|
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:46:34AM -0800, James H H Lampert wrote: > Yes, failing to include support for "slick new features" might make a web > site less attractive to users. But so do things like entry-point pages > that take 5 minutes to load on a fast dialup, and half an hour (if ever) > on a slow one. Or music, or animations, that users can't get rid of. Or > JavaScript or CSS calls coded in such a way that Netscape 4 just curls up > its toes and cries "Heeelllllppp meeeeeeee!" unless the user disables CSS > and/or JS. I consider the Web Pages That Suck site, http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com , as mandatory reading for all website designers. One rule there that applies, in particular, to this discussion: Cool pages suck. Read that. Then read it again. Memorize it. Take it to heart. It's not about being cool, or having slick visuals, or any such surface crap. It's about the content, dammit!
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
