Re: Ten Second Delays

At 08:49 PM 9/1/98 +0100, David Meadows wrote:

I took myself out of the thread after I started it(I had no idea what it
would come down to!) But I do have a couple of comments:


>>http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/
>>http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/splash.html
>
>1) Hmm... more of a personal page so I can forgive some of the
>annoying layout issues (sorry, Kynn ;-) )
>2) Yikes! Browser check. Let me think about this... Yup, ok, let
>me in...

>This one was interesting. The "splash page" actually served a
>useful purpose so I guess I can forgive it. If I had hit the site
>in one of older browsers I probably would have been grateful for
>the warning. But, I *wasn't* using one of my older browsers. Can't
>you check this transparantly at the server and re-direct me if you
>need to?

If I had an older browser(or different one) I would actually be slightly
offended and not happy for the warning with the current way the choices
were worded(I have it or "I need to get a better browser"). I realize this
was to demonstrate something, but I do see this sort of thing for real out
there and it chaps my hide! 


>OK, I'm biased... I already knew I wasn't going to like them.
>Also, it's not entirely a fair test. I believe the original motion
>was along the lines of "a splash page can enhance the reader's
>enjoyment of an artistic site by setting the mood for the material
>contained therein". As these pages were business sites, we don't
>really want of need a mood to be set...
>
>So, what does everyone else think?

I think what you said above is ok. If I knew I was going to an artsy fartsy
site and saw a splash page, I would not mind too much unless the graphic
just absolultely huge. For a business site, a splash page with no
navigation or anything but a graphic is something in my mind to be avoided. 

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA