Also interesting will be the development of their domain rego interface. Google have a tradition of producing exceptionally simple and user-friendly front-ends to each of their many products. To that end, there ain't a whole lotta scope for great change in the traditional domain selling process -- you search, you select, you enter your details, you wait -- but as we don't know yet how they're planning to package and market their latest offering, it will be interesting to see what they do with their UI.
"Thank you, sir. And would you like a blog with that?"One thing I hear domain resellers and customers alike complaining about more and more these days is the up-selling of "related" products during the domain rego process: hosting, email services, secure listings. Add to this, "Standard Google listings for only $10, Froogle $20" and "Get your own blog for only $5 a month more!", to name but a few possibilities, and the level of confusion already felt by the not so net-savvy may well turn into a highly tangled spaghetti of web-sites-as-blogs-as-web-sites.
In fact, there seems to be rather a lot of that about already. During each of my many PDA software and tips hunting jaunts lately, I have come across a number of companies using blogs as the basis for their entire site.
Now, whilst I can understand (if I have to) the financial benefits and, perhaps, the time-saving advantages in using an "out-of-the-box" product, (not that blogs would normally fall into this category where business is concerned anyway) I absolutely cringe at the sight of "Company News" pages with just three entries, one for each year of existence, alongside a "Previous Entries" list containing "About Us", "Our Products" and "Contact Us". Pass me that bucket, please.
Another problem that arises from non-developers building web sites with blogs, is that all links open in new windows. I loathe this. Fair enough if the link in question leads to an external site (in fact there's good reason to incorporate such functionality), however, when even the "Contact Us" link leads to a templated page exactly the same as the one you came from but in a brand-spanking, unrequested new window -- it's horrificly un-user-friendly in the extreme. Case in point: the big blog company. Ok, so blogging is their biz. But this link thing... almost every single one on the page... it's ugly, and it gets uglier in many more windows if you look around. Avoid both that site and that practice at all costs, dear friends. I beg you.
Firefox can help here. (But where can't it, when we are talking web!) Add the following lines to your usercontent.css file (found in your Firefox Profile directory, see the FF Help pages for more on that) and when you mouse over links your cursor will change to a cross-hair for external ones, and a "move" cursor for javascript ones:
/* Change cursor for links that open in new window */Firefox rocks, incidentally. (In case you hadn't heard.) ;-)
:link[target="_blank"], :visited[target="_blank"], :link[target="_new"], :visited[target="_new"] {
cursor: crosshair;
}
/* Change cursor for JavaScript links */
a[href^="javascript:"] {
cursor: move;
}
6 comments:
I suggest you look at your own browser settings because *internal* links on the Big Blog Company site do NOT open in new windows.
...and by the way, your sidebar is spectacularly broken (it appears at the bottom of the page).
Ah, but see, that's what happens when one posts long chunks of texts without space, such as, say, a long URL that could (should) have been turned into a proper link. That's the big drawback with any div based floating layout (unless one adjusts the overflow of course), and that's why one should create actual links - after all, this is supposed to be a "web page" made of genuine "html" innit?
So for instance, instead of this http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/01/31/google_is_now_a_domain_registrar.html (Ooops, 'mafraid I broke it again) on top of the post, one should create a link as follow:
< a href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/01/31/google_is_now_a_domain_registrar.html">This is a link< /a> (Blast! I did it again. So-orry!) that, without the extra spaces for this demonstration purpose, will render as This is a link, and save the sidebar from the exile in the depths of the cul-de-page.
As a bonus, notice that this link has the decency to open in the same window, as required by good manners in order not to importune our gracious host.
perry de havilland: I suggest you look at your own browser settings because *internal* links on the Big Blog Company site do NOT open in new windows.Hi Perry, and thanks for your comments, but I must beg to differ. From the homepage of http://bigblogcompany.net/, every single link across the top nav, and every single Category link in the left sidebar opens in a new window. As, too, does every trackback, permalink & comment link on each post. And there are more than just these, and they're all "internal" links, which you suggest shouldn't be doing so.
perry: ...and by the way, your sidebar is spectacularly broken (it appears at the bottom of the page).In IE it is, but in browser that knows how to correctly render CSS it's not. (So, Firefox, Opera, Mozilla, etc.) And I care not a hoot about IE... at least not at the moment, not in my lil space here. I've posted about it recently, and, as I recommend to everyone, you should give Firefox a go. Not just for here, but for beautiful surfing everywhere.
henry: Ah, but see, that's what happens when one posts long chunks of texts without space, such as, say, a long URL that could (should) have been turned into a proper link.Hi Henry, unfortunately those links are driven by Google, and it's part of the template, however...
henry: That's the big drawback with any div based floating layoutActually, that's incorrect. You should be saying "That's the drawback of using IE." ;-) IE is screwing up the rendering of this page in the most marvellously bad way. It's got pretty much everything wrong, but as CSS 2 support in IE is horrifically bad, it doesn't surprise me.
