Making websites for clients you have to be careful on what you say to them, not directly saying their idea sucks but redirect them “What do you think about…?” We’re the ones getting paid for putting together the website so we want our clients to be happy yet make sure the website isn’t hideous making sure people are impressed and want to keep coming to you. It’s a good idea to get to know your clients well and make sure all questions are answered as well as when the due date is so you know if you have enough time to complete all their demands on time or not.
I have never come across a site that hasn’t worked on another browser (thankfully) but if I did, I wouldn’t even know how to react. If you care about getting good clientele, websites should definitely work on every browser.
The Association of International Glaucoma Societies was super horrendous! I hope that site wasn’t serious because someone sadly put a TON of time into it all. Oh wow…
Genicap has a really lame layout for a homepage or whatever that was when you first go to the website. I couldn’t really tell what their website was about still within their “mission statement” until the very last paragraph. It should be sweet and simple not a paragraph.
The Mars Hill image doesn’t look anything like a church, since when did churches have sewing machines?
Contrast is a huge deal when making a website. Not everyone can see every color! Just because it “matches” does not mean that that color combination should go all together in one section on a website.
Instead of using gray quotes on the GLBT he should have chosen maybe a white if he wanted to keep to that certain scheme. Or simply hire someone to choose colors for you if you’re that bad. Stick to programming!
With the Nielsen Norman Group it looks like what he said “They were authorized when making this” is most likely true. The programmer probably doesn’t see anything wrong with the site because it works perfectly well for them which will most likely lead to more frustration because the programmer will have to fix it and won’t know if it’s really working or not.
In today’s society people depend on the internet WAY too much for their advertising. It’s nothing like it used to be when people would go to the local grocery store and hang up ads on the local bulletin board, unless their pet is lost. Kind of sad.
WOW the Accept Jesus one is all over the place! Why is there a random cat at the bottom left running? This website creeped me out.
The Tampax website needs a little help with the sideways head tilting navigation, no way someone on their period is going to want to spend the time reading through those!
The University of Calgary website should be super ashamed considering they had people that ya know..are smart. I would not want to go to that school with a website looking like that; even though MATC’s is horrendous. That navigation would take way too much time. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like signing up for classes their. More meat?
Only thing I am going to say about Qualcomm’s navigation is that it’s not impressive having moving navigation. Just distracting and dumb looking.
I remember about ten years ago I would go on postsecret.com and loved that website but now I realize that it is hard to read with the purple and black going on. I also didn’t really know how to navigate it.
Archive.org must have some ginormous computers and their text looks big to them or something. Wow, that’s tiny! My mouse can barely go over just one word without hitting two buttons.
http://www.arngren.net/ looks like craigslist and amazon threw up on it! That’s all I can say.
Never click a “Click Here” unless it has a description on where it is taking you. Sometimes even then it’s to mess with you and possibly give you a virus..
I’ve always disliked flash. Most of the time I was on a site that had it took forever to load and it wasn’t anything that thrilling to look at.
The only place that should have GIF’s is if that website is for pure photos and posting like tumblr, imgur.com or even 4chan. A regular website should not have GIF’s on it!
Reading the thumbnail sketches, I never really thought about a simple sketch being a wireframe even though you’re creating and putting something together.This should also take less time since it’s a sketch, some people go into detail with sketching but that kind of defeats the purpose of a sketch..
When people use tablets its nice because there’s no eraser dustings all over the place or need to sharpen a pencil. The person can just use their finger or stylus and easily erase it or start over, as well as change color.
Welcome home, Ponyo :)
Chapter 4: I think that all websites should have it easy to click on everything. On some cell phones or handheld devices things pop up and you go to click them out but they’re so tiny that you end up clicking on something else and it just gets so frustrating. With drop down options that include more than five end up having a tiny scroll bar which makes it really hard to click on it and scroll without making it go down or up super fast.
Chapter 5: I agree 100% when the book says to limit yourself to how many words you put on a webpage. I’ve seen some pages that were just pure text and a couple pictures. People really love looking at pictures and ignore looking at text as the book says that most people ignore it. If the developer is putting that much time into putting text on the site you should realize that most people are not going to read it all unless its an important/interesting article.
