Copper's Website Comments

Recently, Copper's website has occasioned some comments on this group.
Some of you might find this thread about the Copper site - on the Copper
site's bulletin board - entertaining:

http://www.coppercolorado.com/winter/mountain/bb

Most of the comments are positive.

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:59:40 CST, Varanasi Benares
wrote:

Most of the comments are positive.

Yea, well I have a *negative* comment:

As soon as the dialog for the Flash Install popped-up, I exited.

I hate that useless and unnecessary crap.

-Astro

---
maximum exposure f/2.8
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/03-04/index.htm
---

AstroPax wrote:
Yea, well I have a *negative* comment:

As soon as the dialog for the Flash Install popped-up, I exited.

I hate that useless and unnecessary crap.

What I just can't understand is why a Commercial web site (a
site trying to sell something) demands bleeding edge browsers
to see properly. If _I_ built a website that was trying to
generate revenue, I would design it so the _maximum_ possible
of browsers out there could see it. But that is just my
opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe Coppers target customer
is the person who is _constantly_ upgrading this and that
on their computer.

Sam

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 at 16:57 GMT, Sam Seiber penned:
AstroPax wrote:
Yea, well I have a *negative* comment:

As soon as the dialog for the Flash Install popped-up, I exited.

I hate that useless and unnecessary crap.

What I just can't understand is why a Commercial web site (a site
trying to sell something) demands bleeding edge browsers to see
properly. If _I_ built a website that was trying to generate revenue,
I would design it so the _maximum_ possible of browsers out there
could see it. But that is just my opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe
Coppers target customer is the person who is _constantly_ upgrading
this and that on their computer.

Sam


I think the problem is, in part, that the people with the purse strings
see the web medium as yet another advertising venue, like tv and radio.
They want to be able to provide a canned experience to the customer.
The customer, on the other hand, generally goes to the website for
information, not for entertainment. So we have this desire to feed us
pre-packaged advertising "products," vs. our desire to quickly receive
the information we're seeking.

Bleh. Hopefully the old guard will die out, and the new guard will be
less mesmerized by shiny things.

--
monique
PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!!

Sam Seiber wrote:

AstroPax wrote:

Yea, well I have a *negative* comment:

As soon as the dialog for the Flash Install popped-up, I exited.

I hate that useless and unnecessary crap.


What I just can't understand is why a Commercial web site (a
site trying to sell something) demands bleeding edge browsers
to see properly. If _I_ built a website that was trying to
generate revenue, I would design it so the _maximum_ possible
of browsers out there could see it. But that is just my
opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe Coppers target customer
is the person who is _constantly_ upgrading this and that
on their computer.

Sam


Not at all Sam. They just don't have a clue (the marketing folks) and
they are listening to someone who pretty much only does stuff in Flash,
where that person's hourly rate can be higher, and the client is trapped
into depending on him for everything. They have been using Factory
pretty much since I stopped being involved with their site, which was
roughly a year after I stopped working there (I was still doing work for
them as a consultant after my move to Denver). The switch in website
philosophy happened when Marketing took over from IT. As I stated on
their message board, people came to our site to get information. And I
made sure it was easy to find. That has changed quite a bit. Patrick
at Loveland still hasn't gotten over the 'gee-whiz' factor of various
things, and definitely doesn't subscribe to the 'less-is-more' theory of
design. But overall you can tell he is an IT guy, because the pertinent
info is readily accessible. I used to do site work for Loveland before
their marketing guy headed south to Durango. Scott Fortner is one of
the few that actually gets it...

