OT: Poor Web Design

[Fairlight]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:17:39PM -0500, D . Thomas Podnar, the prominent pundit,
witicized:
> 
> I heartily disagree, Bill.
> 
> I think all web ``designers'' should target their web site to the likely
> capabilities of their desired market.
> 
> If their target market is people likely to access the internet via
> dialup modems, then sure, you've got it right.
> 
> We used to develop our web site in vi, with no tables or frames, such
> that Mosaic users could read it. Our target market was users likely
> to have Mosaic as their primary browser, i.e. old SCO systems.
> 
> The world has progressed on both fronts.

What's the point?  Just because I use linux servers doesn't mean I don't
use Windows desktop software.  Just because I have a sweet machine at home
doesn't mean my laptop is a powerhouse.  For that matter, I've heard of
cellular service that has phone where they're lucky if they get the
equivalent of 9600bps.

If I was out somewhere like I am now and wanted -quick- information about a
backup software solution, I'd be gone -long- before the 68 seconds
www.microlite.com took to load JUST the home page.  Mind you, I've gotten
no -useful- information from that page.  This says nothing of the 20
seconds to get to the Products page, nor the 10 seconds to get to the
product literature index for Backup Edge, nor the 78 seconds it took to
load the PDF with just the feature list.

I'm in a position to recommend or reject products here, with an influence
on my clients' decisions.  If someone doesn't want to make it easy to get
the information -QUICKLY-, I go elsewhere.  When I go elsewhere, my
recommendations go with me.  When my recommendations go, and I recommend
something else, you just lost money.

GRANTED...I am not always on this laptop.  In fact, hardly ever.  But as
I said, I've heard of major cellular phone browsing service that actually
runs slower than what I'm on right now.  And who knows if those phones
support PDF, as well.  Moot point, as nobody but a saint, or someone trying
to convey a point with speed benchmarks like I am now would ever bother.
(Thankfully it at least loads in Acrobat 5.0 though.)

But if you want to lose potential sales because you like bloat, feel
free--I'm not the one potentially losing money.

"The world has moved on," does not hold up as an excuse for sites that
won't load quickly unless you have met minimum requirements--which you
wouldn't even know until you put in the time to load the first page, even
if it were listed.  All that sentence says is, "Even if you have the money,
I don't want it because you refuse to upgrade hardware that's none of my
concern, switch cell providers, etc."  Heck, if someone was even in a WiFi
environment that was either saturated or really flaky, there might be a
speed hit that limits people's download rate.  Universities regularly
throttle speeds.  So do companies.

Just because some of the world -can- go that fast doesn't mean it's the
least common denomenator for your intended audience.  Sure, 99% of the time
I'd be likely to hit your site over broadband.  If I needed info while I
was out, and I was using this laptop...pffft.  No sale.  And it could be
for several machines, who knows?  I work with a lot of different places
that can (and some do) use Edge.  If someone gets me on the phone and this
is all I have, that's all I have.  And I'm also gone when I can't get
information in a reasonable timeframe.

I'll say that your site is better than www.ctar.com, which took 121 seconds
to load and didn't -display- anything in IE 4.0.  At all.  All that waiting
for nothing.  Also better than the 130 seconds to load www.cactus.com's
main page.  Which means that, among the products I -remember- compete
with you, I had the best experience with your site.  What I'd be likely
to do in this case is wait until I'm somewhere with a decent connection
and system and try again--problem being that the places that frustrated me
most with lousy, bloated web design are the ones I'd visit -last-.  In this
particular instance, I'd go back to MicroLite.  The other two would already
have a strike against them.

Yes, I -have- been known to totally LEAVE a store if they refuse to have
enough cashiers managing the checkout lanes.  More than a few times.  Same
principle--the company either gives a damn enough to make it a painless
experience and easy to spend money with them, or it doesn't.  Those that
don't, lose.  I've been known to pay 40% more for a set of DVD's because
it's quicker to go to Hollywood/Sam Goody and snag it than it is to wait at
Wal*Mart, even COUNTING the further drive.

I don't think there's an excuse for bloated web design, any more than you
likely feel (and I feel the same way) that there's an excuse for losing
data.  I mean, what would you think if you heard someone say, "Ah, the vast
majority of our machines won't suffer an HD failure before they're replaced
nowadays anyway.  Forget backups."  You'd think they're nuts, right?  Well,
that's the same sort of thing you're advocating--going with what's -likely-
rather than covering all the bases.

It's not personal--I hear these arguments all the time.  And every single
time, I disagree, no matter who it is presentng the opposing view.  I'd
rather have a text-only bulletted list that was here in two secnds than one
I have to wait even 10 seconds for.  It's the information that I'm after
that counts, not how dazzlingly it's presented.

mark->