From: owner-edheads-digest@efohio.com (edheads-digest) To: edheads-digest@smoe.org Subject: edheads-digest V6 #14 Reply-To: edheads@efohio.com Sender: owner-edheads-digest@efohio.com Errors-To: owner-edheads-digest@efohio.com Precedence: bulk edheads-digest Sunday, January 19 2003 Volume 06 : Number 014 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: edhead list ["Ken Stiffler" ] RE: edhead list [Dave Read ] varner show [Shellyus@aol.com] Re: varner show [Matthew Velazquez ] RE: edhead list ["Marty Hood" ] Please remove my address from the distribution list. [Kpsojones@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:26:00 +1300 From: "Ken Stiffler" Subject: RE: edhead list Adding my two cents on the flash site: I detest small windows - of any sort, not just on web pages - that don't display all the available information, but don't allow you to resize the window. It's even worse when there is no good artistic reason for the window size. Then it's simply (IMO) shoddy programming. I spent a lot of money to have a reasonably large display screen so that I don't have to do as much scrolling as would otherwise be needed. With the Flash box, I can't even use the wheel on my mouse to have the page scroll. Instead, I have to sit there and click and click and click to see all the information. This, along with pop-up windows (whole different obnoxious topic!), also contributes (unnecessarily) to RSI/OOS. Nanci Griffith's site has been like this for the last few years. Small window - poor functionality. The artwork, on the other hand, has been truly beautiful. But, as much as I love Nanci's music, and as nice as the site looks, I rarely visit because it is such a pain in the to use. (Last time I visited, they said a new site was on the way, so this may have changed by now.) I appreciate the artwork on the new EFO site, too. But there is more to a website than how it looks. A website is also intended to allow certain functions to be performed. That means that functionality needs to be given serious consideration despite any desire of the designer to be "artistic". Whatever happened to "Form Follows Function"? It's a shame. I really feel bad about complaining about these sites when I can appreciate the artistic ability that went into the making. But, without feedback, this sort of thing is more likely to spread, making the web harder and harder to *use*. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:09:50 -0600 From: Dave Read Subject: RE: edhead list At 06:26 PM 1/18/2003 +1300, Ken Stiffler wrote: >I appreciate the artwork on the new EFO site, too. But there is more to a >website than how it looks. A website is also intended to allow certain >functions to be performed. That means that functionality needs to be given >serious consideration despite any desire of the designer to be "artistic". I agree completely. I have extensive experience with Web design -- I develop big, active sites for a living. I don't do the front end; rather, I write the active content, databases, etc. that make the big sites go. However, I work with front-end people every day, and all the good ones have basically the same philosophy: present the information (or ad copy, or whatever) in a way that makes it easiest for the user to find what he/she wants, with as little distraction or other grief as possible. IMO, any web site that does not do this has failed in its purpose. It sounds sort of Orwellian, but "less is more" is a good philosophy to follow. Ken's comments about the Nanci Griffith site remind me of the old Dar Williams site, which was beautiful to see but painful to use. The designer of that site decided that navigation should be a game, and hid the links as graphic items onscreen; when you rolled over a link (leaves on a vine, IIRC), the item changed color and told you where you'd go. It was the most agonizing nav I've ever seen. After 5 minutes I gave up, wrote the webmaster a note about the site, and didn't go back to it for years. I visited recently and noticed that they changed. Yay! Anyway, the new EFO site is quite a sight, but a non-Flash version would definitely be appreciated. D ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:05:12 EST From: Shellyus@aol.com Subject: varner show is anyone else having trouble getting tix thru ticketbastard? um...i mean master... i had to wait til payday today to order and since it was opened to general public today thought i could just do it regularly, but it still asked me for the password....but when i gave it the password, it didn't take it. any ideas? you help is greatly appreciated shell ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:33:30 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew Velazquez Subject: Re: varner show > is anyone else having trouble getting tix thru ticketbastard? > um...i mean master... Yeah I had to try like five times over three days before that whole navigation process worked right. But then I got seats in the pit - yes! - -T ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:32:41 -0600 From: "Marty Hood" Subject: RE: edhead list Me too! I have to agree with most of the comments regarding the new site. While cool graphics and animation are, well, cool ... they make navigation & down load times difficult. Many of us have broadband. More of the world has POTS. From a business standpoint, a WWW site should convey useful information first and entertain second. If I can't find the next gig or buy the new album (yes, I'm that old), how do you pay for the site? Finally, it's the artist decision how to provide music. However, given EFO's progressive stance on taping/sharing and the EFO community's obvious self-reliance, RAM's are the second worst type for music. WMA's are first! MP3's are played by WMP and RP as well as hundreds of superior apps. Just my $0.02 mmh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 19:27:24 EST From: Kpsojones@aol.com Subject: Please remove my address from the distribution list. ------------------------------ End of edheads-digest V6 #14 ****************************