Input for www.tamu.edu website redesign
john brown
Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
appreciated.
Some current thoughts:
- yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
or memory and keep the layout clean).
- having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
- who is our competition? what does the customer want?
ANY AND ALL IDEAS APPRECIATED - post here and mail a copy to me.
Thanks much for the time
John Brown
University Relations - TAMU webmaster - 1 of many
George R. Welch
In article <34cf6349....@news.tamu.edu>,
john brown <fri...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
>appreciated.
>
>Some current thoughts:
>
>- yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
>or memory and keep the layout clean).
No No No No No. They are terribly difficult to use. Basically,
they are a terrible idea (IMO of course.)
>- having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
>using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
Why would the University waste the taxpayers' dollars paying
someone to make animated gifs? Geez, put the information there in
a clean, simple format. Use zero animation, and as little graphics
as possible. Remember the beauty of the simple declarative sentence.
One sentence is worth a thousand pictures.
Take all of the time saved from someone slogging out silly
pictures, and pay someone savy to arrange the text logically.
>- who is our competition? what does the customer want?
The customer wants information. They want it logically sorted,
and they *do not* want eye candy. This is a University, not an amusement
park.
--George R. Welch
--
George R. Welch O- g...@tamu.edu http://leona.tamu.edu/george/
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.
Tim
> The customer wants information. They want it logically sorted,
>and they *do not* want eye candy. This is a University, not an amusement
>park.
Dude, lighten up. You have to have some art in it, some bits of
aesthetic design. <flame> It is under a utilitarian attititude like
that where ugly buildings like most at TAMU arre built. </flame>
No, you don't need 20K of gif anims on every page, but a
well-convieved layout _with_ graphics can help the design.
I agree--content and a logical layout should come first. But not at
the expense of ugly utilitarianism.
--Tim
tsc...@tamu.edu.SPAMISEVIL
<lose the "SPAMISEVIL" to reply>
Death to smurfers
Z. Huey Hu
john brown wrote:
> Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Some current thoughts:
>
> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
> or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
Frames aren't that bad. They do provide a simple way of navigating around
and getting back to the original page.
> - having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
> using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
>
> - who is our competition? what does the customer want?
>
I want to second Mr. Welch's oppinion on logically placed information. I
would liketo see the information laid out in such a way as for a newbie to
easily find information
he/she is looking for. For example, a better search engine perhaps to
search titles and
contents of pages to find what a user is looking for.
> ANY AND ALL IDEAS APPRECIATED - post here and mail a copy to me.
>
> Thanks much for the time
> John Brown
> University Relations - TAMU webmaster - 1 of many
--
Sincerely,
Z. Huey Hu
|zh...@tamu.edu|
jba...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <6alp53$dqu$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Tim <tsc...@tamu.edu.SPAMISEVIL> wrote:
>
>> The customer wants information. They want it logically sorted,
>>and they *do not* want eye candy. This is a University, not an amusement
>>park.
>
I agree! The 294kB animated crap on the "hotspot" section has to go.
All of the gif's should go. Use text, colors, and layout, but NO GIFS.
Lose the frames.
A re-organization of content is obviously needed. For instance, why does
admissions ad records need their own top-level heading? Don't they fit under
administration? ANd why does their website open in a frame? Why does
TACS, SEC, and MAES appear under academics and libraries/engineering instead
of campus life/student organizations? My choices for top level headings
are:
student organizations
academic colleges
administration
news
services
sports
I can't think of many things that don't fit under these.
Cheers,
"jeff"
--
Jeffrey W. Baker
j...@tamu.edu
Wesley Scott or DiDi Klapkowski
john brown wrote:
>
> Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Some current thoughts:
>
> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
> or memory and keep the layout clean).
Actually, frames are taxing to the CPU. To get them to work well
you need Netscape 3 or above which run significantly slower than
netscape 2 on a 486/33 win3.1 combination.
The back button in netscape 2 doesn't move you back before the
previous frame load. It moves you back to the previous site.
--
wesley scott
wes-...@tamu.edu
john brown
On 27 Jan 1998 16:49:13 -0600, grw@tamu_CUT_SPAM_CUT.edu (George R.
Welch) wrote:
>>- having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
>>using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
>
> Why would the University waste the taxpayers' dollars paying
>someone to make animated gifs? Geez, put the information there in
>a clean, simple format. Use zero animation, and as little graphics
>as possible. Remember the beauty of the simple declarative sentence.
>One sentence is worth a thousand pictures.
>
> Take all of the time saved from someone slogging out silly
>pictures, and pay someone savy to arrange the text logically.
well, why dont we just use black and white images, hell, why not just
go back to using archie? I think that is all needless
backtracking.... Granted a revamp of some graphics is needed but
all-text is not the answer.
to make my point clearer the a&m website is in no way similar to:
http://leona.tamu.edu/george/
it is at least 3 levels deep and much of the information can fall
under multiple categories.
AND - i think we can all agree that CONTENT is the main focus here and
which implies ease of navigation is essential.
BTW, "jeff" - the 12 main categories are decided by committee - but
your thoughts are seconded here...
I feel multiple front ends would cover the different needs of users
(speed vs navigation vs high-end).
Justin McElhanon
In tamu.networks Wesley Scott or DiDi Klapkowski <wds...@unix.tamu.edu> wrote:
> The back button in netscape 2 doesn't move you back before the
> previous frame load. It moves you back to the previous site.
I find this is extremly annoying, and one of the reasons I don't
like frames. Whatever you do please make sure it is lynx friendly. I do
most of my web searching from lynx and it is annoying to get no text
because they use frames, or to only get the words [USEMAP].
--
Justin McElhanon.........................................thorin@tamu.edu
Nick Manka
In article <34cf6349....@news.tamu.edu>,
fri...@tamu.edu (john brown) writes:
> Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Some current thoughts:
>
> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
> or memory and keep the layout clean).
no. Frames are irritating and serve no functional purpose except in
a few specific cases, and are invariably implemented in really brain
damaged ways that end up doing things like opening seperate sites
in frames or trapping you in strange anomalies of "BACK" usage.
> - having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
> using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
I liked the old 3270 emulators. There is nothing you couldn't do
faster on those than you can do on a web-interface to them.
Javascript is dying technology. If you absolutely -*>need<*- an
interactive application at least do it in java or limbo or tcl
or some complete language and not in a cheap little hacked up script.
When did text get so passe? Images are cute, but thats pretty much
it, unless the image actually is the principal content. Pages I write
typical have one or two small images for decoration, and concentrate
mainly on well organized parragraphs and links, meaning not only do
they load faster but the reader can visually process them faster, meaning
they get what they need and can go back to doing something worthwhile.
My general rule of thumb is that it should take longer to read the
page than download it.
A lot of people browse pages without images, and in many cases
on tiny monitors or in small windows on or vt102 terminals. Take
advantage of the "source" nature of html and let the browser
handle the display. Design the pages to be informative and intuitive
and ergonomic, and they'll look great no matter how you see them.
--
*taste the sauce*
john brown
>> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
>> or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
>Actually, frames are taxing to the CPU. To get them to work well
>you need Netscape 3 or above which run significantly slower than
>netscape 2 on a 486/33 win3.1 combination.
so are you saying the page should be designed to maintain the
standards of a year ago and not todays?
this is why i am suggesting multiple interfaces - text (or near text
only), frameless, and a high-end version.
I find it unreasonable to call ourselves a high tech university and
then fall back on yesterdays (or last years) browser. I understand
there is a need to provide low-end support but to base the university
page around lynx or netscape v.1b3 is simply ignorant.
** If everyone is so against frames how do YA'LL suggest doing a very
tiered website? This isn't your homepage - this is a 'deep' website
with multiple sections. keep that in mind please. I am open to
suggestions but I find "dont use frames - they suck. graphics suck
too" to be not helpful or productive.
john...again
john brown
On 28 Jan 1998 05:50:19 GMT, ni...@scarecrow.tamu.edu (Nick Manka)
wrote:
>> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
>> or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
>no. Frames are irritating and serve no functional purpose except in
>a few specific cases, and are invariably implemented in really brain
>damaged ways that end up doing things like opening seperate sites
>in frames or trapping you in strange anomalies of "BACK" usage.
see my other posts about why frames are sometimes necessary
>> - having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
>> using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
>
>I liked the old 3270 emulators. There is nothing you couldn't do
>faster on those than you can do on a web-interface to them.
>
>Javascript is dying technology. If you absolutely -*>need<*- an
>interactive application at least do it in java or limbo or tcl
>or some complete language and not in a cheap little hacked up script.
so we should just revert back to archie huh? The web is MEANT to have
a content and graphical interface. maybe you should repost to
tamu.3270.oldskool.arpanet.interface.rules.
granted javascript is hack - but so is java for that matter. I wish
we could use some stronger languages but with the load on www it
simply isn't possible.
>When did text get so passe? Images are cute, but thats pretty much
>it, unless the image actually is the principal content. Pages I write
>typical have one or two small images for decoration, and concentrate
>mainly on well organized parragraphs and links, meaning not only do
>they load faster but the reader can visually process them faster, meaning
>they get what they need and can go back to doing something worthwhile.
>My general rule of thumb is that it should take longer to read the
>page than download it.
good rule but fast modems are my rule. I think simple text is
underused but when you stand back and look at the a&m homepage it is
very clean compared to others. tu's page is much more text oriented
and for a university it is very dated. Our page cant just be a text
repository it represents our technological drive and it takes more
than just ***> WE ARE A WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITY <*** to convey that.
use the meduim - don't under-use it.
>A lot of people browse pages without images, and in many cases
>on tiny monitors or in small windows on or vt102 terminals. Take
>advantage of the "source" nature of html and let the browser
>handle the display. Design the pages to be informative and intuitive
>and ergonomic, and they'll look great no matter how you see them.
see above ^^^
john
john brown
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:20:57 -0800, Wesley Scott or DiDi Klapkowski
>> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
>> or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
>Actually, frames are taxing to the CPU. To get them to work well
>you need Netscape 3 or above which run significantly slower than
>netscape 2 on a 486/33 win3.1 combination.
>
>The back button in netscape 2 doesn't move you back before the
>previous frame load. It moves you back to the previous site.
so are you saying the page should be designed to maintain the
Doug Keegan
john brown wrote in message <34cf6349....@news.tamu.edu>...
>Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
>appreciated.
>
>Some current thoughts:
>
>or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
>using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
>
>
I've given some thought to the task at hand, and I hope that this post
will briefly crystallize my thoughts on this issue.
None of the above questions can be answered definitively. Why? The
current A&M website incorrectly attempts to serve the dual role of being
both an internet and intranet host. Would any corporation the size of A&M
attempt to base both internet and intranet web content from the same home?
No.
For the intranet customer (faculty, staff, students, etc.), function
should be paramount. The site should place navigation and a minimalistic
interface at the forefront. More links and options should be present at each
level, along with a more powerful search engine. Frames are out, and speed
and textual content are in. Eye candy and other assorted bells and whistles
are generally not needed or wanted from this customer. Yahoo is an excellent
model.
Soliciting input on Usenet in tamu.networks and tamu.www will
overwhelmingly yield responses from this class of customers.
