Annoying technology!

If you take a look at this page, and scroll, you will notice that the
top navigation menu "follows" the page as you scroll :
http://www.tcartonline.com/conceive_a_child/index.htm
http://www.tcartonline.com/medical_health/index.htm

I have a meeting this week with my client - and I already know he's
going to request this to be implemented in his own new site.

I hate it personally - so my question is :
What sort of *techncial argument* can I make in trying to justify why
__not__ to implement this ?
Is there anything *in addition* to the fact that the user must have
javascript enabled for it to work ?

Ultimately - it's his money, and his site, but I'd like to have
another side to discuss other than I just don't like it!

Thanks!

Corrie

Re: Annoying technology!

In article
<1177475130.733503.148480@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
corrinarusso@gmail.com wrote:

> If you take a look at this page, and scroll, you will notice that the
> top navigation menu "follows" the page as you scroll :
> http://www.tcartonline.com/conceive_a_child/index.htm
> http://www.tcartonline.com/medical_health/index.htm
>
> I have a meeting this week with my client - and I already know he's
> going to request this to be implemented in his own new site.
>
> I hate it personally - so my question is :
> What sort of *techncial argument* can I make in trying to justify why
> __not__ to implement this ?
> Is there anything *in addition* to the fact that the user must have
> javascript enabled for it to work ?
>
> Ultimately - it's his money, and his site, but I'd like to have
> another side to discuss other than I just don't like it!

Are you kidding? You just "don't like it" is the best you can do?
What technical argument, the bloody thing stops you reading
content stuff underneath it on a short window? That is enough.
Tell them you organised a trial with a room full of people and
they split their sides.

--
dorayme

Re: Annoying technology!

In article
,
dorayme wrote:

> In article
> <1177475130.733503.148480@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> corrinarusso@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I hate it personally - so my question is :
> > What sort of *techncial argument* can I make in trying to justify why
> > __not__ to implement this ?
> > Is there anything *in addition* to the fact that the user must have
> > javascript enabled for it to work ?
> >
> > Ultimately - it's his money, and his site, but I'd like to have
> > another side to discuss other than I just don't like it!
>
> Are you kidding? You just "don't like it" is the best you can do?
> What technical argument, the bloody thing stops you reading
> content stuff underneath it on a short window? That is enough.
> Tell them you organised a trial with a room full of people and
> they split their sides.

If I may add, it not only blocks content on a short window, it
trips over itself at very few up-text clicks.

--
dorayme

Re: Annoying technology!

corrinarusso@gmail.com wrote:
> If you take a look at this page, and scroll, you will notice that the
> top navigation menu "follows" the page as you scroll :
> http://www.tcartonline.com/conceive_a_child/index.htm
>
> I have a meeting this week with my client - and I already know he's
> going to request this to be implemented in his own new site.
>
It is completely useless without JS.
As dorayme mentioned, it covers the content forcing the visitor to move
the page around to see what's under the menu.
It is highly unlikely that it passes accessibility considerations (text
browser, speech browser, mouseless).

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Re: Annoying technology!

On 24 Apr 2007 21:25:30 -0700, corrinarusso@gmail.com wrote:

>If you take a look at this page, and scroll, you will notice that the
>top navigation menu "follows" the page as you scroll :
>http://www.tcartonline.com/conceive_a_child/index.htm
>http://www.tcartonline.com/medical_health/index.htm
>
>I have a meeting this week with my client - and I already know he's
>going to request this to be implemented in his own new site.
>
>I hate it personally - so my question is :
>What sort of *techncial argument* can I make in trying to justify why
>__not__ to implement this ?
>Is there anything *in addition* to the fact that the user must have
>javascript enabled for it to work ?
>
>Ultimately - it's his money, and his site, but I'd like to have
>another side to discuss other than I just don't like it!
>
>Thanks!
>
>Corrie

Remind your client that web pages are a close relative to paper and a
very distant cousin to TV.

That being said page motion is a no no! Especially with sites that are
trying to convey a message with text. it is the responsibility of
both you and your client to NOT PISS OFF the user.

moving navigation will upset the user and by doing so you will thwart
your efforts/money/ to convey your message. Investing in gimmicks
will only backfire in the long run.

Ask your client why he wants the floating navigation? Is it because he
thinks it's cool? What value does this cool give your users?
Does he or she think it helps the user? Make your client tell you why
it helps. Then tell him or her why id does not.

If they persist (EGO TRIP) tell them that you will do it but you will
not be proud of the work. FYI: This is a BAD CLIENT red flag. Raise
your rates.

Surf over to Jakob Nielsen's website and see if you can find any copy
that confirms this thinking. This site also may have some info on
this type of floating nav. http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

I wish this guy changed the name of his books to some other title than
"Web Pages That Suck" Its trailer trash talk.

Re: Annoying technology!

