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.
2006-02-07 05:21 pm (UTC)
(s/PDFs/PDFs and DOCs/)
read: every fucking university professor on the planet. drives me insane.
my general rule is "if you're going to have text, make it text."
"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.
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.
2006-02-07 01:53 pm (UTC)
Very interesting idea!
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.
2006-02-07 06:13 pm (UTC)
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
you can script the graphics to be dynamically generated for the text and stuff, you should know that.
but i agree that's stupid.
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.
they're too busy designing "OMG YOU'RE USING INTERNET EXPLORER YOU SUCK" banners.
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.
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.).
Jesus, they're using an imagemap. Hello, Web 2.0!
Aren't imagemaps good for things like, "click on a state to find an outlet near you"?
-- 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.
Have a beer...better still...have six. You will forget about all this hating webpages stuff!