Check the specs for "overflow" and you'll see that content is meant to show outside the containing box by default ('visible' is the default setting, and I've not adjusted that). IE, however, plays by its own rules. So it sticks content where it shouldn't be, completely ignores width properties for the various areas, misses the cascading inheritance completely... yada yada. When it comes to CSS, IE just plain sucks.
henry:(Ooops, 'mafraid I broke it again)Nup, ya didn't. Only for poor sods using IE, but seriously, IE 6 is over 4 years old now, so what can you expect?
Ditch the dinosaur and see the web come to life guys... ;)
Look sweetheart, being actually quite busy in the real world, I'll go straight to the bottom line if you don't mind:
"Only for poor sods using IE"
That's 90% of the web users you're talking about. So that "only" of yours seems more like a stretch of imagination.
I understand you feel cool by standing firm, raising your fist, calling for the Jihad against the IE-nfidels and making lots of noise on how people out there are retarded and don’t know the real faith - just like every other FFundamentalists.
As every zealot out there, you’re having troubles adjusting to reality and, as a direct result, hold on firmly to the conviction that only you know the truth and have seen the light – a natural defense mechanism.
I’m neither a social worker or a shrink, so I won’t be bothered dealing with your neurosis, but I have to tell you: it’s not most (if not all) the web that’s broken, it’s only how *you* and the members of your sect *see it*.
You advise us to Ditch the dinosaur and see the web come to life? Well, thanks for caring but I have news for you Miss: as far as we’re concerned, it already has. And that's a small wonder: for the past years, it's been designed precisely for the browser most of us are using.
You know, there was life on the internet before you and Firefox were born to it (on the same day maybe?)
So face it: when you go issuing fatwas and preaching “this site is a broken crap”, 90% of the users out there go: Huh? The heck that loony’s talking about?
Even without taking into account such crushing majority, there would still be a lot to say about your poor excuses. I, for instance, don't think that having the content flowing out of the box and under the adjacent div or over and meddling with the other div’s text -- meaning it's not friggin *visible* or *readable* anymore -- is anywhere smart and user-friendly, but hey, that's your place and if your idea of housekeeping is to hide the dirt under the rug, well... fine by me (I’m not staying for dinner though).
And don’t get me started on the so-called “standards”.
So it all gets down again to the same point: when you - or me for that matter - post a long url (which by the way, is part of your post. If *I* could make it a link, I guess some smart evolved “my Fox is on Fire” user such as you *can* as well. So please, no lousy excuses about so called Google driven-part-of-the-template) or enter any other chunk of non-breakable text, more than 90% of the people out there see your layout as broken.
But then, that’s the trouble with ideologues. You’re more concerned by ideas than you are by people.
Ninety (90) percent, sister. Reading stuff on the internet. You call them “poor sods”, I call them real people, or users, or even clients for some of them.
90%, using IE.
Until that number changes significantly, that's the point to focus on, particularly when one takes the duty to lecture and pundit around on web usability and design standards.
Wow. Well, I knew I inspired many things in guys, but I didn't realise that one of those things was idiocy.
Henry, sweetheart, the only answer I can come up with for your brash ignorance and blind arrogance is that if you work (which I highly doubt) then you must work for Microsoft. Only a Microsoft "developer" would take one number and build an entire argument around it. Especially an incorrect number, from a single source.
You may want to go and find out where Web Side Story get their "statistics" from, and then go check out Upsdell's Browser Stats for a more balanced view from a range of sources. Follow some of the links from there and read some of the info, it will help your problem. (Well, one of your problems, at any rate.) And make sure to take note of the last sentence on that page.
For what it's worth, dear Henry, my choice of browser has nothing to do with any faith. My choice of Firefox is because it offers so much more than IE, in oh so many ways. But what's the point in arguing with you? You're obviously not going to listen. And- hey! You seem to know everything anyway.
However, if you would like to know more about what I think, then check my older posts. I've actually answered most of your [incorrect] points somewhere or other here. I've also said who I am, and what I do. So, sir, pray tell, who are you, so "busy" in your little world that you can't give out your real name, or a link to your "work", yet have seemingly ample spare time to spout repetitive nonsense in an extended fashion on someone's personal blog?
Thanks for the chuckle though! Much appreciated. My neurosis? Hehe! Please, feel free to continue ranting here for as long as it takes you to feel better about yourself. And on that front: good luck!
Post a Comment