random . . . randomness

Sidehatch wrote:
these kind of sites are all the rage now and it goes with the way people have changed from browsing sites on a computer to browsing sites on a tablet or phone.

some times it's well done, but I'm a little in the RB camp and these type of sites annoy me
hard to get find the content and it's mostly just showboating
I'm sure the pitch meeting they served Veen water 

Yes they are 'modern', 'new', and 'the rage', and the 'trend', but none of those mean they are good at all.  While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time.  It really is very difficult to find the real content on these sites, especially sites such as the cpanel site I referenced above.  The amount of real content on that page could very easilly (and very cleanly as well) be fit on less than one screen, yet in that absolutely horrid design I have to scroll about six pages down to get to any amount of useful data.

umm, I was actually agreeing with you

RatBastard wrote:
While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time. 

What? Mobile internet usage surpassed computer internet usage last year. I am not going to post any links, the stats are easy to find.

Sidehatch wrote:
umm, I was actually agreeing with you

I comprehend.  My reply was more of a summation of collective thoughts and an additional response to the comment someone made asking if I did not like the original page in question because of it being 'modern'.

killsaly wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time. 

What? Mobile internet usage surpassed computer internet usage last year. I am not going to post any links, the stats are easy to find.

Perhaps if one counts every single time someone uses his phone for web access, which is 100% irrelevant because for the most part none of these pages modern or not are really designed for phone use. 

RatBastard wrote:

killsaly wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time. 

What? Mobile internet usage surpassed computer internet usage last year. I am not going to post any links, the stats are easy to find.

Perhaps if one counts every single time someone uses his phone for web access, which is 100% irrelevant because for the most part none of these pages modern or not are really designed for phone use. 

gonna have to side with KS on this one
those pages are definitely designed with mobile phone/tablet users in mind
and people do a lot of web surfing on those devices, not just checking facebook and email
my 75 year old mom hasn't used her laptop in 2 years and does everything on her ipad mini (oh the horror)

the whole scrolling up and down the page and not having to click on tabs at the top or side is 100% phone friendly

sweetcell wrote:
any chance this whole "flat design" thing is more about your personal preference, and what is easy for you to read?

Ratbastard being myopic? Well, I suppose stranger things have happened.

Julian, wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
any chance this whole "flat design" thing is more about your personal preference, and what is easy for you to read?

Ratbastard being myopic? Well, I suppose stranger things have happened.

actually, it was a reference to RB's self-admitted mild dyslexia.  he has stated in the past that he has particular preferences and needs when it comes to reading, that standard presentation doesn't always work for him, etc… so i was questioning how good a judge he might be when it comes to assessing layout for others.

analogy: if you can't taste sweet, you might not want to make a universal declaration that a given desert isn't tasty, at all.

no, please . . . continue.

Sidehatch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

killsaly wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time. 

What? Mobile internet usage surpassed computer internet usage last year. I am not going to post any links, the stats are easy to find.

Perhaps if one counts every single time someone uses his phone for web access, which is 100% irrelevant because for the most part none of these pages modern or not are really designed for phone use. 

gonna have to side with KS on this one
those pages are definitely designed with mobile phone/tablet users in mind
and people do a lot of web surfing on those devices, not just checking facebook and email
my 75 year old mom hasn't used her laptop in 2 years and does everything on her ipad mini (oh the horror)

the whole scrolling up and down the page and not having to click on tabs at the top or side is 100% phone friendly

I understand that to some scrolling may be easier than touching the screen.  That is not the issue.  The issue is in the implementation of the concept with a totally flat all run together layout.  If designers would do something to make the page more readable and fill it with more content and less fluff, it would be a lot better.  The way a lot of the one page sites are, there is no segregation of content what-so-ever and it literally looks like someone wrote information on a pile of sticky notes and then randomly threw them at the screen with no concern for what landed where.

Take for example a page that has a few flaws that make it damn near useless, Etsy.  Get rid of the big graphic at the top of the page (it adds nothing at all to the page and shoves the first real content almost all the way off of the opening screen, a MAJOR flaw to make users scroll to even get to the first real content), get rid of the "hand" graphic and related content (again it has no value at all and is mere space filler/fluff, more is not always better), and get rid of the "Satisfied Customers", "Passionate Sellers", "Secure Transactions" content (again it adds absolutely nothing to the page but is space filler fluff).

