I fully agree with Nick Hudd about the over-elaboration of some web sites.
We should all complain to the owner (not the so-called 'webmaster') after we
have been disappointed or wasted time on them.
We see something similar in many TV programmes on history subjects: too much
music, often as a background to speakers so that the speech is difficult to
hear; far too many distracting images, some scarcely relevant to the
subject.
Brian Read
> From: Nick Hudd <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "From: Local-History list" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:35:53 -0500
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Gazettes and websites
>
> Apologies to Frank Sharman (who has mailed me personally) for my sounding
> so ratty. It was really the "big boys" I was moaning about! Personally (and
> I know a lot of people will disagree and like to see lots of visual
> sophistication) I think many of the more amateur websites are so much
> better in their simplicity. Speed is better if text is the main content,
> and the less Java and other code there is, the less can go wrong. Frank's
> Wolverhampton site is attractive enough visually, but sticks to fairly
> basic links with text - easy-peasy.
>
> I think we all have experience of accessing the site of WorldCompany Inc
> and finding that it takes half a minute to load, upon which we find that it
> isn't the real site at all, just a smart graphic which redirects us to the
> genuine front page (which takes another minute to load, because it's so
> complex). They are so bent on having a smart shop window, they don't stop
> to think that it LOSES customers, and the clever compilers of these pages
> don't tell their paymasters how to set it up simply, because they are
> getting paid for showing the world how clever they are.
>
> Many local sites like Frank's, are much more stable, faster to load , and
> easy to navigate. The amateur has to keep maintenance to a minimum too so
> it's all simpler, and therefore faster.
>
> Anyhow, folks - I'l shut up about it now!!!
>
> Nick Hudd
|