Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 16:43:35 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 16:51:54, Roy Eassa wrote: >I think you will find that more strong chess players (& chess programmers & >heavy users of chess software) are likely to prefer this design: >http://www.sciencedaily.com/index.htm to this design: http://www.submethod.com >(to use examples already mentioned in this thread). It may be a >left-brain/right-brain thing. I also vote to avoid pop-ups. How funny! I at first included the sciencedaily link too, but I decided to not overcomplicate my post and left it out. > > > >On February 18, 2002 at 16:35:02, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On February 18, 2002 at 16:09:46, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2002 at 15:36:04, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2002 at 15:23:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 18, 2002 at 14:12:29, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>http://www.betachess.dk >>>>> >>>>>Lots of clicking without purpose. >>>>> >>>>>We can only ask ourselves, "Why?" >>>>> >>>>>Right off the bat, I find that I must click on something that says "[enter]". >>>>> >>>>>Now, I ask myself the question: >>>>> >>>>>Why did I type http://www.betachess.dk if it were not for the purpose of >>>>>entering the site? >>>>> >>>>>Don't hide menus. >>>>> >>>>>Well, I guess if you are after some sort of "art neuveau" crowd or something >>>>>maybe it is the effect you are after. >>>>> >>>>>For me, I like it simple. And the simpler the better. >>>> >>>>Actually if my site was any simpler it would be betachess.txt :) >>>>That is why i hide the menu's, to make it simple. >>>>The reason you have to enter is that there is a code which makes the window >>>>pop up in a certain size, this ensures that all resolutions can veiw my site. >>>>"art neuveau"?? what do you mean, i have no idea. >>>> >>>>Regards >>>>Jonas >>> >>>Actually, DC's reponse was right on target. You need to "listen" better, rather >>>than become defensive. >> >>I was not being defensive, just didn't quite understand what he was saying. >> >>>By simple, DC means no unnecessary techniques that you really have no >>>justification for using. >> >>Actually there is a justification for this: >>The "techniques" that i use have a purpuse, the [enter] ensures that the window >>pops up in the size i want it to 650x500, but i already explained this. >> >>>I don't like the [Enter] screen either. >>> >>>Too much clicking means you should not require your vistors to click on thing to >>>see anything. There are a couple of screens that should have presented at least >>>one menu right off the bat rather than having the user having to activate one. >>>Be something of a minimalist as far the number of clicks needed from the user to >>>get around and figure out what to look at. Same goes for hovering the cursor for >>>information. >> >>Actually this is a question of taste, not functionality, by clicking once to >>enter the site and hovering your curser to navigate is just as functional as >>anything else, but if you don't like it that's fine and i will take it into >>consideration. >> >>>The first screen after entering is something of puzzle that is very annoying. >>>Get rid of it. Also, not everybody has broadband, so the large graphic will be >>>slow for them. >> >>It is only 35 Kb........ less than most. >> >>>The screens that follow (rating lists, etc.) are to slow on my 800mhz athlon >>>with a cable modem. >> >>Well i know that they take some time to load the first time you load them, about >>10 sec on a 56 k modem, but next time they should load in 2-3 secs max. >> >>>You keep using little tricks without justification. Reminds me of people who >>>produce a site with a large variety fonts for no good reason. Same sort of >>>thing. >> >>You make it sound like a conspiracy :) what do you mean exactly by "You keep >>using little tricks without justification" ??? >>I use different "tricks" to make a new approach, not to piss people off. >> >>>The following site uses an effective and simple basic design that is very >>>flexible that I like a lot. Visitor's are immediately presented with a lot of >>>summary information about what is in the site and are able to make informed >>>decisions about what to look at in more detail in the rest of the site: >>> >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/ >> >>I guess we look at effective and simple in different ways :) >>This is one of my fav's: >>http://www.blitzds.com >>And one more: >>http://www.submethod.com >> >>>Another site I like is: >>> >>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/index.htm >>> >>>There is a lot more I don't like about the site, but it is not worth the trouble >>>pointing them out. Just remember, simple is better and I don't mean a screens >>>devoid of useful information. That's annoying. >> >>Well i hear what you say, but you sound like you are genuinly annoyed :) >> >>Regards >>Jonas
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.