I don’t see the point of “happy talk” or instructions unless its some instructional page that you need to do training on or learn how to use the website; if that makes sense. So then the developer can talk about what their website is going to train them on and help them with. I don’t see it being necessary on a basic website or survey, just say what the survey is about.
Chapter 6: Comparing a website to a unorganized or organized store is perfect. For MATC’s website I would say if they were a store they would probably be Woodmans due to the fact that there is SO MUCH STUFF you have no idea where to even begin looking. You’ll end up at the other end of the store and realize you’ve already passed it but there was no sign it was there.
I would compare websites to towns or cities. If you are new to that “town” or “city” you’re going to have no idea where to go, you’re most likely going to find a map which is equivalent to the search bar on a webpage.
(P.S I wrote the last paragraph before reading the one about street signs)
I like breadcrumbs on a website because you can click on the page you were looking at two pages ago yet they can look very old and tacky looking.
I love the way that websites have tabs on them. It makes everything so much more organized (hopefully) and it’s prominent so there’s no way you should be searching for things for a long period of time.
Chapter 7: I agree when the book talks about how some things are obvious for some people but not all. I know some websites I’m on are just fine but if say my grandma goes on them and don’t know what link goes to what she says its a ‘spam site’ and goes to a new site.
A good tagline on a homepage logo sometimes helps with remembering what that place’s objective is such as “save big money at menards”. Everyone remembers that even though its obnoxious. You’ll always remember where you’ll save big money.
I’ve very rarely seen drop downs on sites besides choosing a state or city. I mentioned before that its hard to scroll on them and also if the programmer doesn’t make it obvious that it’s a drop down, people are most likely going to miss out on it.
Reading this article makes me feel really bad for anyone that was involved with Yahoo. I heard of Flickr around 2007 but never looked into using it. The big thing for photo uploads was photobucket.com where I was living. Yahoo had some great perks though, every day I would go on Yahoo just to play games since there wasn’t much out online besides that, miniclip.com and pogo.com. I also watched the new music videos since there wasn’t a YouTube. I feel like Yahoo thinks about numbers way too much and as it says in the article they don’t really pay much attention to the community which ends up hurting them even more losing more money and valued people. Google really stepped their game up and ruined Yahoo due to the fact they couldn’t keep up with the progress of Google. I remember one year in school we Yahoo searched everything and the next we were googling everything. It was a quick switch. I don’t know much about Flickr as I mentioned before but they definitely should have had some sort of social media going on considering Yahoo messenger was a thing I’m pretty sure they could code something with Flickr. The whole “you need a Yahoo ID to use Flickr” sounds like an absolute nightmare. If the makers of Flickr decided not to be part of Yahoo anymore, no one would ever be able to access their photos back! Even though Flickr got bought again, they were obviously too deep in the hole already. You would think a uploading photo site wouldn’t be so ungodly horrible. People have mouths and word of mouth travels fast so if your site sucks for that long odds are you’re going to be stuck in that deep hole. If only Yahoo would listen every so often.
If you were to give me an iPad and told me to do something on it, I would be totally lost. I have never used an iPad in my life. I agree with both of these articles because they both have their good points. The only Apple product that’s handheld I sort of used is the iPhone and I get totally lost and have no idea how to navigate to anything! I get so frustrated with it. I feel like you shouldn’t have to take a class on how to use something that’s supposed to be for convenience. I’m assuming there is classes on how to use iPads, also.
I disagree with how Nielsen should have used certain apps rather than multiple. Some apps show more than what’s displayed on the desktop website and vise versa. Maybe there should be two studies on multiple applications and limited (?) Also, being on an app it’s usually summed up so people don’t have to read forever about one thing which is a huge time saver. We have a much bigger display for a desktop/laptop so we’re more prone to writing more since there’s room for it.
I like the fact that there is different ways to scroll; sideways, up, and down. I know someone would complain about how every site is the same scrolling because they may not like to scroll in that specific way. People like variety and there’s those that don’t like variety.