Alternatively, the website for internet customer (casual visitor,
prospective student, etc.) should place a greater emphasis on form, while
mildly deemphasizing function. This is the University's face on the web, and
image counts. The link heirarchies should be broader and more forgiving to
the user. Frames, scripts, etc. should be used where appropriate. This
customer wants an easy to use site that will make a memorable impression.
Bonfire '97 was/is a good example.
In summary, the target audience and purpose of the site is too broad to
adequately meet the needs of all, and two separate sites are needed.
Doug
--
Doug Keegan Clements Hall Resident Computer Consultant
doug....@tamu.edu Fightin' Texas Aggie Class of 1999
Bryan Wossum
john brown wrote:
> - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
> or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
IMHO frames are ok as long as you design the page hierarchy carefully,
make good use of the target parameter, and use the noframes tag for people
who don't have support for them. Also, make sure to use the alt= parameter
on images. Pages that only use images to describe the links are impossible
to navigate using text based agents.
> - having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
> using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
>
NO! The main purpose of the TAMU page is to find information.
Animated gifs just consume bandwidth, Javascript is usually abused, and
Java is not needed on static (information) pages. Furthermore, multiple
front ends will be too hard to maintain.
> - who is our competition? what does the customer want?
>
The customer wants information about A&M. The most thing is to
CATEGORIZE the information carefully. Its almost impossible to find
anything using the current categories.
Bryan Wossum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the throughput of a Bryan Wossum
station wagon filled with 9-track tapes Texas A&M University
traveling down the interstate at 70 MPH. bryan-...@tamu.edu
----------------http://www.cs.tamu.edu/people/bhw3255/----------------
Dave Martin
} Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
} appreciated.
The first thing visitors to the TAMU web site should see is a means for
finding what they want, be it contact info for their major department,
course listings, etc. Whether they are currently part of the TAMU System,
or potential undergraduate or graduate students, or potential faculty or
staff hires, the information they need should be easy to locate.
One thing about the current design which I find annoying (one of many) is
that "Academics and Libraries" throws everything remotely related to the
primary purpose of the University--education--into a single category. It
seems much easier to locate information about football games than to locate
contact info for an academic department.
Remove the animation (I could stand a random single image; with an academic
focus, none--or at least far fewer--with the current football/corps focus),
reorganize with a focus on the academics, and find an easy way for people
to locate what they are looking for.
} - yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
} or memory and keep the layout clean).
I would say no here, mainly because they are rarely done well, and older
browsers (which too many people are forgetting to support in their rush to
do the latest things) do not navigate well with frames.
} - having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
} using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
Why do you need JavaScript, or even Java? Don't use things "just because".
There should have to be a mission-critical need which cannot be duplicated
in standard HTML before ever considering the other stuff.
For those using older browsers which don't support it, or who have wisely
chosen to turn off JavaScript, etc., they are still having to download the
entire JS/Java code. It's a waste of their time, the server's time, and
network bandwidth. May not be much, but why add to the problems when it
isn't necessary.
} - who is our competition?
The university seems to find enough competition within itself. Don't go
looking for others to compete against.
}what does the customer want?
Information.
--
* Dave Martin * macdave(a)tamu.edu or dbm(a)aol.com * Texas A&M *
David M. Cheney
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 02:23:02 -0600, "Doug Keegan"
<doug....@tamu.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> In summary, the target audience and purpose of the site is too broad to
>adequately meet the needs of all, and two separate sites are needed.
[snip]
Howdy,
I would have to agree. The needs of students/faculty/staff is very
different from those seeking information about the University.
-David
Steve Baum
In article <34d0cb93...@news.tamu.edu>,
john brown <fri...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>** If everyone is so against frames how do YA'LL suggest doing a very
>tiered website? This isn't your homepage - this is a 'deep' website
>with multiple sections. keep that in mind please. I am open to
>suggestions but I find "dont use frames - they suck. graphics suck
>too" to be not helpful or productive.
>
>john...again
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At the top level:
[SECTION 1] [SECTION 2] [SECTION 3] [SECTION 4] [SECTION 5]
At the SECTION 1 level:
[SECTION 1] [SECTION 2] [SECTION 3] [SECTION 4] [SECTION 5]
[SECTION 1.1] [SECTION 1.2] [SECTION 1.3] [SECTION 1.4]
At the section 1.1 level:
[SECTION 1] [SECTION 2] [SECTION 3] [SECTION 4] [SECTION 5]
[SECTION 1.1] [SECTION 1.2] [SECTION 1.3] [SECTION 1.4]
[SECTION 1.1.1] [SECTION 1.1.2] [SECTION 1.1.3]
and so on, with each [*] item being a hyperlink. This works
in both Lynx and Netscape, and if you want you can write
the HTML (with the ALT tag) to serve either an image or
a text string when appropriate, so you can design as spiffy
a set of icons as you want and the page will still gracefully
degrade when a text-mode browser is used. Don't let the idea
of frames overwhelm you when a couple of minutes thought can
suggest a reasonable alternative that can work for all
browsers.
skb
Chris Barnes
In a way, that's the idea behind the SCIP page (www.tamu.edu/scip/).
That's meant to be the starting point for Students to use, not the main
A&M site.
Note that I'm not passing judgement, good nor bad, on the current design
of *that* page. That would be a different thread.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes chris-...@bigfoot.com
Love is not a feeling one has within themself.
Love is a verb (an action) one performs towards another *by choice*.
from multiple sources (including I Corth 13 & "The 5 Love Languages")
Chris Barnes
On 27 Jan 1998 jba...@eskimo.tamu.edu wrote:
First a comment on Frames & graphics.
Frames *can* be useful, if done properly. While I think the current use
needs some work, for the most part it's not bad. I would insist that a
non-frames version be available for those that can't (or don't want) to
use frames (linx comes to mind).
Some graphics are important, but not at the expense of organization.
Frankly, I kinda like the animated gif we have now. It's not intrusive
and well timed (ie. doesn't go too slow, nor too fast).
> A re-organization of content is obviously needed. For instance, why does
> admissions ad records need their own top-level heading? Don't they fit under
> administration? ANd why does their website open in a frame? Why does
> TACS, SEC, and MAES appear under academics and libraries/engineering instead
> of campus life/student organizations? My choices for top level headings
> are:
>
> student organizations
> academic colleges
> administration
> news
> services
> sports
I agree, but I would keep the button bar (as it is now). Those items are
some of the most used items on the main page (especially the phonebook).
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <34d1cbee...@news.tamu.edu>,
john brown <fri...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>good rule but fast modems are my rule. I think simple text is
>underused but when you stand back and look at the a&m homepage it is
>very clean compared to others. tu's page is much more text oriented
>and for a university it is very dated. Our page cant just be a text
>repository it represents our technological drive and it takes more
>than just ***> WE ARE A WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITY <*** to convey that.
>use the meduim - don't under-use it.
>
Frixion,
Have you ever noticed that the _only_ text on the TAMU front page is
"Trademark 1997, Texas A&M University, All Rights Reserved."
The ampersand isn't even marked up properly! & : learn it, love it.
Face it, there is no useful info on the front page. The user has to
download a zillion images and gets very little in the way of content.
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <6anusf$lai$1...@news.tamu.edu>, <j...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>Have you ever noticed that the _only_ text on the TAMU front page is
>"Trademark 1997, Texas A&M University, All Rights Reserved."
>The ampersand isn't even marked up properly! & : learn it, love it.
>
>Face it, there is no useful info on the front page. The user has to
>download a zillion images and gets very little in the way of content.
While I'm still bent about the homepage, how about some freaking
info on the front page? Give people a reason to come back every
now and again. Put benign news, messages from Bowen, and calendar
entries there.
I think I would actually visit the TAMU web site then. Hrmm, I wonder
what finals are today. Well, I'll just look on the home page.
I know that it was that short guy, not you that designed it. But
get rid of that shit he did.
john brown
On 28 Jan 1998 19:02:24 GMT, je...@eskimo.tamu.edu wrote:
>In article <6anusf$lai$1...@news.tamu.edu>, <j...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Have you ever noticed that the _only_ text on the TAMU front page is
>>"Trademark 1997, Texas A&M University, All Rights Reserved."
>>The ampersand isn't even marked up properly! & : learn it, love it.
>>
>>Face it, there is no useful info on the front page. The user has to
>>download a zillion images and gets very little in the way of content.
Very good point baby - something i haven't noticed.
I guess there is just one reason it is like that... It takes weeks
(honestly at least 2 weeks) to change ANYTHING on either of the two
main frames. This is because univrel does the changes and CIS has to
update the page. (i hate that btw). SO, since it takes so long it is
hard to put up-to-date info on there.
>While I'm still bent about the homepage, how about some freaking
>info on the front page? Give people a reason to come back every
>now and again. Put benign news, messages from Bowen, and calendar
>entries there.
I've thought about this too. In fact a demo was made that had one of
those damn fucking slow java scrollers with news in it. It was SO ASS
SLOW. Now, I do think a text note from bowen and/or some news - all
text - no scrolling or javascript or pics - for the front would be
pretty cool. Of course CIS would have to shift control of the 2 main
frames to us (Univrel) - and I seriously doubt they will.
>I know that it was that short guy, not you that designed it. But
>get rid of that shit he did.
Thank you - I'm trying my very best but all i keep getting is red
tape.
john
john...@tamu.edu
edu
fri...@tamu.edu (john brown) wrote:
>Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
>appreciated.
[snipped]
>- who is our competition?
I know of a little school over in Austin who's web
page beats the hell outta ours...
For a demonstration:
1) fire up Navigator (I don't have IE so I'm not sure if it does the same)
2) turn off Auto-Load Images (somewhat common for modem users/slow connects)
3) go to the Cache tab under Network Preferences (under Options)
and clear the memory and disk caches (purge those pre-cached images)
4) go to www.tamu.edu
5) without looking at the URL in the status line, describe what
navigation (links) is (are) possible
6) go to www.utexas.edu
7) repeat 5)
When I do this, it seems to me that my choices at the A&M page are:
1) go to A&M's home page (duh) 2) and play a song.
Not particularly helpful.
One thing of interest at the UT site is the mention of the
American Disabilities Act under their "web redesign" link.
I could not find specific ADA HTML authoring tips.
However, I did come across the following paper in development
at w3.org on WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative). Although
it is a pre-working paper, in no way should be used as
a reference (it says) and relies on features of HTML 4.0,
it does offer some good guidelines for making information
more accessible.
Here's the link:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WAI-HAG
Here's the spec for HTML 4.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/
I'll leave it the the readers here and the web page committee
to decide whether TAMU should embrace HTML 4.0.
Here's some quick tips listed at the bottom of the WAI paper.
I recommend looking over the entire thing for more suggestions.
1.Lay out pages with a consistent style.
2.Use a clear, consistent navigation structure and provide
access to that structure with navigation bars.
3.Provide a description of the general layout of the site,
the access features used, and how to use them.
4.Offer a site map.
5.Offer different types of searches for different skill
levels and preferences.
6.Ensure that nothing within the site prevents keyboard operation.
7.Use only those elements defined in the HTML 4.0 specification.
Don't use proprietary elements such as BLINK and MARQUEE.