Make those changes and that site is 100% better.  I still do not like the flatness of the site but it would be vastly improved with the clutter and fluff gone.  Designers who code the new flat scheme generally seem to think that adding more content (whether it actually adds to the site or merely clutters it up with fluff) is a good thing.  A well designed page is one where a user can get in, find what he wants, and get on with his day.  Not one where he has to search for every little thing he is looking for such as is often the case with flat designs.  Bottom line is the way they are currently implements, flat design pages are not intuitive at all.

sweetcell wrote:

Julian, wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
any chance this whole "flat design" thing is more about your personal preference, and what is easy for you to read?

Ratbastard being myopic? Well, I suppose stranger things have happened.

actually, it was a reference to RB's self-admitted mild dyslexia.  he has stated in the past that he has particular preferences and needs when it comes to reading, that standard presentation doesn't always work for him, etc… so i was questioning how good a judge he might be when it comes to assessing layout for others.

analogy: if you can't taste sweet, you might not want to make a universal declaration that a given desert isn't tasty, at all.

I am sure that my dyslexia does play into it to some degree at least. 

So are we going to need a webdev thread now (did I spell that right KS)

Sidehatch wrote:
So are we going to need a webdev thread now (did I spell that right KS)

I would maintain "web dev" would be equally acceptable, albeit less common.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/us/montana-good-samaritans-shooting-death/index.html

if there is one thing, I know about other human beings, on the road . . . never, ever, stop to help them or pick them up. ever.  even if they are on fire, dying on the side of the medium, waving and begging for you to help.  never, ever.

walk,on,by wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/us/montana-good-samaritans-shooting-death/index.html

if there is one thing, I know about other human beings, on the road . . . never, ever, stop to help them or pick them up. ever.  even if they are on fire, dying on the side of the medium, waving and begging for you to help.  never, ever.

ugh…some people suck…but he did really have a good reason " because the daughter laughed at him"
it was Jesus!

I will say, this 24 hour round the world new cycle will always pick up the fringe idiots and a$$holes
news loves that stuff and people eat it up all day everyday

I can with confidence say that 99.9999% of the time if you help someone out…that you won't get brutally murdered. 
you could be that .0001% and that would suck, but you have a better chance winning the lottery


I'm a parent and my kids are free range, just like when I was a kid
in fact they say it's SAFER now then when I was young…but most parents today are totally freakers when it comes to this.  Can't let your kids walk down your own block alone to a friends house or ride the bike trail alone until your 18.  Just batsh!t people.   Worry about cars, guns and poison in your food, water and air.   Not terrorists, rapists(random) and abductions

certainty don't stop helping people in need because you're worried they are going to make you a human centipede

Sidehatch wrote:

walk,on,by wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/us/montana-good-samaritans-shooting-death/index.html

if there is one thing, I know about other human beings, on the road . . . never, ever, stop to help them or pick them up. ever.  even if they are on fire, dying on the side of the medium, waving and begging for you to help.  never, ever.

ugh…some people suck…but he did really have a good reason " because the daughter laughed at him"
it was Jesus!

I will say, this 24 hour round the world new cycle will always pick up the fringe idiots and a$$holes
news loves that stuff and people eat it up all day everyday

I can with confidence say that 99.9999% of the time if you help someone out…that you won't get brutally murdered. 
you could be that .0001% and that would suck, but you have a better chance winning the lottery


I'm a parent and my kids are free range, just like when I was a kid
in fact they say it's SAFER now then when I was young…but most parents today are totally freakers when it comes to this.  Can't let your kids walk down your own block alone to a friends house or ride the bike trail alone until your 18.  Just batsh!t people.   Worry about cars, guns and poison in your food, water and air.   Not terrorists, rapists(random) and abductions

There used to be a guy at my place of employment who stopped to help a broken down motorist on the Beltway, and the guy ended up being hit by a third car, putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

And as far as free range goes, call me sexist, but I'd probably be more open to it if I had boys and lived in the country like my brother and I did growing up. But we don't and we don't.

Free range parenting is one of the dumbest terms of this millennium. 

Sidehatch wrote:

I was given a 24 pack of Mountain Dew. I do not drink Mountain Dew. I also am not technically a SysAdmin. I don't think my office is doing this correctly.