is that still an annoying thing to see on the page?
Very. Try it with your phone sideways so you can see the full width of a page without need a microscope. Your vertical real estate is very tiny.
If you think an ever-present menu might be useful, have it so it disappear as you scroll down (as it would if stuck to the top of the page) and then reappear on the first upscroll (that is, so you don't need to go all the way back to the top of the page). But that can be annoying too: you either overlay something I was just reading at the top of the screen, or push everything down so what I was reading at the bottom is now below the line and I need to scroll down to see it, which removes the menu and bumps everything up unexpectedly.
I was just thinking about how to design a website the other day for my photography portfolio. If I had a menu bar on the top of that page that is always there when you're scrolling, but I keep it only high enough to have some navigation buttons, is that still an annoying thing to see on the page? Or, let's say the webpage is for selling products, would it still be annoying to always see that menu bar if it shows data such as the total price of everything that's currently in your shopping cart?
Yes it would be to me.
Anything like without a close or even corner slider button to hide it will distract and annoy me as it spans over the top and overlaps over the content.
It is a bit like Channel logos on television when they started putting them on at the top corner and I don't see channels that do that during drama and films.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_on-screen_graphicThe BBC initially introduced a DOG on each of its digital-only channels. In July 1998, it added DOGs to BBC One and BBC Two on Sky Digital but following a large number of complaints they were removed just two months later.
...
On digital systems such as Sky and Freeview, where stations have a set EPG number and a name displayed across the bottom of the screen when changing channel, DOGs have been deemed unnecessary by some users. Despite this, broadcasters persist with the practice. In response to negative feedback, the BBC has responded, "We believe it is important to ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC service."
...
Many viewers also find this practice annoying, distracting and unnecessary
I know some years ago Ebay put this Basketbar and purchase bar which I hid.
To me it makes the page looks
smaller cluttered and bloated and I find and can't concentrate with that stuck over it in the way.
That is why I am forced to use browser extensions to auto hide/show them but it doesn't always restore them and if the page jumps/shrinks it won't reshow at the positions.
Sticky Header Hider aka Fixed Header Fixer:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sticky-header-hider-aka-f/eagncneohcoiofhknkofdobphnhgbladSticky Ducky for Firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/sticky-ducky/If it is smaller this one with just text menus on Falstad:
https://www.falstad.com/circuit/ then I might not notice it.
Someone mentioned to me about a modern website called Wikiwand:
https://www.wikiwand.com/Turning off the Headhiderfixer looking at it:
They have fixed headers too but it is done in such a way it doesn't seem to get in the way and cover up the contents.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/OceanThe fixed header appears and hides by scrolling pattern/hint which is convenient for me and allows me a choice when I don't want it in the way reading an article.
Now that works for me and not against me. I think that is a really good example, consideration went into that as it is customizable and respects my screen area of the contents.
Another good thing on Wikiwand, no dimming the edges of photos and thumbnails.
I always thought that slapping uncloseable things over contents as spammy behaviour.
It is a bit like Channel logos on television when they started putting them on at the top corner and I don't see channels that do that during drama and films.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_on-screen_graphic
The BBC initially introduced a DOG on each of its digital-only channels. In July 1998, it added DOGs to BBC One and BBC Two on Sky Digital but following a large number of complaints they were removed just two months later.
Those logos are so annoying, I can't watch anything that has one of those, it irritates me constantly, like a smudge of something on the screen that I can't wipe off. I actually completely stopped watching broadcast TV many years ago, baffles me that some people pay so much for cable or satellite TV, if somebody gave it to me for free I wouldn't bother to hook it up to my TV. The logo makes the content worthless to me. I've been 100% streaming for several years and before that I was buying all my content on DVD.
Just been hunting down an issue with an e-commerce site where some, but not all of the users on various devices, are unable to click on their customer account options. The reason is (most likley) an old favourite web-beacon tracking-n-tagging offering from tiqcdn.com . It seems their e-commerce site will only fully function if these covert trackers remain unblocked.
So how did this become a UX (user experience) issue? Some customers were reporting a related "Internal Server Error" message on their basket checkout. Eventually, a (working from home) customer services monkey thought this might be kind of important to be investigated. Then someone realised the buttons didn't work either.
Under the code hood, there is likely a dozen missing event handlers due to an abended promise/callback. But seriously EEVBlog, I cannot be fekin o'assed to hack their fault as I'm not doing their bloat coder's job; both properly and for free!
