?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Random annoyance - brad's life [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Random annoyance [Feb. 6th, 2006|11:05 pm]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|]

I hate websites that are basically one big graphic / one big rectangle.

Say, this one:
http://www.firefoxflicks.com/adcontest/

I'm not sure why I hate it so much....

-- can't be indexed
-- can't be updated quickly (have to redo graphics, since they contain all the text)
-- doesn't resize up/down with browser size
-- feels like a print designer is trying out this cool new web thing

End hate. Back to hacking.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: ydna
2006-02-07 07:20 am (UTC)
Just as bad as sites that are little more than an index of links to PDFs. Urg.

Wait. No, the graphics are much worse.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whitaker
2006-02-07 05:21 pm (UTC)

(s/PDFs/PDFs and DOCs/)

read: every fucking university professor on the planet. drives me insane.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kunzite1
2006-02-07 07:23 am (UTC)

my general rule is "if you're going to have text, make it text."
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: codetoad
2006-02-07 07:50 am (UTC)
"feels like a print designer is trying out this cool new web thing" -- that's exactly it, though. A non-web designer can quickly and easily dump their graphics onto a webpage. From a usability perspective it's shit, though.

Some friends of mine were asking me why their band website was ranked so low in google, and after checking out their site it was obvious to me: they were using images and had no descriptive text. It makes sense to web people, but not to lots of traditional designers.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: anildash
2006-02-07 08:13 am (UTC)
definitely agree with you on the graphic-hating thing, but i always see the "can't index flash/audio/podcasts/graphics!" thing and wonder why google isn't just using OCR and making this page searchable anyway. we know google print has the tech, they've just hidden it away in booksearch.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: d4b
2006-02-07 01:53 pm (UTC)
Very interesting idea!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grahams
2006-02-07 01:56 pm (UTC)
probably because OCR adds alot of algorithmic complexity to the indexing process and they would have to process alot of graphics that had NO text in them, not to mention all of the false-positives, etc...

Scanning and OCRing books is far more reasonable because for the most part books are internally consistent (text in a handful of fonts, usually black text on light paper), whereas a random graphic off the web can be much more erratic and complicated.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2006-02-07 06:13 pm (UTC)

perhaps

because google knows text-as-images are fluff?

really, what are they missing?

* submit buttons
* "watch video" links
* company logos (can their OCR handle futuristic elliptical swooshes?)
* "powered by XYZ, web framework du jour" badges
* 'IMPORTANT SYSTEM NOTICE: CLICK HERE TO SCAN FOR VIRUSES' banner ad faux dialogs that trick my mom

basically i claim text-as-images fall into the large category of billboard like things on the web that you automatically ignore until you click on them by accident
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: livejamie
2006-02-07 08:15 am (UTC)
you can script the graphics to be dynamically generated for the text and stuff, you should know that.
:]

but i agree that's stupid.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-02-07 08:25 am (UTC)
But I bet you a dollar they didn't automate it. Because exactly the sort of people that would make a page like that aren't automators.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: livejamie
2006-02-07 08:27 am (UTC)
they're too busy designing "OMG YOU'RE USING INTERNET EXPLORER YOU SUCK" banners.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xlerb
2006-02-07 01:29 pm (UTC)
The images do resize along with the text... in Opera. But yes, they should use actual text for the actual text.

Of course, it could be worse — it could be a big Flash blob with no alternative.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: d4b
2006-02-07 01:50 pm (UTC)
It's even worse when they don't know how to avoid the "jaggies" (what my daughter calls the jagged edges of fonts, et. al.).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grahams
2006-02-07 05:47 pm (UTC)
Not just your daughter, it's a rather old, common term in computer graphics:

http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/J/jaggies.html
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mendel
2006-02-07 03:02 pm (UTC)
Jesus, they're using an imagemap. Hello, Web 2.0!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pyesetz
2006-02-07 05:16 pm (UTC)
Aren't imagemaps good for things like, "click on a state to find an outlet near you"?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whitaker
2006-02-07 05:25 pm (UTC)
-- feels like a print designer is trying out this cool new web thing

This is the major one that gets me. The grainy / jagged fonts and overall feel reminds me of my first HTML book where people hadn't yet diverged from taking print work and "encoding" it as a web page.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dakus
2006-02-07 08:19 pm (UTC)
Have a beer...better still...have six. You will forget about all this hating webpages stuff!
(Reply) (Thread)