Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:54 am
by Chris Corbyn
JAB Creations wrote:IoI matthijs, try visiting when you're not about to crash. I'd hate to sound insulting but the directions are simple and if you KNOW you don't understand English then those flags would hint (hey, a translation is available).
Hopefully constructive but I'm 100% english and I didn't find your site very usable neither. The first thing I saw was a load of options which I had to think about before I could even get into the site. Even the text was hard to read to make the choice.
Once I enetered the site my eyes struggled to read the black and white text on the blue background... I think it's partly because the colors invert in places like the headers but my eyes weren't enjoying it. Like I say, hopefully constructive

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:59 am
by matthijs
Ok Jab, had my coffee and tried again. This time I came 2 pages further. After choosing a language flag I get to a page with some translated language. Not clear what that's about but after thinking about it I click through on one of the four links. Still no idea what the site is about or were I end up going. Then on the next page, a big popup screen blocks my view. It asks me if I want audio and if I have broadband or dial up. I make my choice but the popup doesn't go away...
So please consider this as constructive criticism: if I would have been a regular visitor, the chances of me abording before I get to see even the first real page of the site are huge. Now, even for an experienced and motivated visitor like me, it's still impossible to see the site. I still don't know what it's about.
Normally I wouldn't bother writing this all down but as you posted your site in this thread about "the best sites around" I got tempted to do.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:04 am
by Roja
JAB Creations wrote:IoI matthijs, try visiting when you're not about to crash. I'd hate to sound insulting but the directions are simple and if you KNOW you don't understand English then those flags would hint (hey, a translation is available).
Actually, I have to agree with mtthjs, it was not intuitive. I hovered over every flag looking for english or british, since it wasn't at all clear that the "enter site" choices were for english/british. I did finally click on them out of frustration, which ended up being the right choice. Thats not the same as it being intuitive.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 10:19 am
by m3mn0n
I've always been a fan of
http://www.phong.com
it's just amazing what he does with Flash
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:45 pm
by Gambler
There is no such things as "best" design or usability. Good design is the one that doesn't suck for a particular purpose.
http://lib.ru/ - Example of good usability. I bet it's not what you expected to see. Viva la un-cool websites.
...
I also wrote a great article on how to write for the web.
It is a collection of common misconceptions about web-oriented writing. There are no inclusive rules, no "best practices." There are, however, certain things that should generally be avoided. One of them, I believe, is treating your users as inherently lazy and dim-witted creatures.
From the article:
Studies by Jakob Nielsen, Ph.D., indicate that 79% of Internet users scan text rather than reading it word for word and that reading from a computer screen is 25% slower than from traditional print. Additionally, Internet users generally aren't willing to apply much effort to searching for information. With all this in mind, your text should be as short and concise as possible.
Research by John P. A. Ioannidis, M.D., Ph.D. indicates that most current published research findings are false. With all this in mind, you should give me the number of your credit card.
One of the things I love about modern writers is how apt they are to to use briefly mentioned statistical researches to manipulate readers' opinions.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:05 pm
by patrikG
http://www.iht.com
It's been around for a while, the design is stylish, JS & DHTML enhance the usability - fairly classic, no fancy AJAX (for the time being) or Flash.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:19 pm
by Chris Corbyn
patrikG wrote:http://www.iht.com
It's been around for a while, the design is stylish, JS & DHTML enhance the usability - fairly classic, no fancy AJAX (for the time being) or Flash.
Me likey muchey

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:01 pm
by matthijs
Indeed, that is a beautiful site. Certainly if you compare it to most news-sites, which are horrible cluttered and chaotic sites in which the news itself is hard to find due to flashing banners everywere

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:35 pm
by shoebappa
d11wtq wrote:JAB Creations wrote:IoI matthijs, try visiting when you're not about to crash. I'd hate to sound insulting but the directions are simple and if you KNOW you don't understand English then those flags would hint (hey, a translation is available).
Hopefully constructive but I'm 100% english and I didn't find your site very usable neither. The first thing I saw was a load of options which I had to think about before I could even get into the site. Even the text was hard to read to make the choice.
Once I enetered the site my eyes struggled to read the black and white text on the blue background... I think it's partly because the colors invert in places like the headers but my eyes weren't enjoying it. Like I say, hopefully constructive

Ditto... I finally got here
http://www.jabcreations.com/home/, but IE6 just shows XML... Switched to firefox and could barely read the text, which was low contrast, widely changing colors (from black to white on the same background) and size... I think this is probably a fine example of compliance and accessability that's only looked at from a perspective of passing software validators. If it passes a validator, but doesn't work in the browser the vast majority of people use, how is it compliant? If you have to figure out how to get into the site, and then can barely read the text, how is it accessible?
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:38 pm
by Benjamin
Gambler wrote:There is no such things as "best" design or usability. Good design is the one that doesn't suck for a particular purpose.
http://lib.ru/ - Example of good usability. I bet it's not what you expected to see. Viva la un-cool websites.
...
I also wrote a great article on how to write for the web.
It is a collection of common misconceptions about web-oriented writing. There are no inclusive rules, no "best practices." There are, however, certain things that should generally be avoided. One of them, I believe, is treating your users as inherently lazy and dim-witted creatures.
From the article:
Studies by Jakob Nielsen, Ph.D., indicate that 79% of Internet users scan text rather than reading it word for word and that reading from a computer screen is 25% slower than from traditional print. Additionally, Internet users generally aren't willing to apply much effort to searching for information. With all this in mind, your text should be as short and concise as possible.
Research by John P. A. Ioannidis, M.D., Ph.D. indicates that most current published research findings are false. With all this in mind, you should give me the number of your credit card.
One of the things I love about modern writers is how apt they are to to use briefly mentioned statistical researches to manipulate readers' opinions.
Right. So your "useable" site looks horrible (in my opinion), isn't even in english and if I was color blind I might not be able to read it even if I knew the language.
Your disputing facts, insulting my article, and being incredibly condescending.
One of them, I believe, is treating your users as inherently lazy and dim-witted creatures.
So your interpreting clear and concise text as being "dumbed down"? You need to go back to school. Give me your credit card number and maybe I'll teach you a few things if I can fit some time into my schedule for a newbie.
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:40 pm
by Chris Corbyn
Guys

Re: Best sites on the net
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:43 pm
by Grim...
Re: Best sites on the net
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:47 pm
by Chris Corbyn
I saw it when it was working. Has a similar color scheme to MSN search and defined sections for controls.
The main domain looks nice:
http://www.motivomedia.com
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:10 am
by patrikG
agtlewis wrote:Right. So your "useable" site looks horrible (in my opinion), isn't even in english and if I was color blind I might not be able to read it even if I knew the language.
Name me one good reason why a website has to be available in English.
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:00 am
by Benjamin
patrikG wrote:agtlewis wrote:Right. So your "useable" site looks horrible (in my opinion), isn't even in english and if I was color blind I might not be able to read it even if I knew the language.
Name me one good reason why a website has to be available in English.
1. A web site pitching products to English speaking consumers would need to be in English.
My comment basically meant that a web site which isn't in English isn't useable to me because I don't speak that language.