These I can't believe it's not a cookie trackers are flavour of the month in the 'toolbox' of the managerial tools who use phrases like "insight metrics" in a crowded coffee bar. But the wider business issue is that customers are frequently being penalised for being web-safe. Assuming users won't deploy ad-blockers is like assuming Scotsmen don't wear underpants (to quote my old technical instructor).
Note to developers: If your users say NO to cookies and NO to tracking, and deploy ad-blockers to cleanse their page (and data allowance), then your site has to carry on working without any dependency on your bloatsh*t.
There are a lot of really bad developers out there...
My latest annoyance is the FitBit fitness tracker... Helping an elderly person set one up, it turns out these things "require" the latest OS (Win 10, recent Android) to work properly (whatever the documentation says).
I have no idea how a dev team ended up in a situation where something as simple as a FitBit requires the latest OS to work. Incompetence might be one explanation, or perhaps the ability to track users is better (for them) in later OS revisions.
This is truly clueless, as many older people don't bother keeping up with the latest fads in phones and laptops... are they expected to upgrade everything they own just to suit the convenience of a clueless development team at FitBit?
Compare the mediocre FitBit support with a company where the developers DO seem to have a clue: Garmin. Their VivoSmart fitness tracker works on every version of Windows back to... Windows 2000! LOL, I would already have given them top marks for supporting back to XP!
So in this case, it was easy to solve the problem: return the poorly conceived FitBit and instead order a correctly engineered Garmin fitness tracker...
I have no idea how a dev team ended up in a situation where something as simple as a FitBit requires the latest OS to work.
1. Win7 is out of support and obsoleted, so some companies are not just refusing to support it but actively blocking use on it 'to reduce support calls'.
2. Microsoft frameworks might include APIs that only the new OS supports, thus just using the latest framework for your app limits its use to the new OS. The Streambox is probably a good example: it won't run on Windows 7 by default. However, if you place some DLLs, which have empty functions, in its folder to intercept calls to the OS-supplied DLLS, it works.
3. Microsoft go out of their way to prevent stuff working on Windows 7 for non-technical reasons. Entirely possible they've persuaded FitBit to succumb to that mindview via inducements of some kind.
Note to developers: If your users say NO to cookies and NO to tracking, and deploy ad-blockers to cleanse their page
I think there is an underlying assumption about the balance of power in that which doesn't apply. I am fairly sure that some suppliers see the user's job as jumping through hoops to be allowed to purchase something, whereas it should be the vendor's job to persuade the user to buy something. These kinds of websites are for those users who feel blessed to be allowed to browser them, so any user blocking cookies or tracking or ads clearly isn't suitable and doesn't matter.
2. Microsoft frameworks might include APIs that only the new OS supports, thus just using the latest framework for your app limits its use to the new OS.
This ^^^
Edit: If Fitbit hires young punks out of the school to do development, this is what they get. At Garmin i feel they still may have some grey beards influence.
2. Microsoft frameworks might include APIs that only the new OS supports, thus just using the latest framework for your app limits its use to the new OS.
This ^^^
Edit: If Fitbit hires young punks out of the school to do development, this is what they get. At Garmin i feel they still may have some grey beards influence.
Regarding your comment about grey beards. I fear you may be right. I see so many user interfaces these days that make no sense whatsoever. And they're probably all designed by young people, not grey beards. I'm almost a grey beard myself and I hate modern UIs.
2. Microsoft frameworks might include APIs that only the new OS supports, thus just using the latest framework for your app limits its use to the new OS.
This ^^^
Edit: If Fitbit hires young punks out of the school to do development, this is what they get. At Garmin i feel they still may have some grey beards influence.
Regarding your comment about grey beards. I fear you may be right. I see so many user interfaces these days that make no sense whatsoever. And they're probably all designed by young people, not grey beards. I'm almost a grey beard myself and I hate modern UIs.
The Garmin UI shows signs of grey beards at work too - it is logical and intuitive, and provides both top level and drill-down views of the data - it is good to know that there is at least one company left in the world that you can trust to develop a discoverable and efficient UI, instead of leaving development up to an outsourced team of n00bs which FitBit has all the hallmarks of.
This same approach is leading to a lot of broken web pages, typiclly ones that only support chrome. And there is no deal killing technical reason for it.
They are trying to force people to use chrome.
But I prefer not to because the version my distrio ships is unacceptable to me. Chrome seems to make dns queries to gibberish domains that dont exist. Maybe its a security problem?
I have no idea how a dev team ended up in a situation where something as simple as a FitBit requires the latest OS to work.