Chapter One: I completely agree that websites should be nothing but self-explanatory and effortless. There is nothing more frustrating than misleading/broken links and unnecessary content. Some people make their own buttons on their website, which sometimes doesn’t look necessarily clickable and should be avoided at all cost because you’ll leave the viewer confused and move on when it could have been leading to something important.
Chapter Two: It’s true when the book says “We don’t read pages. We scan them.” Usually when someone is on a site they are looking for something specific and don’t read all the content. Even on news; local or celebrity, websites I skim through all the articles and just look at the pictures and title, not even reading the content in that article. The only time I can think that there should be “wall of text” is if there is a summary of someone’s biography, which shouldn’t even be more than a few paragraphs.
Chapter Three: I’ve never seen a website that had a small title font with big font in the article. I would be a bit concerned as a viewer as to what their motive would be for that unless it was some repetitive text slowly getting bigger for a poem, maybe to give it depth. Our eyes are used to going straight to something that is bolded or bigger than the rest, hence the reason sometimes we only read the title and not all the content. Dividing the page into defined areas with limited ‘background noise’ is a huge time saver. The viewer can decide quickly on what page they want to view and which page they want to ignore.
Now that we are in a time where spelling “doesn’t matter” on technology; or anywhere but work and school. I think it’s good and bad that there are simple searches. Good because some people just simply don’t know how to spell some words and they need to look it up, or if you want to look something up super quick that option is available where you don’t have to spell out the full word. It’s bad because most people should know how to spell and not always be rushing, rushing, rushing. If the search makes you spell it right, you are more than likely to remember how to spell it next time you need to use that word.
I agree with the site on PDF files on how they break peoples flow. Especially when I am on my phone searching for something and don’t realize it’s a PDF file, it downloads to my phone and ends up being obnoxious wasted space that you need to go in and manually delete.
I know a lot of sites that do not have a color changing previously visited link and I find that super frustrating. With me having memory loss I will sometimes go to the same page I was just on a few pages ago and end up re-reading that page again. It really saves time when websites have color changing links which is not hard to do in CSS so I don’t see why some sites don’t have that coded in.
Having a huge wall of text on the computer is really annoying to look at, I always end up blank staring at it and read only a few lines. Most websites have bullet points with different font colors or something to make it not so boring to look at.
With font size being fixed it’s really hard on some people that have a bigger resolution screen, it ends up being super tiny. On my computer now I have to zoom in to read anything because of how my computer screen is, but there usually isn’t an option on every website to change the size of the font, you just have to zoom in with CTRL + unless you go into your computer settings and mess with all the font size settings.
Being in IT last semester I made sure that you could read all of the words on the title because I was super anal about it going off into ‘…’ I haven’t run into many websites with super long titles with same names so I’m glad people are keeping it simple such as ‘Gmail’, ‘Facebook’, ‘Tumblr’, there should just be one specific name for all webpages that sum up that page.
I agree with the ad paragraph that most people just simply ignore looking at the ad areas which is usually on the outsides of a webpage. Being on Facebook there’s hundreds of ads that change on the right side of your screen and I find them just to be annoying. Not all are spam but it’s just hard trusting which one is a legitimate website and not malware or spam.
It’s true that people won’t visit a site that looks slopped together. You want all the main elements such as alignment, contrast, repetition, and even the consistency it mentioned in the paragraph to ensure your website will be successful. No one is going to want to go to you if your website looks sloppy they may wonder what your product or business is like.
I find it annoying being on the MATC website and I will end up with three or more tabs on my browser because they overuse the <target> in their coding. No one wants to keep closing tabs and making sure they don’t close the wrong tab. I think it wastes time sometimes.
Not having a price for the product on a website is unnecessary, I know some companies do it so their competitor doesn’t have an opportunity to make their same thing a lower price than theirs. I rely highly on reviews of products because it’s hard knowing what the product is like if you can’t physically see it in front of you. Such as looking for watches online, customers are not going to know how big or small that watch really is based on a picture. So the customer will most likely look or dimensions or reviews on that watch to know if it will look aright. Some companies even put their own reviews out just to try and sell their product and make it look good, so always make sure it’s an actual person whose reviewed or sold other things.