--
Chester Bullock,
Ethical, custom website hosting, design and programming
Tenxible Solutions, http://www.tenxible.com
Web Based Autoresponder and DRIP system, http://www.toolsre.com
AIM: tenxible YahooIM: ccb247

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 at 17:57 GMT, Chester Bullock penned:
Not at all Sam. They just don't have a clue (the marketing folks) and
they are listening to someone who pretty much only does stuff in
Flash, where that person's hourly rate can be higher, and the client
is trapped into depending on him for everything. They have been using
Factory pretty much since I stopped being involved with their site,
which was roughly a year after I stopped working there (I was still
doing work for them as a consultant after my move to Denver). The
switch in website philosophy happened when Marketing took over from
IT. As I stated on their message board, people came to our site to
get information. And I made sure it was easy to find. That has
changed quite a bit. Patrick at Loveland still hasn't gotten over the
'gee-whiz' factor of various things, and definitely doesn't subscribe
to the 'less-is-more' theory of design. But overall you can tell he
is an IT guy, because the pertinent info is readily accessible. I
used to do site work for Loveland before their marketing guy headed
south to Durango. Scott Fortner is one of the few that actually gets
it...


So, it seems to me that one really good fix would be tons of people
emailing the contact point of the website and saying, look, I hate your
site. It's unusable. Make it conform to reasonable, basic web
standards, or at least give me that *option*.

The problem, in my paranoid mind, is that the contact person is the very
person who is least likely to want to suggest a basic web site, since
then their expertise will be unnecessary.

Thoughts?

--
monique
PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!!

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:24:27 CST, "Monique Y. Herman"
wrote:


It's unusable. Make it conform to reasonable, basic web
standards, or at least give me that *option*.

Indeed. For example, a link to a non-flash version, or a text-only
version, or a version with limited graphics.

I would really like that...expecially due to the fact that where I
live, I'm lucky if I can get a 24K connection out of my USR Courier
V.Everything V.34/x2.

BTW, did I mention that it is dumping again?

-Astro

---
maximum exposure f/2.8
http://www.xmission.com/~hound/astro/03-04/index.htm
---

Sam Seiber wrote:

AstroPax wrote:
Yea, well I have a *negative* comment:

As soon as the dialog for the Flash Install popped-up, I exited.

I hate that useless and unnecessary crap.

What I just can't understand is why a Commercial web site (a
site trying to sell something) demands bleeding edge browsers
to see properly. If _I_ built a website that was trying to
generate revenue, I would design it so the _maximum_ possible
of browsers out there could see it. But that is just my
opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe Coppers target customer
is the person who is _constantly_ upgrading this and that
on their computer.

AND who doesn't use linux. The linux flash reader can see SOME stuff,
but not all the stuff that the win**** version can see. Didn't anybody
tell them that we're the wave of the future?

The best use of flash I've seen so far is the bubblewrap page.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ============
Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don't. Some can't.

Sam Seiber wrote:

What I just can't understand is why a Commercial web site (a
site trying to sell something) demands bleeding edge browsers
to see properly. If _I_ built a website that was trying to
generate revenue, I would design it so the _maximum_ possible
of browsers out there could see it.

I agree. I use a 16mb of RAM laptop, on a rural modem connection, so Flash
is anathema to me, I really hate it. I always assume the people who built
the site must be techos, who assume everyone has state of the art gear.
Actually, I think people who put Flash on the front of anything haven't even
thought about who will use the site.
I think Flash is fair enough on corporate sites where other users are
corporate, or techo sites where the users will be techos.

But sites with a very wide user audience, Flash should be under a separate
link, labelled "stupid bells and whistles and whirlygigs for Web boobs with
nothing better to do than watch the flashing lights with no functionality".

ant

The Real Bev wrote:

The best use of flash I've seen so far is the bubblewrap page.

I think it's like when word processors first came out, and people had to try
and use every single font in one document! Flash is there, therefore they
HAVE to use it. I'd love to hear their justification for using it, beyond
that.
The challenge for any web designer is to come up with something
beautiful/attractive, that suits the site users, keeps them at the site,
enables them to find everything they want and to want everything on it.

I think the only users who like Flash are kids with time on their hands, and
web designers who use it to impress corporate types at the site presentation
in some darkened conference room.

ant