The Star’s Richard Morochove’s year end piece contained a tidbit that catalysed yet another frustrating web-site experience into this rant: To wit, a survey of businesses revealed that the most common operating system actually in use is Windows 95. Ok, mosta these are for office serfs, not surfers, But it does suggest that the bleeding edge of progress is not where most folks hang out. And dial-up—, I bet even some TERBorgs still use it—is still the pokey path to the Internet for many. So why do the accomplished and clever designers of websites for 'Slurp ‘n’ Spank Spa' lard their creations with the latest in time-wasting,uninteresting Flash animations and untested Java-based navigation schemes? I actually do wanna know.
I’m not completely stupid about computers—I’ve had one since the VIC-20—but I’ve never explored the briarpatch of the IBM/PC/DOS/Wintel World; all Macs all the time. As I understand it MacroMedia and Sun developed Java and Flash to be platform and browser-independent. Like the HTML of your basic old bulletproof webpage. As is its wont, MicroSoft—a major Apple backer— did what it jolly well pleased with/to both. And I’ve observed that often the best bet to a) get the page to work at all or b) to get it to deliver the goods before I click onward (assuming the page hasn’t choked the browser into catatonia) is to use MS Explorer. But as I say, even it can’t always cope.
So: if the point is to get me showered and on the table, pondering “oil, powder or lotion?”, then how is this java/flash malarkey helping? Old fashioned pages where I clicked a thumbnail and linked to another page with mo’ betta’ pictures, they delivered the only goods I’m interested in. And faster than even the best of the competent Java scripts. Does anyone really think I won’t notice that 'Lexias' pictures were licensed from a soft-core image bank, or look like Guccione family- album rejects just because they, swirl, lurch, scroll and slide when and if I accidentally cursor over some cyptic blob on the page? How can anyone believe I’ll enjoy that over-amped soundtrack for the umpteenth time, when all I want is to check a sked?
I assume this stuff gets demonstrated under optimum conditions to clients who weren’t the brightest bulbs to begin with (much as I love this hobby, my personal joystick doesn’t require any rocket science) and who may very well believe that it’s all about the lovely, lacey, lingerie-look when you’re in a bit of a wool-pulling game. I’ve got some hats I’ll barbecue if any customer honestly says the slick gimmicks of a website decided the question for them. Betcha 90% just want the pix: accurate, up to date and fast loading. They want the location stuff—once. And to know who works when. And if anyone says repeat web-visits are enhanced by the fancy-presentation stuff, I’ll forgo the condiments. For me that page’s a tool, not a TV show.
Instead of an uninspired, animated intro—boring once, acutely annoying every time after—why not put that effort, f’rinstance, into scheduling software the MP manager can actually use day-to-day: a roster which shows up automatically on the web site. And links from girl-on-schedule to her pix. “Write info once, use many times” has been a computer maxim since I wrote FORTRAN on punch cards for computers that filled gymnasiums. Then and still today, "the least code that achieves the desired result is the best code". The machines have gotten way smarter. Wish I could say the same about websites.
So: I’d love to hear the rationale behind the “lard it up with chrome” philosophy. Is it the clients? Am I wrong, and customers love it? If everything only works properly with MicroSoftStuff, will we soon be seeing the cyber equivalent of, “Talk white, frog”? I know it sure sounds like an axe is being ground, and far be it from me to have no point of view. But I truly am mystified at the sheer numbers of sites that make me wait, like a bored theatre audience, while the stage crew hammers and bangs behind the curtain and I check my watch again and again. Until I’m wondering how can it be worth it, when the curtain finally does go up. And after it sticks halfway, and the embarrassed ASM scurrys into the wings, and the cardboard tree falls over, and…
Webmasters and Designers, thanks for your patience—and your genius when it does work— the floor is yours.
I’m not completely stupid about computers—I’ve had one since the VIC-20—but I’ve never explored the briarpatch of the IBM/PC/DOS/Wintel World; all Macs all the time. As I understand it MacroMedia and Sun developed Java and Flash to be platform and browser-independent. Like the HTML of your basic old bulletproof webpage. As is its wont, MicroSoft—a major Apple backer— did what it jolly well pleased with/to both. And I’ve observed that often the best bet to a) get the page to work at all or b) to get it to deliver the goods before I click onward (assuming the page hasn’t choked the browser into catatonia) is to use MS Explorer. But as I say, even it can’t always cope.
So: if the point is to get me showered and on the table, pondering “oil, powder or lotion?”, then how is this java/flash malarkey helping? Old fashioned pages where I clicked a thumbnail and linked to another page with mo’ betta’ pictures, they delivered the only goods I’m interested in. And faster than even the best of the competent Java scripts. Does anyone really think I won’t notice that 'Lexias' pictures were licensed from a soft-core image bank, or look like Guccione family- album rejects just because they, swirl, lurch, scroll and slide when and if I accidentally cursor over some cyptic blob on the page? How can anyone believe I’ll enjoy that over-amped soundtrack for the umpteenth time, when all I want is to check a sked?
I assume this stuff gets demonstrated under optimum conditions to clients who weren’t the brightest bulbs to begin with (much as I love this hobby, my personal joystick doesn’t require any rocket science) and who may very well believe that it’s all about the lovely, lacey, lingerie-look when you’re in a bit of a wool-pulling game. I’ve got some hats I’ll barbecue if any customer honestly says the slick gimmicks of a website decided the question for them. Betcha 90% just want the pix: accurate, up to date and fast loading. They want the location stuff—once. And to know who works when. And if anyone says repeat web-visits are enhanced by the fancy-presentation stuff, I’ll forgo the condiments. For me that page’s a tool, not a TV show.
Instead of an uninspired, animated intro—boring once, acutely annoying every time after—why not put that effort, f’rinstance, into scheduling software the MP manager can actually use day-to-day: a roster which shows up automatically on the web site. And links from girl-on-schedule to her pix. “Write info once, use many times” has been a computer maxim since I wrote FORTRAN on punch cards for computers that filled gymnasiums. Then and still today, "the least code that achieves the desired result is the best code". The machines have gotten way smarter. Wish I could say the same about websites.
So: I’d love to hear the rationale behind the “lard it up with chrome” philosophy. Is it the clients? Am I wrong, and customers love it? If everything only works properly with MicroSoftStuff, will we soon be seeing the cyber equivalent of, “Talk white, frog”? I know it sure sounds like an axe is being ground, and far be it from me to have no point of view. But I truly am mystified at the sheer numbers of sites that make me wait, like a bored theatre audience, while the stage crew hammers and bangs behind the curtain and I check my watch again and again. Until I’m wondering how can it be worth it, when the curtain finally does go up. And after it sticks halfway, and the embarrassed ASM scurrys into the wings, and the cardboard tree falls over, and…
Webmasters and Designers, thanks for your patience—and your genius when it does work— the floor is yours.
