Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:22 am
4
Page 2 of 4
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:22 am
3
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:22 am
2
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:22 am
1
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:22 am
blast off!!!
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:31 am
Posted: 10/10/2004, 11:46 am
NO! Curious George!!!
Posted: 10/10/2004, 3:54 pm
Axtech wrote:Corey wrote:Hmmm.. it appears nobody here has taken a Human Factors course.
Another example that our society is gravitating towards appearance over functionality.
Lets put it this way... imagine you buy a remote control. Would it be better if there were numbers on the buttons or pictures of farm animals? Sure, clicking on them a few times will sort out what they do, but wouldn't it be nice if they reflected what they were used for?
Man.
It's five buttons.
If it had pictures, you'd still have to click them at least once to figure out what they do. The numbers, just like the pictures, are symbols representing each page. It's really not that hard to figure out.
Good grief. You'll defend those numbers to your death wont you.
Even if users have to click an icon or picture to figure out what it does, its far easier to remember where a icon goes than where a number goes for future visits. After all many people learn visually.Posted: 10/10/2004, 4:39 pm
I don't have any problems with the buttons. Noobs would still have to figure out what the pictures meant, and even what text meant if it was there. It only takes a click to get where you want, we have 24 hours in a day, can people not spend 10 seconds of that, clicking a button?
Posted: 10/10/2004, 8:54 pm
some people are on dial up. 
Posted: 10/10/2004, 8:58 pm
It'd also be helpful if you could click on the poop. Maybe you would get directed to a Google image search on fetal matter from birds.
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:54 pm
Fetal matter from birds? 
Posted: 10/10/2004, 9:56 pm
Ignore him.Posted: 10/10/2004, 10:29 pm
Rusty wrote:I don't have any problems with the buttons. Noobs would still have to figure out what the pictures meant, and even what text meant if it was there. It only takes a click to get where you want, we have 24 hours in a day, can people not spend 10 seconds of that, clicking a button?
*Sigh* Ok maybe its because i'm an artist/designer that I rant and rave, but one of the primary focuses of any website should be functionality. Yes it only takes 10 freaking seconds to figure out what the numbers do but the point is you shouldnt have to!!! Anyone remember Matt Good's "containers for links" site? As unique as that was, i'm positive that many people looking into Matt Good became frustrated with it. Are the numbers as bad as i'm making them out to be? Of course not but in my mind a website should be as accessible as possible. In todays world the longer it takes for people to find the info they are looking for, the more likely they are to leave the site and never return. I honestly feel bad for going on about this because I love Al and this site but if a webgroup were to grade this site, the numbered links would be what they disliked.
*zips mouth shut*
Posted: 10/10/2004, 10:44 pm
I loved the "containers for links site".
[/twocents]
[/twocents]
Posted: 10/10/2004, 10:46 pm
Geez guys, do I have to lock another thread?
Posted: 10/10/2004, 10:54 pm
first off, i don't want to waste my precious time clicking stupid NUMBERS trying to figure out what they are.
secondly, is it REALLY that difficult to make it more user friendly? geez, some people.
okay, i'm so not funny. *runs*
secondly, is it REALLY that difficult to make it more user friendly? geez, some people.
okay, i'm so not funny. *runs*
Posted: 10/10/2004, 11:02 pm
BOOHIGGINS TO YOU ALL!!!! 
Posted: 10/10/2004, 11:30 pm
Posted: 10/11/2004, 7:12 am
I'm with Nam on this one, its all about the poop. 
_5!!
_5!!