On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:05:29AM -0400, robin wrote:
> >
> >
> >(As a side note, it's interesting how website layout has sort of
> >stabilized. An awful lot of sites have very similar layouts, and not
> >just in the Open Source community. Reminds me of how automobile cockpit
> >layout has stabilized over the decades.)
> >
> >
>
> I personally think this is sad. There is no reason a Slash or PHPNuke
> (or PostNuke; I'd forgotten about PostNuke) site should like like a
> Slashdot knockoff. Reality = a whole lot of people seem to have a
> thought process that goes like, "Slashdot is successful, so if I make my
> site look like Slashdot it too will be successful." This is obviously no
> more true in Web site design than it is in music, where bands that
> "cover" others' work rarely make it beyond the local bar no matter how
> well they play.
>
I agree. Looking like Slashdot does nothing. Content and ease of
navigation are far more important than looks. (Of course, if you can
make it look cool at the same time, so much the better.)
> There are many, many things that can be done to make a Web site unique
> and interesting without exotic technology or plugins, but not enough
> people are trying to produce truly original, striking work on the WWW.
>
> UF professor Mindy Mcadam's http://mindy.mcadams.com is an example of an
> interesting-looking site made with nothing but simple HTML and a little
> javascript.
I could do without the little animations, and the colors are pretty
garish. But I agree it is unique.
> http://plastic.com is a Slash site that looks nothing like
> Slashdot.
>
Here I see a definite resemblence to Slashdot and others. The title and
login stuff at the top. The three column format, with individual items
occupying boxes in each column, and the links on the left. Slim on
graphics.
> More people need to realize that highly successful sites tend to be
> originals rather than copies, just as highly successful musicians
> perform original works, not copies.
>
I'm not sure about this. There are two things involved-- the artistic
presentation, and the functionality. I'm inclined to think that
"successful" sites are highly functional, but may or may not be
striking. So long as they don't repel you (flaming logos, starfield
backgrounds) and they allow easy navigation, and the content you're
looking for, I'd say they work.
> I could write a whole book about this.
>
> Wait! I did.
>
> It's called "The Habits of Highly Successful Internet Companies" and
> it'll be out from Financial Times Press in September.
> (BuildProfitsOnline.com will be the book's companion Web site.)
And I'll bet we hear more about this when it comes out. <grin>
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:13:39 EDT