why do retail sites still do this?
Sep. 29th, 2006 11:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
design annoyances
1) Popup windows
2) resizing the main window
3) popup windows that you can't resize
4) flash that needs to "load" before you can navigate the page
5) animation that replays every time you go to the site
and finally I get super-annoyed with 100% flash sites, so you can't link to a product itself.
edit: why the fuck did everyone comment on this and not alien abductions?
1) Popup windows
2) resizing the main window
3) popup windows that you can't resize
4) flash that needs to "load" before you can navigate the page
5) animation that replays every time you go to the site
and finally I get super-annoyed with 100% flash sites, so you can't link to a product itself.
edit: why the fuck did everyone comment on this and not alien abductions?
no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 06:55 pm (UTC)Yes, there is a conceptual disconnect there. But I strongly advise you not to hold your breath until you get a flash developer to acknowledge its existence.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 07:00 pm (UTC)To most web developers, and flash developers in particular, the ability to control precisely what the user sees is the most important thing in the world. MORE important than whether the user actually WANTS to see it or not. So they will cheerfully make decisions left and right that negatively impact usability if they more tightly control presentation.
In the developer's mind, if they spawn a popup of precisely X by Y dimensions, they know that they can size their content to precisely X by Y dimensions and never have to worry about elements wrapping funny, or about suboptimal antialiasing in dynamically resized elements. The fact that a user might cheerfully and knowingly make the decision to resize an element in a way that produces suboptimal antialiasing in order to address some other need or preference is unimportant to the developer.
Making it even simpler yet: web developers will spend any amount of effort necessary to try to reduce a computer into a TV set.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 07:32 pm (UTC)But if you design everything in a Flash object, even in FF the only thing you can do outside the dev's explicit design is resize the entire object.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-30 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-29 09:52 pm (UTC)I agree.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-30 12:16 am (UTC)As for Flash, it's just easier to make unusable Flash sites than it is to make usable ones, and most Flash devs and designers suck.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-30 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-30 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-30 11:50 pm (UTC)And as an aside, it's totally possible to make book-mark-able flash sites, but most flash developers aren't interested in either usability or accessibility.