Sorry, but e-bay and amazon are product based sites -- so the "design-led" argument holds water like a sieve. When the page is for a PRODUCT the product is the content; that's when it becomes even MORE important for CONTENT (the product) and accessibility (getting users to be able to access the content) is even MORE important. Saying that goofy design hung AROUND the content with artsy fartsy nonsense is going to be good for marketing a product? I don't think so...
Again, why most 'designer' sites end up little more than "also ran", "money pit", or if the company isn't a brick and mortar, going out of business inside a year.
See the company I quit eight years ago that went under three months later thanks to their bloated, slow loading, steaming pile of PSD jockey BS I was telling them not to use. I told them they weren't going to last six months; they folded in half that; I've seen site owner after site owner duped into believing the whole "design first" BULL, then wondering why their sites are money pits not reaching anywhere near the potential of what the site is for -- delivering CONTENT; particularly if that content is a product! People aren't there for the goofy design you put around the product(s), they are there FOR the products, so anything that gets in the way of that (like goofy fixed design layout tricks) should have a massive axe swung at it.
... and now with the artsy fartsy PSD bull and goofy inaccessible fixed design idiocy, mated to even bigger scams like off the shelf templates from template whorehouses like ThemeForest and TemplateMonster -- we're ending up with the whole industry filled with predatory scam artist "designers" are taking advantage of businesses left and right using -- to be frank, the methodology you seem to be advocating.
No offense intended, but that's the truth as I see it.
Oh, and yeah... Physics... the fundamental forces weren't unified, the weaker forces were trumped by the strongest; if everything was a singularity occupying a single point in space, everything was within the range of 'strong force' -- making electromagnetism, weak and gravity irrelevant. There is no reason to even say they were "unified". How do you like my UFT?
The luxury goods industries are selling products, but more than that, they are selling image. See the Ferrari site for example. I could go on: watches, perfume, couturiers, hotels, luxury yachts, etc... Why don't their sites resemble eBay or Amazon? Have they got it wrong? Do you know better than they do how they should build their corporate image and sell their products? I think not.
Last edited by jedaisoul; 05-11-2014 at 05:21 AM.
See, to me that's an example of a brick and mortar that could wipe it's ass and call it a website (which honestly it looks like they did) because for them, it's nothing more than a over-glorified yellow pages listing.
Originally Posted by jedaisoul
Though, that site is so simple there is NO reason for the accessibility failings on it. Illegible color contrasts? Fixed metric fonts? Those aren't rocket-science to fix. In fact, the only real issue with it IS the fixed width layout and inaccessible design; not the design elements themselves. There's no reason for the sleazy shortcuts and accessibility failings except the ineptitude of the developer.
Of course, a 'view source' makes one ask "what is this, 1997?" -- nothing like a high traffic site that wastes 36k of markup on delivering 1.2k of plaintext and a half dozen content images, that reeks from top to bottom of "semantics, what's that?" -- much less the IE conditionals to sweep developer ineptitude under the rug, tables for layout, attributes like TARGET that have no business on any website written the past decade and a half... I mean you can't say "I can haz intarnets" much better than:
As if the scripttard data BS, inlined style, pointless wrappers and classes weren't bad enough... that paragraph tag is so pathetically laughable...
<div id="share" style="display:none;" data-url="http://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/car-range/" data-title="Line Up"><div class="container-rs container-share" ><div class="row-fluid"><div class="span12"><div class="inner-50"><p class="title-h4">
It's very pretty; but it's an accessibility wreck, poorly coded, painful to navigate, light on actual MEANINGFUL content about the product... and if they weren't a brick and mortar business where the website is more "an afterthought" and instead was what drove their sales, even they would have tanked. It's a STUNNING example of developer ineptitude and some artsy fartsy type pissing out a very pretty but ultimately useless website.
Hell, to read the text I have to zoom in 30% unless I want to plaster my head 6" from my laptop display, and that breaks the disastrously bad fixed width layout and endless scripttard fly-in bull.
If it wasn't for the ignorance of the average suit who thinks they can get sound technical advice from the pages of Forbes - which is akin to trying to get financial advice from the pages of Popular Electronics - developers making these types of sites would be fired in a heartbeat. Of course, it's far to easy to scam a suit with something flashy than it is to convince them to put substance as what's important. "OOOH, SHINY", who cares if users can actually read the text, have it fit their screen, or actually find information with it?
Buggy broken slow loading sites do not say "luxury" to me.
OH, and what the devil is with this current trend of ignoring color contrast rules and putting illegible dark grey text on dark grey backgorunds? I don't care how pretty it is, if I have to override the stylesheet (yes, I'm an Opera user) with the high-intensity user.css just to read it, what the hell good is it? MORE SO when it's in some jacktarded useless 13px or smaller? JUST WANT users to not be able to use the site?!?
You seem to conflate the development strategy with the implementation. My argument is that the design-led approach is as valid in its context as the content-led. You seem to have no answer to that. Instead, you carp on about the poor quality of implementation. Let us agree that the general standard of web development is dire, and not helped by the freely available glorified blog building kits that are used to churn them out. That is not at issue. Do you have any pertinent comments about the design-led strategy vs the content-led per se?
Originally Posted by deathshadow
Because the implementation is the result of the method -- and I've NEVER seen a site built with the "Design first" method that didn't have a complete and utter garbage implementation as the result!
Originally Posted by jedaisoul
If you can't use the result as what's wrong with it... well...
It is, by it's very nature, broken thinking and methodology that results in crap websites. It is the antithesis of accessible design practices and one of the dumbest things you can do in building a site; the results speak for themselves!
Bad strategy == worse implementation == train wreck of how not to build a website as the result. It doesn't get simpler than that.
I could point out the logic flaw in your argument, but I doubt that would serve any purpose. So I'll leave it there...
Last edited by jedaisoul; 05-11-2014 at 07:22 PM.
Let's just agree to disagree -- I think it's a sleazy shortcut at best, nube predation when used by PSD jockeys to scam people who don't know any better at worst; and inaccessible buggy broken useless train wrecks across the board.
For some reason I cannot fathom, you don't...
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)