at)juno.com
> ICQ UIN # 3257495
> "Pro-Life Is. Pro-Choice Isn't. Gun Control Isn't."
HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmaster @ IWA