8.Use a design tool that supports access features (and does not
remove access when you close or reopen your page using the tool)
9.Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings,
paragraphs, lists, etc. to decrease the amount of sifting readers
perform to find important information.
10.Create a single downloadable file for documents that exist as a
series of separate pages.
11.Test the accessibility of the site by browsing pages with at least:
- a text only browser (such as Lynx)
- a self-voicing browser (such as PWWebspeak)
- multiple graphic browsers, with:
o sounds and graphics loaded,
o graphics not loaded,
o sounds not loaded,
o no mouse
Good luck,
jack (who doesn't fathom the process of web pages by committee)
jkp...@unix.tamu.edu
john brown
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:32:24 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
Perdue) wrote:
>>- who is our competition?
>
>I know of a little school over in Austin who's web
>page beats the hell outta ours...
Well, the ut page is fast but if we reverted back to a single page
design with 2 graphics and archie-like navigation I think i'll find
another job.... get the webmasters from 93 to come do that shit.
I am all for finding ways to speed up the A&M homepage - even if we
sacrifice some graphics and layout options but to say "all text" or
"only support 14.4kbs users" is crazy.
I think - by default - it should be faster - less graphic-ee - and if
at all possible lose a 20% frame (make it smaller or ditch it all
together).
I do feel that we should support the local network (labs, staff,
resnet), as well as the rest of the people with a fast connection and
HAVE A BAD ASS PAGE. I'm talking some nice graphics and yes - maybe
even use mouseover on occasion. NOT ON THE WHOLE SITE but certainly
on their main page. How to lay the framework for multiple front ends
is not at question - right now it is SHOULD WE - because all i'm
hearing is "faster, more text, less graphics, support up to Netscape
v2" - and thats it.
btw, thanks for the links and lists - they will give a good checklist
in development
>jack (who doesn't fathom the process of web pages by committee)
john (who endures the bullshit)
edu
fri...@tamu.edu (john brown) wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:32:24 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
>Perdue) wrote:
>>>- who is our competition?
>>
>>I know of a little school over in Austin who's web
>>page beats the hell outta ours...
>Well, the ut page is fast but if we reverted back to a single page
>design with 2 graphics and archie-like navigation I think i'll find
>another job.... get the webmasters from 93 to come do that shit.
>I am all for finding ways to speed up the A&M homepage - even if we
>sacrifice some graphics and layout options but to say "all text" or
>"only support 14.4kbs users" is crazy.
I'm not suggesting either, but www.tamu.edu is needlessly slow and
uninformative. As a comparison, consider the next page that has
more than 60 .GIFs and more than 60 links that loads in 15 seconds
with Auto Load Images turned off.
http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/Clan13thMan/
EVERY IMG SRC has an ALT modifier that describes the image or link.
EVERY IMG SRC uses a HEIGHT and WIDTH modifier to speed up loading time.
EVERY image map has a set of text links associated with it.
The images are simply "eye-candy". Why let them interfere
with delivering content?
It's not that hard to snaz up a page and still provide simple navigation.
>I think - by default - it should be faster - less graphic-ee - and if
>at all possible lose a 20% frame (make it smaller or ditch it all
>together).
When you're at rock bottom there's nowhere but up. ;)
[Sorry, but there is good info at www.tamu.edu and I'm just
frustrated at having to always wait before I can hunt for it.]
>I do feel that we should support the local network (labs, staff,
>resnet), as well as the rest of the people with a fast connection and
>HAVE A BAD ASS PAGE. I'm talking some nice graphics and yes - maybe
>even use mouseover on occasion. NOT ON THE WHOLE SITE but certainly
>on their main page. How to lay the framework for multiple front ends
>is not at question - right now it is SHOULD WE - because all i'm
>hearing is "faster, more text, less graphics, support up to Netscape
>v2" - and thats it.
I think it would be great to have a "showcase" page implementing
all the super-duper things you can do over the Web these days,
but I really don't think it should be what you get when you
go to www.tamu.edu. A DS-3 is only a DS-3, and any bandwidth
that's saved serving content to the world from www.tamu.edu
is bandwidth that could be better utilized playing Quake. ;)
>btw, thanks for the links and lists - they will give a good checklist
>in development
HIH,
john brown
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:21:08 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
Perdue) wrote:
>I'm not suggesting either, but www.tamu.edu is needlessly slow and
>uninformative. As a comparison, consider the next page that has
>more than 60 .GIFs and more than 60 links that loads in 15 seconds
>with Auto Load Images turned off.
>
> http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/Clan13thMan/
hahah - thats cool - you know i made the gibem97 logo for the tourney
last year?! -yakuza all the way baby- BTW - I would hardly suggest
the clan13thman page as an idea for tamu - it's cool and all but
nothing like has been suggest for tamu - remember tamu is MULTI-LEVEL!
i wonder what others have to say about the clan13thman page....
>>I think - by default - it should be faster - less graphic-ee - and if
>>at all possible lose a 20% frame (make it smaller or ditch it all
>>together).
>
>When you're at rock bottom there's nowhere but up. ;)
i really hope this isn't a comparison of web pages... :)
>[Sorry, but there is good info at www.tamu.edu and I'm just
> frustrated at having to always wait before I can hunt for it.]
i am frustrated as well - hence the request for other ideas...
yakuza[frixion]
john brown
On 29 Jan 1998 01:18:04 GMT, jpi...@cs.tamu.edu (Jason E Pierce)
wrote:
>john brown (fri...@tamu.edu) sez:
>
>I think you should be less concerned about what you want the page to
>look like and more about what you're "customers" consider important.
very true - content & speed are obviously of the highest importance -
however - I don't think we should sit idly by and just play catch-up
every year. - point well taken...
>This could be done by administering a simple survey asking users to rank
>the importance of things such as content, ease of navigation and speed of
>loading as compared to presentation elements such as graphics and animations.
>I would be quite interested in the results of a well-thought out survey
>that covered these basic questions (as opposed to a general request for
>comments or a large, thorough summary that many are likely to forgo
>participation in).
Well, 1st - as i've noticed here - most people are not aware of the
entire scope of the project - and 2nd *EVERYONE LISTEN* ...
--this is in NO WAY a departmental idea (to post here) - i simply
wanted to get more opinions and a couple educated ideas (which I have
and will be noted to the design committee). certainly as we get closer
to the redesign we'll try and get more public opinion....
THIS IS NOT A UNIVREL POST - just for my amusement and use later on in
development...
Homer Jerky Adams
I don't really have a dog in this race, but I'll Be DAMNED if our homepage is
too slow. John Brown, PLEASE, whatever you do, don't take anything from
http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/Clan13thMan/. I believe that I've seen a poorer
web page . . . once. There maybe some lag loading up A&M's page if you're on
a 2400 modem. If that does happen to be the case, get your head out of your
ass and get a faster modem. This University should stive to be the best in
everything, and the last time I looked, that didn't mean stooping down to the
level of poor looking, poor reading, ugly pages like t.u.'s and, sorry to say
http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/Clan13thMan/. Now this is nothing personal
here, but please do not recommend something that would make us the laughing
stock of the entire universe. That is all.
Homer "Jerky" Adams '98
edu
ho...@tamu.edu (Homer "Jerky" Adams) wrote:
>I don't really have a dog in this race, but I'll Be DAMNED if our homepage is
>too slow.
[he said, posting from a 10Mbps connection in Appelt Hall]
> John Brown, PLEASE, whatever you do, don't take anything from
>http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/Clan13thMan/. I believe that I've seen a poorer
>web page . . . once. There maybe some lag loading up A&M's page if you're on
>a 2400 modem. If that does happen to be the case, get your head out of your
>ass and get a faster modem.
Gee willerkers(sp?), I gotta buy another modem??? And US Robotics
said my X2 Sportster was the fastest available (so fast that,
indeed, it only does 53.3K to keep the phone companies happy
and doesn't do 56K as originally advertised).
>This University should stive to be the best in
>everything, and the last time I looked, that didn't mean stooping down to the
>level of poor looking, poor reading, ugly pages like t.u.'s and, sorry to say
>http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/Clan13thMan/. Now this is nothing personal
>here, but please do not recommend something that would make us the laughing
>stock of the entire universe. That is all.
Summary:
1) C13M - 60+ links, 15 second load time
2) UT - 30+ links, 5 second load time
3) A&M - 15 images - links to:
a) goto A&M home site (duh, again)
b) play a song (I already know by heart)
jack (who thinks an IP governor at Appelt might bring some readers
into the real world)
jkp...@unix.tamu.edu
edu
Just out of curiousity:
1) Why does the main markup for www.tamu.edu have its
<title></title> block before the <head></head>?
2) Is it done in right.html for the same reason?
3) Why is there a </applet> tag in left.html without
a corresponding <applet>?
I'm always looking for hints on how to improve my own
HTML authoring and was wondering what features the
above style provides.
edu
Okay, so the C13M page isn't the best example...
I would invite the readers of tamu.www to visit this page
and provide feedback/comments on how it contrasts
with www.tamu.edu:
http://www.cs.tamu.edu/people/jkp2866/wwwtamuedu/
Essentially, I've just removed the (frikkin) image maps
in favor of individual images with ALT tags that actually
show something when Netscape is run w/out Auto Load Images.
Plus, there's a link to the old index and a link to kill
the frames.
NOTE: I make no claims to be an expert on using frames in HTML
and leave it to those who are familiar with their
implementation to figure out how to ensure they
are used properly (eg. the "No Frames" link doesn't
work in Lynx like it does in Mozilla).
john brown
>Essentially, I've just removed the (frikkin) image maps
>in favor of individual images with ALT tags that actually
>show something when Netscape is run w/out Auto Load Images.
>Plus, there's a link to the old index and a link to kill
>the frames.
jack does have a good idea though, why dont you guys who are so set on
old browsers or using text browsers use your university provided web
space to build your own front end??
just think - all text, black and white, no frames, no tables, just
alt tags! heaven!!
sarcastically venting,
john... again
john brown
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:21:44 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
Perdue) wrote:
>
>Okay, so the C13M page isn't the best example...
>
>I would invite the readers of tamu.www to visit this page
>and provide feedback/comments on how it contrasts
>with www.tamu.edu:
>
> http://www.cs.tamu.edu/people/jkp2866/wwwtamuedu/
well - nice adaptation - too bad it is what www.tamu.edu was last
year. See, we combined all the 12 categories into one imagemap
because with so many hits the logs were COMPLETELY OVERWHELMED with
graphic requests. 12 -> 1 was much nicer for the server, and the
space. the same thing for the 5 subject navigation bar on all
pages...
I'm very sorry the site is slow for modem people and we are doing our
best coming up with ideas but dont expect a text only - no frames
version that doesn't take advantage of newer browsers.
Buy a faster modem, get a more recent browser, or BE SATISFIED.
over and out
john
(still open to ideas but tired of being told stuff that is useless and
refraining from personal attacks)
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu
I know that it must have been difficult to come up with so many
miserable ideas for the tamu WWW site over the last week, so
let me express my appreciation to the readers of tamu.www
and tamu.networks. If I ever need any web design ideas, I'll
be sure to come here last.