1. Win7 is out of support and obsoleted, so some companies are not just refusing to support it but actively blocking use on it 'to reduce support calls'.
2. Microsoft frameworks might include APIs that only the new OS supports, thus just using the latest framework for your app limits its use to the new OS. The Streambox is probably a good example: it won't run on Windows 7 by default. However, if you place some DLLs, which have empty functions, in its folder to intercept calls to the OS-supplied DLLS, it works.
3. Microsoft go out of their way to prevent stuff working on Windows 7 for non-technical reasons. Entirely possible they've persuaded FitBit to succumb to that mindview via inducements of some kind.
Cable programming used to be delivered without ads.. Now it records and uploads what you watch and they sell that data.
It is a bit like Channel logos on television when they started putting them on at the top corner and I don't see channels that do that during drama and films.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_on-screen_graphic
The BBC initially introduced a DOG on each of its digital-only channels. In July 1998, it added DOGs to BBC One and BBC Two on Sky Digital but following a large number of complaints they were removed just two months later.
Those logos are so annoying, I can't watch anything that has one of those, it irritates me constantly, like a smudge of something on the screen that I can't wipe off. I actually completely stopped watching broadcast TV many years ago, baffles me that some people pay so much for cable or satellite TV, if somebody gave it to me for free I wouldn't bother to hook it up to my TV. The logo makes the content worthless to me. I've been 100% streaming for several years and before that I was buying all my content on DVD.
Cable programming used to be delivered without ads.. Now it records and uploads what you watch and they sell that data.
It is a bit like Channel logos on television when they started putting them on at the top corner and I don't see channels that do that during drama and films.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_on-screen_graphic
The BBC initially introduced a DOG on each of its digital-only channels. In July 1998, it added DOGs to BBC One and BBC Two on Sky Digital but following a large number of complaints they were removed just two months later.
Those logos are so annoying, I can't watch anything that has one of those, it irritates me constantly, like a smudge of something on the screen that I can't wipe off. I actually completely stopped watching broadcast TV many years ago, baffles me that some people pay so much for cable or satellite TV, if somebody gave it to me for free I wouldn't bother to hook it up to my TV. The logo makes the content worthless to me. I've been 100% streaming for several years and before that I was buying all my content on DVD.
Cut the cord! you know it makes sense. Spend the savings on wine, women, and song (it will be better for you).
Cut the cord! you know it makes sense. Spend the savings on wine, women, and song (it will be better for you).
I cut the cord almost 20 years ago, right around the time all the channels started getting those stupid logos. I started buying used DVDs instead, and now I have my own streaming server that holds all of that content. There are enough existing movies and shows out there on disc and digital download that I don't need TV service or production studios anymore.
I clear well organised page doesn't impress the morons in sales. Giving the reader a siezure seems to be a great idea though.
It shows how little writers know about graphic design and how much they love wank loops.
I hate bloatware- the sort of crap that happens when you install a printer. All we needed was the driver, but now we have a whole suite of rubbish Apps
I'm still traumatised by NERO
The new Smartsheet home page. Jeez.
PS: Someone please remind me how to get the link to make the image show in the body of the post.
The new Smartsheet home page. Jeez.
(Attachment Link)
PS: Someone please remind me how to get the link to make the image show in the body of the post.
After posting, right click on the attached image and do "Copy Link Address" (or whatever the equivalent in your browser).
Then edit your post, and just add an Image (use the Mona Lisa button) and paste the address you just picked up.
Works on other people's attachments too, like this:
But that doesn't show the thumbnail. Once everyone does that we'll end up with pages full of high-res photos that get downloaded every time the thread is opened, spaces out the content so it's multiple paging just to read the text, etc. And then you get the thumbnails at the end too!
What we really need is the expandable thumbnail embedded in the text, not the original image.
[Edit: for reference, the thumbnail is 3K, the full thing 100K. Some threads are pretty much unreadable because the slow loading of the in-message images keeps bumping the bloody text down below the line, so it's a constant scroll just to keep reading the same paragraph.]
I hate bloatware- the sort of crap that happens when you install a printer. All we needed was the driver, but now we have a whole suite of rubbish Apps
I'm still traumatised by NERO
I remembered in 2011, in tiny small writing to customize the installation packages in the setup for a hp printer.
I missed it on one occasion as it looked a little different and 600 megabytes and 15 minutes installing a "customer improvement program".
Also I avoid the windows WDS driver as I found it doesn't always work and also it installs this stupid "See what's printing dialogue" thing with it that's in the way of the print monitor where I have click something in there to see it.