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:44:17 -0400, Fred
wrote:

>On 24 Apr 2007 21:25:30 -0700, corrinarusso@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>If you take a look at this page, and scroll, you will notice that the
>>top navigation menu "follows" the page as you scroll :
>>http://www.tcartonline.com/conceive_a_child/index.htm
>>http://www.tcartonline.com/medical_health/index.htm
>>
>>I have a meeting this week with my client - and I already know he's
>>going to request this to be implemented in his own new site.
>>
>>I hate it personally - so my question is :
>>What sort of *techncial argument* can I make in trying to justify why
>>__not__ to implement this ?
>>Is there anything *in addition* to the fact that the user must have
>>javascript enabled for it to work ?
>>
>>Ultimately - it's his money, and his site, but I'd like to have
>>another side to discuss other than I just don't like it!
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Corrie
>
>Remind your client that web pages are a close relative to paper and a
>very distant cousin to TV.
>
>That being said page motion is a no no! Especially with sites that are
>trying to convey a message with text. it is the responsibility of
>both you and your client to NOT PISS OFF the user.
>
>moving navigation will upset the user and by doing so you will thwart
>your efforts/money/ to convey your message. Investing in gimmicks
>will only backfire in the long run.
>
>Ask your client why he wants the floating navigation? Is it because he
>thinks it's cool? What value does this cool give your users?
>Does he or she think it helps the user? Make your client tell you why
>it helps. Then tell him or her why id does not.
>
>If they persist (EGO TRIP) tell them that you will do it but you will
>not be proud of the work. FYI: This is a BAD CLIENT red flag. Raise
>your rates.
>
>Surf over to Jakob Nielsen's website and see if you can find any copy
>that confirms this thinking. This site also may have some info on
>this type of floating nav. http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
>
>I wish this guy changed the name of his books to some other title than
>"Web Pages That Suck" Its trailer trash talk.


Here are some bad design points from http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

1. Believing people care about you and your web site.
2. A man from Mars can’t figure out what your web site is about in
less than four seconds.
3. Mystical belief in the power of Web Standards, Usability, and
tableless CSS.
4. Using design elements that get in the way of your visitors.
5. Navigational failure.
6. Using Mystery Meat Navigation.
7. Thinking your web site is your marketing strategy.
8. Site lacks Heroin Content.
9. Forgetting the purpose of text.
10. Too much material on one page.
11. Confusing web design with a magic trick.
12. Misusing Flash.
13. Misunderstanding the use of graphics.
14. AfFrontPage
15. Javascript

Re: Annoying technology!

While the city slept, corrinarusso@gmail.com (corrinarusso@gmail.com)
feverishly typed...

> If you take a look at this page, and scroll, you will notice that the
> top navigation menu "follows" the page as you scroll :
> http://www.tcartonline.com/conceive_a_child/index.htm
> http://www.tcartonline.com/medical_health/index.htm
>
> I have a meeting this week with my client - and I already know he's
> going to request this to be implemented in his own new site.

[...]

Hmm... well... scrolling through the first page you link to, it seems that I
can found out "comprehensive information" on what ICSI is by clicking a
button ( http://www.nigenet.org.uk/stuff/images/icsi-sg-1.jpg )

However... a little more scolling shows that the "comprehensive information"
offered is on another matter... (
http://www.nigenet.org.uk/stuff/images/icsi-sg-2.jpg )

Thought some graphical examples might help you ;-) Good luck! :-)

Cheers,
Nige

--
Nigel Moss http://www.nigenet.org.uk
Mail address will bounce. nigel@DOG.nigenet.org.uk | Take the DOG. out!
"Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him!"

Re: Annoying technology!

In article ,
Fred wrote:

> On 24 Apr 2007 21:25:30 -0700, corrinarusso@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> If they persist (EGO TRIP) tell them that you will do it but you will
> not be proud of the work. FYI: This is a BAD CLIENT red flag. Raise
> your rates.
>
>

I would bet quids that the client is simply not aware that the
effect can be so bad, he simply needs to be shown by adjusting
font size and browser window size. I think OP is not realising
that client is not thinking about it because he cannot see
example or understands how some people see websites on their
machines.

--
dorayme

Re: Annoying technology!

On Apr 25, 7:44 am, Fred
wrote:
> Remind your client that web pages are a close relative to paper and a
> very distant cousin to TV.

Maybe the pages YOU go to are a distant relative of TV, but the pages
I visit are quite like TV. Interactive TV. I like that.

> That being said page motion is a no no!

But we disagree, so "that being said" is meaningless

I do not disagree that this menu system sucks and the client is
probably losing customers because of it. I disagree with your logic
about the Web not being related to TV and motion is a no no. The web
is evolving from your old bland static boring pages, to a new
interactive web where the user can participate.

> it is the responsibility of
> both you and your client to NOT PISS OFF the user.

Make sure you understand what pisses them off. It may not be what you
think it is.

> Ask your client why he wants the floating navigation? Is it because he
> thinks it's cool? What value does this cool give your users?

Who knows, maybe they think it is cool too? Do you think that there
may be people out there that actually like this kind of stuff? (I am
speaking in general terms here, I agree THIS menu sucks)

> I wish this guy changed the name of his books to some other title than
> "Web Pages That Suck" Its trailer trash talk.

Maybe he found that that sucky name actually drives more sale?
Sometimes things that you find are "sucky" actually are wanted by your
visitors.

Re: Annoying technology!

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Apr 25, 7:44 am, Fred
> wrote:
>
>> I wish this guy changed the name of his books to some other title than
>> "Web Pages That Suck" Its trailer trash talk.
>
> Maybe he found that that sucky name actually drives more sale?

"Web Pages That are Defective" doesn't quite have the same impact, eh? :)

--
Berg

Re: Annoying technology!

Thanks to everyone who provided such excellent answers.

I'll be armed with this information for my client, and be sure to
mention to him that I can to these conclusions "after discussions with
my collegues". :-D

Thanks again!

C

On Apr 26, 8:03 am, Bergamot wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 7:44 am, Fred
> > wrote:
>
> >> I wish this guy changed the name of his books to some other title than
> >> "Web Pages That Suck" Its trailer trash talk.
>
> > Maybe he found that that sucky name actually drives more sale?
>
> "Web Pages That are Defective" doesn't quite have the same impact, eh? :)
>
> --
> Berg