Jack Perdue: I might be missing the larger part of your strategy,
but if I had a horrible web page for an obscure quake clan, I
wouldn't invite ridicule and public embarassment by advertising it.
Keep that thing in the closet.
CIS web people: HTML by committee is a really poor idea. I know
that it is the nature of any large body to develop puppet law
enforcement agencies and dragging bureaucracies, but this is
really genius. Bill Ambrose is just bent because he uses OS/2.
Permanent bitterness always puts the brakes on vibrant creativity.
Give the project to Frixion and get out of the way.
Lynx users and other fossils: What the hell is wrong with you
people? There is NO usage problem with the TAMU homepage. Follow
the [USEMAP] link, and there is the entire hierarchy. Are you
just not able to hit the arrow keys repeatedly? Hire a goddamned
tutor or something. As for Netscape 2.0 users, etc: get out of
the past. You can't buy leaded gasoline anymore, and you can't
demand HTML 1.0 backwards compatibility. If the page is compliant
with the current HTML spec, you need to shut up before you get
what's coming to you. If you roll up to the web with your 386-20,
nobody is going to feel sorry for you. Nut it up and lay out $10 for
a 486.
Frixion: John Brown is all that, twice. I can gaurantee everyone
that more people have seen "frixion" at the bottom of web pages
than the name of anyone else on this group. John is a freak, a
continuous string of genius ideas followed by flawless execution.
He has mad skills when it come to HTML and web graphics. You
will all be overrun by his creativity! CIS and University
Relations should admit their inferiority and give John the keys to
the site.
Make the site the best site possible, with the most information
and the best presentation. Don't succumb to people stuck in the
tar pit that is backward compatibility. HTML 4.0 and CSS 1.0, jpg.
gif and png are current. If you can't use them, it is your
own damn fault.
Nick Manka
In article <6arnsl$m6v$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu writes:
> Jack Perdue: I might be missing the larger part of your strategy,
> but if I had a horrible web page for an obscure quake clan, I
> wouldn't invite ridicule and public embarassment by advertising it.
> Keep that thing in the closet.
Yes, and eskimo is a real treat. Wow, no images and no content
and 1/3 of the links are dead - one is for the record books.
> CIS web people: HTML by committee is a really poor idea. I know
What, is the CIS website a little to text intensive for you? To many
words that require you to <gasp> read?
> really genius. Bill Ambrose is just bent because he uses OS/2.
What's wrong with OS/2?
> Lynx users and other fossils: What the hell is wrong with you
> people?
Lynx, in many respects, is superior to any version of netscape or
exploiter because there isn't really an environment you can't
run it in, except those controlled by idiots like you.
> just not able to hit the arrow keys repeatedly? Hire a goddamned
> tutor or something. As for Netscape 2.0 users, etc: get out of
I wager the people that wrote Lynx are significantly more with it than
you.
> the past. You can't buy leaded gasoline anymore, and you can't
> demand HTML 1.0 backwards compatibility.
I can plug a SCSI disk into my system that was made 8 years ago, and it
will work. Real computer use demands standards, not snot nosed brats
dictating their own personal religion of what the world should be like.
> Frixion: John Brown is all that, twice. I can gaurantee everyone
> that more people have seen "frixion" at the bottom of web pages
Never heard of him. Sorry, I'm from a world were people have names, not
cheezy comic-book hero handles.
Its attitudes like yours that give technical people a bad name.
--
< FreeBSD: The solution to PCs >
*taste the sauce*
john brown
On 30 Jan 1998 06:37:42 GMT, jpi...@cs.tamu.edu (Jason E Pierce)
wrote:
>john brown (fri...@tamu.edu) sez:
>=> Buy a faster modem, get a more recent browser, or BE SATISFIED.
>
>So basically, you are only interested in what the customer wants if he
>doesn't want to have to shell out more money or install new software on
>his system?
>
>How ironic that not only do I pay tuition/fees, but I shell out plenty in
>taxes so people like you can have a job telling me to "BE SATISFIED".
well, whats funny is you are speaking like you are the only customer
and we should bump the standard down to your level. I'm tired of
that. the customers i think we should be focused on are the new
students (who probably don't want to see TAMU-yahoo version) and the
big wig head honchos with all the money - who want to see impressive
stuff that makes us stand out and keeps us ahead of other
universities. I really think your whining about not being able to get
a new FREE FUCKING BROWSER is pretty lame. I'll mail you netscape if
you want - hell - go get the source and build your own browser.
I apologize for being harsh but wouldnt you be proud to hear that our
website is the most impressive, intuitive, and content-driven page.
Should that not be our goal?? granted there is a tradeoff and we see
each other on opposite sides but believe it or not your ideas (and the
others) are influencing the devel of the new site.
I'm not paid to make you happy. I'm paid to make Bowen happy and the
university look good. and that is hard using dated ideas, concepts,
and standards.
believe me - the money we invest in this institution is absolutely
nothing compared to the "gifts" from big wigs who are impressed with
our departments work - so don't tell me how to do my fucking job. if
you want to pay what it really costs to attend this university help
yourself. I for one am happy setting us apart as a wired university
and using Whitey's donations to pay for school.
johnbrown
fri...@tamu.edu
som...@where.who
Alright Jacko, it's go time. First of all, I wish to apologize for my
previous post, for I was unable to be as potent as I had hoped to be. I
simply wanted to say that your sight blows some serious ass. Now one might
think that "hey C13M - 60+ links, 15 second load time is where it's all at."
Well, I'll go ahead and be the 1000000th person to say BullShit. Sure, your
site may load in "15 seconds" but all your loading in "15 seconds" is a pile
of shit. Don't you think, and I'm sure that you do (deep down inside), that
one or two more seconds are MORE than worth the wait to see what Frixion has
in stock for us to see. You, however, may feel differently, but only if you
could deny or own eyes and forsake what is really ART. The main point here is
that a couple of seconds are far worth the added bonus. Now, I could
understand if you were in an emergency and had to find hospital directions on
the tamu web page, seconds would really count. But the last time I looked,
there was not that kind of information posted.
On a second note, I have, MYSELF, loaded the tamu web page from Dallas on
my 1440p.o.s. modem. And you know what? . . . It was the fasted damn web page
that I could load. If you don't believe me, I'll show you the stopwatch
photograph I took directly after timing the load time. All things being
equal, I feel that this "speed" argument of yours is invalid.
Thirdly, modem speed is secondary only to cpu speed. If the bottleneck of
your system is your X2 Sportster, then I'm actually sorry for you. For there
cannot be any other explanation. If I, on my 1440, can load the page 20x
faster than you, there are some serious problems. You know, now that I think
about it, my little 1440's box said "Ready to Surf The Net at Blazing Speeds."
You should try looking for it, I'm sure that its about a buck-o-five these
days.
Fourthly, I don't expect this conversation to end, I don't mind havind a
pissing contest with you over this petty shit. Damn, I'll even have a
"frikkin" frebeauty contest with your punk ass (see
http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/JackPics/mymug.jpg). Nothing personal man, but
. . dude . . . ever heard of personal hygene. Like I said, I have nothing
against this me vs. you crap, but I would please petition you to stop wasting
Frixion's time. The boy has to much BADASS stuff to do than to listen to your
limey ass. Along with what Jeff Baker had metioned earlier, I say we let
Frixion bust some arse and get funky. None of this "my 286 is to slow to load
up www.tamu.edu." You know, I wonder what would happen if arguments like
yours actually hit home with the gaming industry. What would quake be like
optimized for the 286. Oh, wait a minute, I think that that was originally
called Doom, and it STILL sucked on a 286. The point here is that Frixion
should not have to sacrifice and/or demean his art for sub-par, sub-skilled,
half-assed people. If you do not fit into this mold, good for you, but
everything that I have seen points directly to this. Again, nothing personal
here, just bring all the facts to the table.
Fifthly, that is all.
Homer "Jerky" Adams '98
john brown
>> CIS web people: HTML by committee is a really poor idea. I know
>
>What, is the CIS website a little to text intensive for you? To many
>words that require you to <gasp> read?
What's funny is resorting to personal attacks on someone YOU HAVE NO
IDEA WHO HE IS!! now, to me that is true ignorance. If you knew
jeff - you'd know that he is on top of new technologies and does his
best to help keep people up to date and informed. I"m sorry if you
(and others here) can't handle it and are content where you are - but
we are ready, able, and going to move forward.
>What's wrong with OS/2?
A better question may be what's right with OS/2?
>> Lynx users and other fossils: What the hell is wrong with you
>> people?
>
>Lynx, in many respects, is superior to any version of netscape or
>exploiter because there isn't really an environment you can't
>run it in, except those controlled by idiots like you.
well, I for one prefer gopher.
>> the past. You can't buy leaded gasoline anymore, and you can't
>> demand HTML 1.0 backwards compatibility.
>
>I can plug a SCSI disk into my system that was made 8 years ago, and it
>will work. Real computer use demands standards, not snot nosed brats
>dictating their own personal religion of what the world should be like.
isn't that what you are complaining about - that our world is moving
too fast for you and you are upset with the dynamic. How can you
sleep at night knowing the techtonic plates are moving without your
"OK"?
You have never met jeff - or I - so how can you assess what we want
the world to be - WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING WEB PAGE! Why are
you so bitter about us moving forward?
>> Frixion: John Brown is all that, twice. I can gaurantee everyone
>> that more people have seen "frixion" at the bottom of web pages
>
>Never heard of him. Sorry, I'm from a world were people have names, not
>cheezy comic-book hero handles.
Well, I wish we could because you truely do have the wrong idea about
jeff and I - and some issues maybe we could work on...
>Its attitudes like yours that give technical people a bad name.
Well - I think our attitudes are the ones that built TEK - the most
fucking awesome media site there ever was. It is our attitudes that
persist even when people get lazy and content with what they know. It
is our attitudes that make us stay up till dawn reading about
tomorrows technologies and how we are going to improve on them. I'm
sorry you are getting left behind and i'll be the first to help make
it an easier transition but I'LL BE DAMNED if I sit on my ass with you
and watch the world go by.
I just want to be your hero...
-F-R-I-X-I-O-N-
john brown
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:32:29 GMT, som...@where.who wrote:
>On a second note, I have, MYSELF, loaded the tamu web page from Dallas on
>my 1440p.o.s. modem. And you know what? . . . It was the fasted damn web page
>that I could load. If you don't believe me, I'll show you the stopwatch
>photograph I took directly after timing the load time. All things being
>equal, I feel that this "speed" argument of yours is invalid.
attached is watch.gif - I hope you modem boys can handle the download
time. I can put it on aol if need be.... (that was a non-personal
attack!)
>Thirdly, modem speed is secondary only to cpu speed. If the bottleneck of
>your system is your X2 Sportster, then I'm actually sorry for you. For there
>cannot be any other explanation. If I, on my 1440, can load the page 20x
>faster than you, there are some serious problems. You know, now that I think
>about it, my little 1440's box said "Ready to Surf The Net at Blazing Speeds."
> You should try looking for it, I'm sure that its about a buck-o-five these
>days.
BLAZING SPEEDS - holy shit! where do you get one of the mo-dems?
jb
edu
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu scrawled:
>Make the site the best site possible, with the most information
>and the best presentation. Don't succumb to people stuck in the
>tar pit that is backward compatibility. HTML 4.0 and CSS 1.0, jpg.
>gif and png are current. If you can't use them, it is your
>own damn fault.
Can someone remind me why we call those at
the other school "tea-sips"?
George R. Welch
In article <6asbtg$emq$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
ROTFLMAO
--George
--
George R. Welch O- g...@tamu.edu http://leona.tamu.edu/george/
// Send $2 to P.O. Box 904; Latexo, TX 75849 for a copy of Grand Mothers
// tremendous southern cornbread recipe! Easy to follow and the best I
// have ever tasted. Don't forgit to include your address.
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <6ars58$q0h$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Jason E Pierce <jpi...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>je...@eskimo.tamu.edu sez:
>[Rant rant rant rant rant]
>
>Yeah Jeff, why don't we make it all one big Java applet that requires
>HotJava to run? Wouldn't that been keen and so completely cutting edge?
>If they can't or won't run HotJava, then screw 'em! Lousy bastards and
>there ancient technology!
Java is not endorsed by any standards body of which I am aware.
Next time, bring a better argument.
Jeff
jba...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <6aru2d$qu4$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Nick Manka <ni...@scarecrow.tamu.edu> wrote:
>In article <6arnsl$m6v$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
> je...@eskimo.tamu.edu writes:
>
>Yes, and eskimo is a real treat. Wow, no images and no content
>and 1/3 of the links are dead - one is for the record books.
Eskimo is not my website. I just have an account there.
>
>> the past. You can't buy leaded gasoline anymore, and you can't
>> demand HTML 1.0 backwards compatibility.
>
>I can plug a SCSI disk into my system that was made 8 years ago, and it
>will work. Real computer use demands standards, not snot nosed brats
>dictating their own personal religion of what the world should be like.
Your argument is broken and here is why. You can plug an 8 year old
SCSI disk into a current system and it will work, but you can't plug
a current disk into an 8 year old SCSI adapter and then bitch when it
doesn't work. That is what the fossils are demanding.
If you have a current browser, you can view HTML of any version. But if
you have an old browser, you can't view current content. Do you complain
that you can't plug an Ultra Wide disk into your ancient host?
>Its attitudes like yours that give technical people a bad name.
I am technical people, and from where I sit, the contracts just keep
rolling in. Must be something to it, eh?
Nick Manka
In article <6asvif$4nq$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
jba...@eskimo.tamu.edu writes:
>>Yes, and eskimo is a real treat. Wow, no images and no content
>>and 1/3 of the links are dead - one is for the record books.
> Eskimo is not my website. I just have an account there.
So what are your websites?
> Your argument is broken and here is why. You can plug an 8 year old
Glad to know you're just trolling, for a second I thought you understood/meant
all of this.
> SCSI disk into a current system and it will work, but you can't plug
> a current disk into an 8 year old SCSI adapter and then bitch when it
> doesn't work. That is what the fossils are demanding.
Wanna bet? I've seen disks less than a year old running in scsi-1
busses. Wanna know why? Because the scsi standard provides for
backwards compatibility on both ends. Its good fundamental design.
Emulate it, you'll work better.
> If you have a current browser, you can view HTML of any version. But if
> you have an old browser, you can't view current content. Do you complain
> that you can't plug an Ultra Wide disk into your ancient host?
I can get an adapter and then, guess what, the wide drive preforms
like the rest of the devices, because the extra wiring is terminated.
Similiarly, good websites provide compatibility to older systems by
providing a way for them to view content without the fancy extras that
more or less amount to nothing.
Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade! is a sales pitch. Previous web browsers
worked -fine-? What real advantage are we getting by including content
so active it wiggles and kicks all the way down?
I, like many other people, tend to read pages with a lot
of stuff turned off. Makes over-hyped pages look really ugly. Makes
nice pages that have more to say than shout look very well formatted,
because they were to begin with, which is the point you are missing.
Pictures = decoration, text = content. Unless your pages is the
frontend to an art gallery, I don't want more images than are mere
decorative trim. Unless your website is frontend to a major distributed
application, it doesn't need Java. And for the sake of your local diety,
stop putting those damn midi files all over the place - if I want music,
I'll play it! Grr. (do note that this isn't address to anyone in
particular, just a little rant.)
> I am technical people, and from where I sit, the contracts just keep
> rolling in. Must be something to it, eh?
Website design is data entry with a twist.
--
< FreeBSD: The cure for the common PC >
*taste the sauce*
BigDog
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:42:39 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
Perdue) wrote:
Boy Jack, you need to go back to webmastering school.
Let me quote from the recently published "Seven Deadly Web Site Sins"
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_1716.html
Which is mostly a repeat of what every good web producer knows:
1. Inconsistent Navigation
Well, you have no navigation to speak of, so we can skip this
one...
2. Broken Links
Have you checked you links lately Jack? I have
So that's 2 rules that you have broken. Which means we should kill
you twice...
Also, your page flashes, lights up, zigs and LAGS. So many animated
gifs show up at the same time (the light from which turns my room into
a disco), and I watch my overclocked ppro 200 go to gull capacity. My
WinAmp Plugin slows down and becomes jerky, and the music occaisonally
skips a beat. Also, after having read Lynda Weinman's "Designing Web
Graphics.2" (http://www.lynda.com for a complete listing of all her
books, which I highly suggest) I can tell you right now that animated
gifs can KILL a site (I say CAN because yours was dead before you
ftp-ed it).
I am glad for one thing though. Now that I have seen your site I
finially know what all those annoying sites did with their little grey
buttons....they gave them to you! Now if I ever need a Quake Now, CTF
Now, or HOMO NOW button, I know exactly where to go. Thank you for
bringing back that sad, ugly part of the web. I bet you watch old
John Travolta movies too, don't you Jacky boy...
If you think that tamu.edu is bad, why don't you go apply for the job?
I'm sure if you take them your page on a disk (if it'll fit) they
would give you the job in a heart beat, with a pay raise. They would
say "Please, take our nice site, put a <center> tag at the top and a
</center> tag at the bottom, and put in the same animated gifs
hundreds of times. Oh yeah, don't forget to put everything on the
first page so people only have to learn how to scroll like hell, and
not actually click".
Jack my boy, you couldn't put together a good looking web site that
would unify all the departments on this campus if your life depended
on it. So unless you have some useful remarks, stay they hell outta
this newsgroup.
-John "BigDog" Cunningham
Who thinks Jack should take a long walk off a short pier
and hug an octopus
-President, Slam Designs (http://www.slamdesigns.com)
which just made more money for a professional web site than
Jack will ever see, and depends on John Brown's ability as a
professional webmaster
john brown
Well, check out what I got mailed:
>Please tell me the name and email adress of your supervisor.
> I think they should be in on this discussion.
1. If you are worried ya'lls ideas aren't going to be considered -
don't be. The web committee will get a printed list of this whole
thread w/ highlighted sections that are actually relevant.
2. This thread is in no way an offical part of my job (thank god
because the emotional level is high and the educated level is low)
3. My sole purpose of posting originally was/is to get a better
perspective on problems and good things with www.tamu.edu . Well, i
certainly have - and they will influence the devel.... only we got to
rag on each other a lot too!!
4. Don't be petty ninnies. Just because your arguements suck (and
jeff and i will tell you straight up when they do) doesn't mean you
have to call our moms.
5 I still want more suggestions and crap.
6. If the suggestions are petty I will tell you to piss off
over and out
john brown
-currently supervisor-less.... bi-atch
Homer Jerky Adams
I would like to congratulate Jeff on being completely reasonable with his
response to (jackass) Nick. Jeff, it's nice to see someone NOT get all
personal and stuff. It's refreshing. I on the other hand am unable to do so.
It just ain't my bag baby! Nick, I want you to know that none of what you
are about to read is sarcastic.
Nick, man, it must really suck to have every one of your suck arguments shot
down by straight forward reason and logic. Let me just go ahead and state
that you don't want none of Jeff . . .. I'd best describe him as a dormant
volcano for 2000 years, he may look all sweet and innocent, but DAMNIT when
the man gets your number your all going to hell in a fury of hot molten lava
mixed with the thunder from heaven. That stated, I recommend you come up with
some better arguments b/c although it may be fun to see him in action, it's
not good for you. I'd start by mocking his provider's web page (wow, that was
pretty lame), then making fun of his experience (the son-of-a-bitch has been
doing this crap for as long as I can remember, and will make a mockery of your
entire family). Well, damn, that IS just about the only things that you can
say negative about Jeff Baker. So get off your punk ass and ask for
forgiveness b/c retribution is coming, and that right quick.
Just another HAPPY satisfied customer of Frixion and Jeff Baker (The Original
Bad Boys).
Homer "Get It On" Adams
aka Jerky
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <6at4ju$7s1$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Nick Manka <ni...@scarecrow.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>> If you have a current browser, you can view HTML of any version. But if
>> you have an old browser, you can't view current content. Do you complain
>> that you can't plug an Ultra Wide disk into your ancient host?
>
>I can get an adapter and then, guess what, the wide drive preforms
>like the rest of the devices, because the extra wiring is terminated.
>Similiarly, good websites provide compatibility to older systems by
>providing a way for them to view content without the fancy extras that
>more or less amount to nothing.
Guess what. You just had to buy an adapter. Buy an adapter, get a web
browser, what's the difference?
jeff
Nick Manka
In article <6b0b41$guf$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
The adapter works with legacy hardware. Netscape 4.x doesn't. In fact,
netscape will often bring our sparc5s and linux workstations to their
knees, and they aren't even that old. In addition, all those "nifty"
plugins aren't multiplatform, they're for Windows, and there are a lot
of people like me who don't use that.
--
< FreeBSD: The solution for PCs >
*taste the sauce*
Bryan Wossum
Nick Manka wrote:
> The adapter works with legacy hardware. Netscape 4.x doesn't. In fact,
> netscape will often bring our sparc5s and linux workstations to their
> knees, and they aren't even that old. In addition, all those "nifty"
> plugins aren't multiplatform, they're for Windows, and there are a lot
> of people like me who don't use that.
>
It runs faster under Linux than it does under Windows NT.
YOU DON'T NEED PLUGINS TO DISPLAY INFORMATION!
Even when I am using one of the latest agents (Netscape 4.04 / IE 4.0,)
I get annoyed when people insist on using fancy gadgets to display
information. I remember one time where someone used an ActiveX control
to produce a list of links to other pages!
The page that represents A&M should meet two major requirements:
1. It should be targeted at a wide audience.
2. It should load quickly.
These requirements insist that the following be adhered to:
1. Don't use ANY plugins. (Java, ActiveX, JavaScript)
2. Don't use animated gifs. (Take up too much bandwidth.)
3. Use the ALT= attribute for images.
4. Frames should only be used if it makes the content EASIER to
navigate. And if they are used, the noframes tag should also
be used for agents that don't support frames (lynx.)
Never forget that the more succinct you make the information on the page,
the lower the load you put on your server.
Bryan Wossum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the throughput of a Bryan Wossum
station wagon filled with 9-track tapes Texas A&M University
traveling down the interstate at 70 MPH. bryan-...@tamu.edu
---------------http://www.cs.tamu.edu/people/bhw3255/-----------------
je...@eskimo.tamu.edu
In article <6b0hsr$m1b$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Nick Manka <ni...@scarecrow.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>The adapter works with legacy hardware. Netscape 4.x doesn't. In fact,
>netscape will often bring our sparc5s and linux workstations to their
>knees, and they aren't even that old. In addition, all those "nifty"
>plugins aren't multiplatform, they're for Windows, and there are a lot
>of people like me who don't use that.
>
Did you jump in in the middle of this discussion? Nobody is talking
about plugins or java. Everyone jumped on John's case about a website
that uses only HTML 3.2 compliant markup.
Nobody wants to use Netscape 4.x specific extensions. Everything that
John is talking about would run just fine on ANY browser that implements
the complete HTML standard. Listen people: Lynx does not implement all
of HTML 3.2. You can't expect people to design for a browser which does
not support the standard and is used by very,very,very few folks.
Cheers,
Jeff
Matthew Hennig
In article <6b3082$6k3$1...@news.tamu.edu>, j...@tamu.edu wrote:
>Did you jump in in the middle of this discussion? Nobody is talking
>about plugins or java. Everyone jumped on John's case about a website
>that uses only HTML 3.2 compliant markup.
I think I can sum up what everyone has been asking for. Give us a clear,
concise web site that delivers the information needed in a logical manner. Do
not give us bells and whistles that increase loading time/cpu time.
Java/Active X should not be a focus of the web page and things should stick to
a well written page rather than a well drawn page.
And it would be really nice if you could make the main tamu web site nongui
browser compatible or allow people the option to not use frames.
Comments, Questions?
MH
To email me, remove the NO_AGIS. part of my email address. I previously had
NOSPAM. to be removed, however, it seems that some programs are able to remove
it. Perhaps this will prove to be a viable mask. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------
| By reading this newsgroup, you have given your agreement |
| not to add my email address to any mass email lists. |
-------------------------------------------------------------
I was Net.Scum, but NetScum is no more. (R.I.P. 10/16/97)
Support CAUCE - http://www.cauce.org
Bryan Wossum
Matthew Hennig wrote:
> I think I can sum up what everyone has been asking for. Give us a clear,
> concise web site that delivers the information needed in a logical manner. Do
> not give us bells and whistles that increase loading time/cpu time.
> Java/Active X should not be a focus of the web page and things should stick to
> a well written page rather than a well drawn page.
>
> And it would be really nice if you could make the main tamu web site nongui
> browser compatible or allow people the option to not use frames.
>
Matthew Hennig
In article <34d21679...@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.edu (BigDog) wrote:
>I am glad for one thing though. Now that I have seen your site I
>finially know what all those annoying sites did with their little grey
>buttons....they gave them to you! Now if I ever need a Quake Now, CTF
>Now, or HOMO NOW button, I know exactly where to go. Thank you for
>bringing back that sad, ugly part of the web. I bet you watch old
>John Travolta movies too, don't you Jacky boy...
Why so much hostility? Do you feel that Jack made a personal attack on you or
Brown? I didn't see one? The issue is making the tamu web page better, not
getting in a war to see who's genitalia is larger...
>on it. So unless you have some useful remarks, stay they hell outta
>this newsgroup.
Where are yours?
MH (wondering why so many personal attacks are showing up in a discussion on a
web site)
Matthew Hennig
In article <6arvmf$94$1...@news.tamu.edu>, som...@where.who wrote:
>Alright Jacko, it's go time. First of all, I wish to apologize for my
>previous post, for I was unable to be as potent as I had hoped to be. I
>simply wanted to say that your sight blows some serious ass. Now one might
>think that "hey C13M - 60+ links, 15 second load time is where it's all at."
>Well, I'll go ahead and be the 1000000th person to say BullShit. Sure, your
>site may load in "15 seconds" but all your loading in "15 seconds" is a pile
If I read what Jack said in his posting correctly, he was commenting on the
fact that his page loaded faster with more links and content than the main
tamu web page. I read into it that Jack wants to see more content on the main
web page and less of the high tech, supergraphics or whatever else it is.
Also, he didn't make this something personal against Brown, but made it
personal against the web page.
>of shit. Don't you think, and I'm sure that you do (deep down inside), that
>one or two more seconds are MORE than worth the wait to see what Frixion has
>in stock for us to see. You, however, may feel differently, but only if you
Personally, I'd rather have a fast loading page that allows me to easily get
where I want to get rather than wading through the mess that the web page
calls a menu.
>could deny or own eyes and forsake what is really ART. The main point here is
>that a couple of seconds are far worth the added bonus. Now, I could
Why?
<snip sarcasm regarding 14.4 modems>
>Thirdly, modem speed is secondary only to cpu speed. If the bottleneck of
>your system is your X2 Sportster, then I'm actually sorry for you. For there
>cannot be any other explanation. If I, on my 1440, can load the page 20x
>faster than you, there are some serious problems. You know, now that I think
Was it in the cache?
>http://http.tamu.edu/~jkp2866/JackPics/mymug.jpg). Nothing personal man, but
> . . dude . . . ever heard of personal hygene. Like I said, I have nothing
Lets keep the attention on the task at hand... trying to make the tamu web
site better and not a bunch of personal attacks...
MH
BigDog
>
>Why so much hostility? Do you feel that Jack made a personal attack on you or
>Brown? I didn't see one? The issue is making the tamu web page better, not
>getting in a war to see who's genitalia is larger...
>
>>on it. So unless you have some useful remarks, stay they hell outta
>>this newsgroup.
>
>Where are yours?
>
>MH (wondering why so many personal attacks are showing up in a discussion on a
>web site)
>
I apologize for coming off hostile, but it was my first flame, and I
wanted to get my point across. The web is an expanding medium, and
the people who want to keep it in the dark ages are few and far
between. It is my personal belief, and you can say whatever you want
to this, that when designing for the web one should put forward
content in as dramatic and visual way possible. I like to be able to
get the information and when neccessary downloads that I need quickly,
however I like to see the content displayed in as visually appealing
manner as possible. If people can't put content and graphics together
they shouldn't be designing for the web or complaining about it. The
more HTML advances, the easier it is to display content in a visually
appealing and content driven manner. The fact that the two leading
web browsers on the planet are completely free, and usually ported to
every OS under the sun, allows zero tolerance towards people who want
to keep the web backwards-compatable and visually un-appealing.
The vast majority of the web (excluding personal homepages put up by
every college student and professor on the planet, done only to
satisfy course and college requirements), is a product being sold to
the masses of Comp-USA purchased, everything-in-a-box computers using
Pentium or higher CPUs, with good graphics and idiots behind the
wheel. These people want to see a picture that they can click on and
get the latest news on the new Hackers movie. They expect to be able
to put on the VR gloves and glasses in a year or two and surf the web
like Johnny Mnemonic, and if not they at least want to settle for the
pretty web most commercial sites put up now. If aTm is to compete
with other Universities, they should have a graphically appealing,
content driven site that shows us to be ahead of the technologies. I
think the need for a second, intranet page who's main purpose is
informative content for the students.
The main reason I flamed Jack so hard is that his Clan 13 page is one
of the ugliest Clan web pages I have ever seen, with so many animated
gifs, it makes me sick to my stomach. It is poorly layed-out, badly
designed, and generally badly written, in HTML 1.0.
I am new to newsgroups, and hope to come off as a helpful person, and
not a complete asshole all the time. I run a small web design
company, and we are expanding constantly. I rely on John Brown as the
best programmer that works for me, and I like to defend him whenever
possible.
-BigDog
Matthew Hennig
In article <6b3aif$hs4$1...@news.tamu.edu>, jpi...@tamu.edu wrote:
>The irony of this just hit me. You changed it to the Lynx-unfriendly
>format because you're hardware couldn't support the needs of the way it
>should be layed out. Quiet humorous after berating people for not wanting
>to update their hardware...
Its like rain on your wedding day, or the free advice that you just don't
take.
Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think?
Matthew Hennig
In article <34d515e4...@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.edu (BigDog) wrote:
>I apologize for coming off hostile, but it was my first flame, and I
>wanted to get my point across. The web is an expanding medium, and
Flames don't usually get your point across, they just breed more flames.
>the people who want to keep it in the dark ages are few and far
>between. It is my personal belief, and you can say whatever you want
>to this, that when designing for the web one should put forward
>content in as dramatic and visual way possible. I like to be able to
Graphics are nice, but does the University need a heavy graphic intensive
page? Maybe then an option at www.tamu.edu that allows one to choose a heavy
graphics/java type page and another option to go to a simple, low bandwidth
page. The text would be the same, only the visual content would be different.
>every OS under the sun, allows zero tolerance towards people who want
>to keep the web backwards-compatable and visually un-appealing.
Again, do we want pure content driven web pages or pure graphics driven web
pages? If I had my druthers, I'd choose content over graphics, but a healthy
compromise can be made. I think the option of letting you choose one type of
page over the other could be a very workable idea.
>The main reason I flamed Jack so hard is that his Clan 13 page is one
>of the ugliest Clan web pages I have ever seen, with so many animated
>gifs, it makes me sick to my stomach. It is poorly layed-out, badly
>designed, and generally badly written, in HTML 1.0.
I never viewed the web site and since he did offer it as a page to contrast
against, it is certainly seems acceptable to critique and criticise the page,
however it was more an attack on his person.
>I am new to newsgroups, and hope to come off as a helpful person, and
>not a complete asshole all the time. I run a small web design
>company, and we are expanding constantly. I rely on John Brown as the
>best programmer that works for me, and I like to defend him whenever
>possible.
Well then, welcome to the newsgroup. There is an odd mix of people with a
variety of ideas. Observe and make sure you read something twice before
flaming them and consider if they are really worth the time. Just some ideas
to consider...
edu
ma...@tamu.NO_AGIS.edu (Matthew Hennig) wrote:
>In article <34d21679...@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.edu (BigDog) wrote:
>>I am glad for one thing though. Now that I have seen your site I
>>finially know what all those annoying sites did with their little grey
>>buttons....they gave them to you! Now if I ever need a Quake Now, CTF
>>Now, or HOMO NOW button, I know exactly where to go. Thank you for
>>bringing back that sad, ugly part of the web. I bet you watch old
>>John Travolta movies too, don't you Jacky boy...
>Why so much hostility? Do you feel that Jack made a personal attack on you or
>Brown? I didn't see one? The issue is making the tamu web page better...
[snipped]
I, Jack, certainly never meant for my comments thus far in this thread
to be construed as personal attacks. Mr. Brown/John/Frixion, [**}
I apologize if you feel that my comments deriding the A&M home page
were directed towards you. However, my problem with the page lies
not with individuals, but the end result and the process that created it.
Furthermore, I would refer the gentle reader to my comments of 10/24/96
under the thread in tamu.www entitled "What happened to www.tamu.edu?"
[which I can't seem to find in DejaNews at the moment]:
<quote>
- "Kurt Schmidt" <ku...@recsports.tamu.edu> wrote:
-
- >The Entire Web Page is being redone
-
- [and later wrote]
-
- > http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/test [*]
-
- Oh, joy. Web pages by committee. This should be interesting.
-
- jack
- jkp...@cs.tamu.edu
</quote>
That was more than a year ago...
[hint: I have a history of making comments (not all useful) on the process]
In my mind, any criticism against the creation of a group of people
is against their creation and the process by which their creation
is reached, and not necessarily the individuals who were involved
in its creation. Since, in this case, I have no idea as to what
parties made what contribution to the end result (and have no idea
what parties may have failed in their contribution), it seems to
me it would be unreasonable for me to point the finger at any
particular participant. Therefore, I have attempted not to.
>>on it. So unless you have some useful remarks, stay they hell outta
>>this newsgroup.
>Where are yours?
[*snicker*]
Again, for the gentle reader, you can look up the last time this
thread went around in tamu.general at DejaNews if you "Power Search"
the "Old" database for this USENET article (started 3/10/97):
5g1div$p...@news.tamu.edu
Its subject was "The new TAMU Web Page".
It adds an interesting perspective to this thread...
>MH (wondering why so many personal attacks are showing up in a discussion on a
>web site)
jack (who was wondering the same -- thus the diagnostic on tamu.flame)
jkp...@unix.tamu.edu
[*] That page is still there, BTW, and provides some interesting "history".
[**] And, BTW, yes, I know that Frixion was the creator of the Gib'Em '97
logo that shiz/zeke were using to advertise the event, that's one
of the reasons I suggested the page as an example in the first place
-- I thought Frixion might get a kick out of it. However, I could've
swore I said to turn the images off... ;)
edu
ma...@tamu.NO_AGIS.edu (Matthew Hennig) wrote:
>In article <6arvmf$94$1...@news.tamu.edu>, som...@where.who wrote:
>>Alright Jacko, it's go time. First of all, I wish to apologize for my
>>previous post, for I was unable to be as potent as I had hoped to be. I
>>simply wanted to say that your sight blows some serious ass. Now one might
>>think that "hey C13M - 60+ links, 15 second load time is where it's all at."
>>Well, I'll go ahead and be the 1000000th person to say BullShit. Sure, your
>>site may load in "15 seconds" but all your loading in "15 seconds" is a pile
>If I read what Jack said in his posting correctly, he was commenting on the
>fact that his page loaded faster with more links and content than the main
>tamu web page.
Thank you! You are correct, sir. [I'm glad someone got the point.]
>I read into it that Jack wants to see more content on the main
>web page and less of the high tech, supergraphics or whatever else it is.
Yes! Furthermore, I was also hoping to demonstrate that
it is possible to do both.
[That is (to be painfully obvious) -- it is possible to deliver
high-speed delivery of content and navigation for, let's say,
the rural farmer seeking agricultural information, and,
at the same time, also entertain those with greater means
[here, for some reason, my mind draws a blank for a colloquialism
for that group though I could swear it was on the tip of my tongue
a few days ago.]
For those who obviously missed the point (I did mention turn off the
images, and purge the cache, didn't I?)...
YES!!!, I know that the C13M page is a gawdy, over-bloated, flashy web page.
************** It was designed to be just that. **************
The point was that even if it had all the horrible eye-candy,
it was still navigable at a cheaper "price" than the TAMU
home page. Every link on the page was available by loading
exactly zero ("0") binary images. The HTML itself
defined the content and the structure. The possible
links were in no way hidden by additional binary images.
Yes, some of the links are stale... I'm a bad webmaster...
appo loggies to the world that I've diverted my time to maintaining
pages that get more traffic. I try to keep the pages that the
logs say are getting the most traffic up to date, and
that site, honestly, just doesn't get much (compared
to my company's site which averages about 5MB/day).
>Also, he didn't make this something personal against Brown, but made it
>personal against the web page.
My intent was to provide criticism of the page, not of any
of the individuals involved in its creation... I'll deal
with that in another post.
>>of shit. Don't you think, and I'm sure that you do (deep down inside), that
>>one or two more seconds are MORE than worth the wait to see what Frixion has
>>in stock for us to see. You, however, may feel differently, but only if you
>Personally, I'd rather have a fast loading page that allows me to easily get
>where I want to get rather than wading through the mess that the web page
>calls a menu.
"MORE than worth the wait"???
[DISCLAIMER(sigh!): nothing against Frixion here]
From the Sun site recommended by Mr. Kizer, which I'm sure,
by this time, all of you in Appelt who have responded
to this thread have at least browsed:
<quote>
Fast downloads are the single most important usability
consideration in Web design. We recently surveyed 1854
users and found that the regression weight between
"download speed" and overall satisfaction was 0.264 in a
multiple regression to predict users' overall satisfaction
ratings from six different attributes of Web quality. In
comparison, "looks great" only got a regression weight of
0.08. Simplistically stated, our users thought that speed
was more than three times as important as looks.
</quote>
furthermore
<quote>
Human factors research has shown that Web pages need
to download in no more than one second for optimal
usability of hypertext navigation:
</quote>
I'm not sure what research A&M has done on human factors
in web navigation, but I'd be inclined to believe that,
to some extent, this reflects the habits/desires
of the common user. I leave it to those with
access to the server's logs to analyze, and report, the
habits of users to www.tamu.edu.
FWIW, take a look at http://java.sun.com/
Even the Java-Gods provide simple HTML navigation
the moment you hit their page... if you hang around
you get frills... but if you're in a hurry, at least
there's a wide number of selections to move on with.
>>could deny or own eyes and forsake what is really ART. The main point here is
>>that a couple of seconds are far worth the added bonus. Now, I could
>Why?
And quantify "far worth"...
><snip sarcasm regarding 14.4 modems>
>>Thirdly, modem speed is secondary only to cpu speed. If the bottleneck of
>>your system is your X2 Sportster, then I'm actually sorry for you. For there
>>cannot be any other explanation. If I, on my 1440, can load the page 20x
>>faster than you, there are some serious problems. You know, now that I think
>Was it in the cache?
[*snicker*]
jack (who'll entertain flames in tamu.general & tamu.flame but
has decided to skirt them so far in this thread given
the poor quality of bait being used)
jkp...@unix.tamu.edu
j...@tamu.edu
In article <6b3lla$rvr$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Jack Perdue <jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu> wrote:
>
>- "Kurt Schmidt" <ku...@recsports.tamu.edu> wrote:
Ok, there's the short guy of whom I earlier spake. If you want to blame
someone for the web page design, that's your man.
I still say that the presentation of the website is the smaller issue by
far. How come nobody is very upset about the abject lack of content?
More markup complaints: why don't the rectangles in the left-hand image
map line up with the words? For example, I can very carefully click on
the word "Sports" and arrive at the "Services" page.
FYI: a correlation of .24, while higher than a correlation of .08, is
equally insignificant, statistically speaking.
If you want fastest possible loading time, wouldn't it be best to design
with CSS and png graphics? Thensome of you would have to abandon your
beloved 286's running OldSchool v1. So which is it?
john brown
OK - I'm back from the weekend - sorting mail and news.
1. I have too much stuff to do until probably thursday or so to play
flame-game on newsgroups so any posts will be strictly getting down to
the bidness.
2. I have a meeting wednesday about web stuff and will bring this
entire thread - profanities, flames, useless Alanis Morrisette quotes,
etc - to the meeting. I am going to highlight all comments regarding
things that suck or can be improved or are good about the page
(whether I think they are valid or not).
3. I read in a mail or post something about - "how do we give input?"
I have no idea - I make ZERO decisions about www.tamu.edu - I try and
bring up new ideas and do the coding - the rest is ALL committee. I
AM GOING TO FIND A WAY TO TRY AND DO A POLL (like this thread but only
officiall and less personal!).
4. The new page will be fucking cool. It will be fast, efficient,
clean, and impressive (i don't know how we'll do all that but i'll try
real hard to make everyone happy given my absurd amount of power).
giddy up
mail me anytime
fri...@tamu.edu
John Brown - tired
john brown
On 2 Feb 1998 02:21:03 GMT, jpi...@cs.tamu.edu (Jason E Pierce)
wrote:
>john brown (fri...@tamu.edu) sez:
>=> See, we combined all the 12 categories into one imagemap
>=> because with so many hits the logs were COMPLETELY OVERWHELMED with
>=> graphic requests. 12 -> 1 was much nicer for the server, and the
>=> space. the same thing for the 5 subject navigation bar on all
>=> pages...
>
>The irony of this just hit me. You changed it to the Lynx-unfriendly
>format because you're hardware couldn't support the needs of the way it
>should be layed out. Quiet humorous after berating people for not wanting
>to update their hardware...
1. the user doesn't notice - you still get a list of links
2. talk to the boys with the toys in CIS - if it was up to me the
hardware infrastructure would be entirely different.
Browsers are free. Client hardware is cheap. The argument that some
poor sap cant afford a pentium 75 and a 28.8 really isn't going to
affect my personal priortization of browser support and compatability.
What does affect me is the concern for the visually impared and idea
of meeting standards - both in gui browsers and in text - which I
FUCKING AGREE the page does not do very well (although definately
satisfactory). So lets move on to different suggestions.
john brown
>>If I read what Jack said in his posting correctly, he was commenting on the
>>fact that his page loaded faster with more links and content than the main
>>tamu web page.
>
>Thank you! You are correct, sir. [I'm glad someone got the point.]
>
>>I read into it that Jack wants to see more content on the main
>>web page and less of the high tech, supergraphics or whatever else it is.
>
>Yes! Furthermore, I was also hoping to demonstrate that
>it is possible to do both.
oh wonderful - the pickle and jacky-boy join forces...
this should be a good debate....
john brown
>In article <34d21679...@news.tamu.edu>, flowm...@tamu.edu (BigDog) wrote:
>>I am glad for one thing though. Now that I have seen your site I
>>finially know what all those annoying sites did with their little grey
>>buttons....they gave them to you! Now if I ever need a Quake Now, CTF
>>Now, or HOMO NOW button, I know exactly where to go. Thank you for
>>bringing back that sad, ugly part of the web. I bet you watch old
>>John Travolta movies too, don't you Jacky boy...
>
>Why so much hostility? Do you feel that Jack made a personal attack on you or
>Brown? I didn't see one? The issue is making the tamu web page better, not
>getting in a war to see who's genitalia is larger...
>
>>on it. So unless you have some useful remarks, stay they hell outta
>>this newsgroup.
>
>Where are yours?
>
>MH (wondering why so many personal attacks are showing up in a discussion on a
>web site)
>
>To email me, remove the NO_AGIS. part of my email address. I previously had
>NOSPAM. to be removed, however, it seems that some programs are able to remove
>it. Perhaps this will prove to be a viable mask. Thank you.
pickle - you are adding nothing to this thread... just thought you
should know.
john brown
>As I also expressed in my letter, most of these contributors are alumni.
>Alumni were previously (and here's the tricky part) students. The people
>you're ignoring are you're future "big wig head honchos."
I never said alumni - I'm talking about Bowen and other political type
connections - certainly alumni are in the mix but not just alumni.
And many are not aggies. You can't tell me i'm ignoring people when i
spend hours reading whiny posts on tamu.www and reading mail.
EVERYTHING IS CONSIDERED - just because i piss on you doesn't mean I'm
not listening or passing along the info - it means personally I think
your thinking is flawed (not you personally - many people). I could
have not posted here at all (and was incouraged not too) and let us
all go to bed earlier. That would be ignoring....
>=> who want to see impressive
>=> stuff that makes us stand out and keeps us ahead of other
>=> universities.
>
>Unfortunately, we don't agree on what is impressive and what kind of web
>page "keeps us ahead of other universities."
I hardly think a "lynx friendly" website is what people find
impressive - it should be a standard. however, a well designed site
that encourages returns and encourages people to upgrade their stuff I
feel is impressive.
>=> I really think your whining about not being able to get
>=> a new FREE FUCKING BROWSER is pretty lame.
>
>Interesting how anyone who disagrees with you is "whining." Especially
>after the replies were to your message SOLICITING our opinions.
no - not anyone. Many of the posts here have been attempts at proving
me (and others wrong) when we have tried your ideas a year ago and let
the site evolve. Now ya'll are pissing because people get left
behind. I think that is whining. Some disagreements with me have
helped me see other perspectives, changed my mind, or strengthened my
arguments. Don't be so emotional - whiner...
>=> I apologize for being harsh but wouldnt you be proud to hear that our
>=> website is the most impressive, intuitive, and content-driven page.
>
>Yes, which is exactly what we're all trying to make suggestions for.
>Yet when we suggest, you jump all over us. It's pretty troubling.
When i jump all over you it makes you think and strengthen your
argument - if it doesn't it was a weak suggestion in the first place.
Devil's advocate is a favorite role of mine. Don't make it so
personal! Our little week long discussion here is going to influence
the page and make it much better than just my ideas/perspective.
Relax - this isn't about me.
>=> so don't tell me how to do my fucking job.
>
>Um, then don't ask?
I never asked how to do my job - I asked what ya'll want/dont want to
see in www.tamu.edu. there is a big difference.
john brown
On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 05:18:36 GMT, jkp...@unix.NOSPAM.tamu edu (Jack
Perdue) wrote:
>YES!!!, I know that the C13M page is a gawdy, over-bloated, flashy web page.
>
>************** It was designed to be just that. **************
>
>The point was that even if it had all the horrible eye-candy,
>it was still navigable at a cheaper "price" than the TAMU
>home page. Every link on the page was available by loading
>exactly zero ("0") binary images. The HTML itself
>defined the content and the structure. The possible
>links were in no way hidden by additional binary images.
>Yes, some of the links are stale... I'm a bad webmaster...
>appo loggies to the world that I've diverted my time to maintaining
>pages that get more traffic. I try to keep the pages that the
>logs say are getting the most traffic up to date, and
>that site, honestly, just doesn't get much (compared
>to my company's site which averages about 5MB/day).
please. you opened your portfolio to the public and i haven't found
anyone who is impressed - in fact I haven't found anyone who has
stopped laughing. The first think i consider when i take advice is
the source and you pretty much disqualified yourself and arguments by
suggesting the C13M page as a place to educate ourselves in web
bandwidth usage.
>[DISCLAIMER(sigh!): nothing against Frixion here]
[neat little quote snipped]
well, nice point - something to consider but keep in mind much of our
internal use of www is on campus (thus on a faster connection) and
second - the status quo only allows for one front end.
>jack (who'll entertain flames in tamu.general & tamu.flame but
> has decided to skirt them so far in this thread given
> the poor quality of bait being used)
so very charming - i think i'll look at those family pics again....
johnbrown
john brown
>>- "Kurt Schmidt" <ku...@recsports.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>Ok, there's the short guy of whom I earlier spake. If you want to blame
>someone for the web page design, that's your man.
you got it - keep in mind too - all this is the wonderful result of 1.
websites by committee - and 2. being in academia (inherently
half-assed)
>I still say that the presentation of the website is the smaller issue by
>far. How come nobody is very upset about the abject lack of content?
I do believe you've heard my voice of complaint...
>More markup complaints: why don't the rectangles in the left-hand image
>map line up with the words? For example, I can very carefully click on
>the word "Sports" and arrive at the "Services" page.
because they don't trust 1 person to incorporate graphics, html, and
then move it to the server. that job - in their eyes - needs 3
people. - and even then no one knows what will happen when it gets in
the hand of our OS/2 buddy (ie - the left.html, right.html are fair
game to random fuck-ups - the <title>, <head> and now bad imagemap).
Jeff, help me grab terminator and we'll fix all these petty little
problems...
frixion
Clay
Bryan Wossum wrote:
>
>
> The page that represents A&M should meet two major requirements:
> 1. It should be targeted at a wide audience.
> 2. It should load quickly.
I agree wholehartedly! Let's all say it together
"It should load quickly"
one more time!
"it should load quickly"
I'm tired of completely over graphic'd pages that take forever to download!
There's a lot of folks out there still using 14400 modems and even the 33.6's
aren't exactly screaming when downloading some of the way over graphic'd
sites out there. The TAMU home page has done a good job of taking that into
consideration and it downloads rather quickly. Please, please, please don't
screw that up!
BigDog
>Graphics are nice, but does the University need a heavy graphic intensive
>page? Maybe then an option at www.tamu.edu that allows one to choose a heavy
>graphics/java type page and another option to go to a simple, low bandwidth
>page. The text would be the same, only the visual content would be different.
>
I completely agree with you on this point. I also agreed with it when
John Brown said it at the beginning of this thread, and repeated it in
his first few posts. I also think the idea of an external web page
with limited resources (easier to put up and maintain) with changing
front page content (maybe some aTm news), and an intranet page with
fewer frills and more useful content. Unfortunatly, the political
power it would take to change the way tamu.edu is built is similiar to
that it would take to overthrow a small country. Web by commitee is a
bad idea all together.
John "BigDog" Cunningham
John Peterson
-FRAMES-
With a site as big as A&M's I think that frames are almost essential.
However, since tamu.edu is being viewed by such a diverse crowd I
think that the same navigation should also be included in the
<NOFRAMES> tag. This keeps the text surfers happy as well as those
dern Mosaic users in the Math labs.
-FOR THE CONTENT COMMITTEES-
I would like to say that I have a hard time finding relevant info
easily. I liked the idea of about 5 categories stated by someone (way
up the thread).
Although 100% backwards compatibility is assinine efforts should be
made to make the code as browser independent as possible.
I like mouseovers... If they don't work most people don't even notice
that they aren't there.
If the latest technology doesn't work (i.e. JAVA or JAVASCRIPT) have a
fall back plan so that users can still surf the site in an effective
manner.
Anyway... that about all. I'm sure that you guys who run the site can
come up with alot of cool ideas too. You wouldn't be doing what
you're doing if you couldn't ;)
JOhn
P.S. The flame for the eskimo homepage was funny. Nick Nick Nick....
Please don't ridicule me for www.usa.net hahaahahahahah
>- yes/no to frames (my thought is yes since they are not taxing to cpu
>or memory and keep the layout clean).
>
>- having multiple front ends. like the bonfire site - have a version
>using animated gifs/javascript/etc and one that is static.
>
>- who is our competition? what does the customer want?
>
>ANY AND ALL IDEAS APPRECIATED - post here and mail a copy to me.
>
>Thanks much for the time
>John Brown
>University Relations - TAMU webmaster - 1 of many
Jonathan E Jones
In tamu.networks john brown <fri...@tamu.edu> wrote:
-> Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
-> appreciated.
Would it be taboo for me to suggest that UT's Web site be held up as an
example? It loads quickly, is easily and intuitively navigable, and yet
is more aesthetically appealing than the A&M site, without the gratuitous
frills.
Thanks,
-Jon J.
John BigDog Cunningham
On 4 Feb 1998 06:48:27 GMT, Jonathan E Jones
<jjo...@dilbert.cs.tamu.edu> wrote:
This idea has been discussed, advanced, torn apart, and has indeed
started wars. Read back in this thread.
Kip Lewis
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, john brown wrote:
> Any input towards the redesign of the A&M website would be much
> appreciated.
You might want to keep in mind your sample group. (ie: they are all
readers of tamu.www and tamu.networks). I would venture to say that MOST
of the people using the tamu web page DON'T read these newsgroups.
Therefore, you will probably not get an accurate representation of what
the wants/needs are of the web page perusers.
I'd suggest "pushing" the Feedback button, and possibly even having an
on-line survey that doesn't take too long to complete.
On another note, I really despise the "green/purple/burnt-orange" rainbow
lines between the NON-TEXT text (hint) links in the left-side frame.
-= KL
Kip Lewis
> Pages I write
> typical have one or two small images for decoration, and concentrate
> mainly on well organized parragraphs and links, meaning not only do
> they load faster but the reader can visually process them faster, meaning
> they get what they need and can go back to doing something worthwhile.
Do the pages you write use adjectives in place of adverbs, and have
misspelled words and run-on sentences? Maybe you should stick to the
graphics. :P
-= KL
Clay Maugans
Kip Lewis wrote:
> On another note, I really despise the "green/purple/burnt-orange" rainbow
> lines between the NON-TEXT text (hint) links in the left-side frame.
really? I kinda like it. Better make that last color maroon though.
Nick Manka
In article <Pine.NXT.3.96.98030...@support.tamu.edu>,
Grammar flames are for losers, trolls, and fifteen year olds. You're
at a university, so I assume you aren't fifteen. Meta-flames are
very lame, and don't paint you in a good light either. This applies
to all those people who like blabbering about argumentative style
as well.
When in my next post you see "and I am a perfect technical writer,"
then you may righteously snort at me for as long as you so desire.
Criticizing someone over the grammar of something they wrote in
fortyfive seconds over a month ago is a bit, silly?
On the other hand, if you come across an incident of poor grammar
in a web page I oversee or a technical document I have written,
please feel free to let me know so that I can correct it.
Nick
Kip Lewis
On 3 Mar 1998, Nick Manka wrote:
> Grammar flames are for losers, trolls, and fifteen year olds. You're
> at a university, so I assume you aren't fifteen. Meta-flames are
> very lame, and don't paint you in a good light either. This applies
> to all those people who like blabbering about argumentative style
> as well.
<STICKING_OUT_TONGUE> Phbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtbtttt </sticking_out_tongue>
> Criticizing someone over the grammar of something they wrote in
> fortyfive seconds over a month ago is a bit, silly?
Since you asked... the answer is no.
> On the other hand, if you come across an incident of poor grammar
> in a web page I oversee or a technical document I have written,
> please feel free to let me know so that I can correct it.
Yeah... pay me.
-= KL
John BigDog Cunningham
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:21:12 -0600, Kip Lewis <kipl...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>> Criticizing someone over the grammar of something they wrote in
>> fortyfive seconds over a month ago is a bit, silly?
>
>Since you asked... the answer is no.
>
Uh, yeah it is. If you have nothing better to do than start flames
about grammer on a www newsgroup, I suggest trying another one. There
are those of us that look forward to using this as a medium as a way
to exchange ideas about development of the World Wide Web (that's what
www stands for, jackass). If you want to start a fight about grammer,
why not try tamu.flames. Or go download some porn. But get the hell
out of my newsgroup.
-John
__________________________
John "BigDog" Cunningham
big...@slamdesigns.com
http://www.slamdesigns.com