I just use Universal Extractor to extract the files and install the basic print driver. Some scanners come with scan to network which is convenient for me and I don't have to install the button drivers that I have found many also failing to work at times from my past experience.
I hate bloatware- the sort of crap that happens when you install a printer. All we needed was the driver, but now we have a whole suite of rubbish Apps
I'm still traumatised by NERO
I remembered in 2011, in tiny small writing to customize the installation packages in the setup for a hp printer.
I missed it on one occasion as it looked a little different and 600 megabytes and 15 minutes installing a "customer improvement program".
Also I avoid the windows WDS driver as I found it doesn't always work and also it installs this stupid "See what's printing dialogue" thing with it that's in the way of the print monitor where I have click something in there to see it.
I just use Universal Extractor to extract the files and install the basic print driver. Some scanners come with scan to network which is convenient for me and I don't have to install the button drivers that I have found many also failing to work at times from my past experience.
Thank you for the Universal Extractor tip, I didn't know about that one.
I'm not a computer "geek"------just an everyday user of websites.
What I find astounding is that so many are dysfunctional.
How they purport to be used, & how they do work, are two very different things, so you need to "read between the lines", & come up with workarounds so the site works "as advertised".
Sometimes Googling will find a workaround, other times you just have to try to analyse the designer's thinking.
I had an account with a firm who nagged unceasingly on their phone "queue" about the advantages of ordering online.
"Great!" said I, went to the website, & tried that.
My account number was rejected, so I rang the normal number, who said, "No, you can't do that".
After that, I gave up for quite a while, then determined to try again.
After a lot of farting around, I found, hidden away in the guts of the site, another phone number.
I rang that, & a knowledgeable person talked me through how to use my existing account on line.
All stuff which could have/should have been included on the website.
If you want people to use your website, why go out of your way to discourage them?
Then there was the online grocery shopping site, where the inadvertent selection of the wrong delivery/pickup destination locked me into having to pick stuff up.
There was nowhere that you could make the choice "home delivery, or pickup", just an incidental relationship to a different selection altogether.
It also shows you what is in the trolley, but you can't print that out to check with your better half whether anything is missing.
No, you need to wait for an e-mail, after finalising the order!
To add anything, you then have to re-open the site, select "change this order", & do so.
The next step is to finalise the order, again!
Other delights are the various govt websites----Aaarrrggghhh!
And, of course, Facebook!
It almost seems that web designers don't ever think how "the great unwashed" are going to use the site, so don't make them transparent.
Instead, they are made so their designers can use them easily, knowing it "backwards".
I am a technical person, so am used to problem solving, & although an OF, still have "most of my marbles", but many others must be "all at sea".
Once everyone does that we'll end up with pages full of high-res photos that get downloaded every time the thread is opened
Forgot to mention the unthinking quoted quotes which ALL include the same mega-sized image. Some otherwise interesting threads I just couldn't be arsed to follow until they turned a new page, and then it's OK for 3 or 4 posts before the snail-like stuttered scrolling starts again.
A bit ironic considering the topic of this thread.
But that doesn't show the thumbnail. Once everyone does that we'll end up with pages full of high-res photos that get downloaded every time the thread is opened, spaces out the content so it's multiple paging just to read the text, etc. And then you get the thumbnails at the end too!
What we really need is the expandable thumbnail embedded in the text, not the original image.
[Edit: for reference, the thumbnail is 3K, the full thing 100K. Some threads are pretty much unreadable because the slow loading of the in-message images keeps bumping the bloody text down below the line, so it's a constant scroll just to keep reading the same paragraph.]
I guess it's a good idea to limit the size of images that you use, in general, when posting to forums. Sometimes a high res image is appropriate, but more often than not, a smaller, lower Q image would be fine.
I guess it's a good idea to limit the size of images that you use, in general, when posting to forums. Sometimes a high res image is appropriate, but more often than not, a smaller, lower Q image would be fine.
I generally target 1080p except for special cases where it would be massive overkill or insufficient to show detail. I wonder how many more years before 4K or 1440p become mainstream enough to make that the new target...
I guess it's a good idea to limit the size of images that you use, in general, when posting to forums. Sometimes a high res image is appropriate, but more often than not, a smaller, lower Q image would be fine.
I generally target 1080p except for special cases where it would be massive overkill or insufficient to show detail. I wonder how many more years before 4K or 1440p become mainstream enough to make that the new target...
Even 600x800 is often good enough for "banter" pictures... A page full of 4K pictures would be hard for many connections to "swallow"!