This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Site Ratings & Reviews > May 2004 > Bristol, UK, Harbourside website, Comments please ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Bristol, UK, Harbourside website, Comments please ?
|
|
|
|
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Trevor George" <trevor@REMOVE-THISonmywindow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XBQfc.615$646.5994641@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I saw this URL http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk on the side of a
> ferry-boat in Bristol Docks and emailed the webmaster, to say that I
> thought it wasn't very user-friendly (especially for those on dial-ups).
>
> I'd be grateful for any other constructive cricism I could pass on.
>
> It's at http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk
>
> --
> Cheers ..... Trevor, Bristol, UK.
> http://www.OnMyWindow.co.uk
Judging by the product, I'd say those who are still on dialup are not the
target market :) I liked the site. It loaded instantly, and I had no
problems navigating it...
| |
| Trevor George 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote in message ...
> Judging by the product, I'd say those who are still on dialup are not the
> target market.
But well over 60% of users (or probably more in the UK) are still on
dial-ups. I guess a lot of those are still within the target market :~(
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Trevor George" <trevor@REMOVE-THISonmywindow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EQQfc.620$Co6.6213689@news-text.cableinet.net...
> SpaceGirl wrote in message ...
the[color=darkred]
>
> But well over 60% of users (or probably more in the UK) are still on
> dial-ups. I guess a lot of those are still within the target market :~(
I suppose... but its the current trendy, and I doubt it's going to get any
easier for narrowband users. Broadband user demand more and more broadband
content - which means they are more likely to fall for the slick graphics
and pretty convent, buy products etc etc. It becomes a self perpetuating
cycle, because then the market realises the big online spenders are the
broadband users, which means even less effort is spent on narrowband
content... Anyway, that's my grim take on things. Even relatively
'narrowband friendly' sides take forever to download on 56k these days. We
live in an impatient world. I think those left of narrowband are going to
become so frustrated with the lack of speed, they'd never shop or seriously
browse online anyway (eventually).
And that's only half the problems. Broadband varies from 128kbps to 8mbit
ps. To a 2mbit cable users, a 256kb connection appears VERY slow; certainly
too slow to watch video online, and almost too slow to play online games
these day, for example...
| |
| Grunff 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> Judging by the product, I'd say those who are still on dialup are not the
> target market :) I liked the site. It loaded instantly, and I had no
> problems navigating it...
Now there's a bizarre and rather clueless statement.
--
Grunff
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Grunff" <grunff@ixxa.com> wrote in message
news:c5onkh$41cun$1@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de...
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
the[color=darkred]
>
>
> Now there's a bizarre and rather clueless statement.
>
> --
> Grunff
It depends... I didn't read the content carefully. But my impression was
"inner city, affluent properties", which would suggest a target audience
already living in a city, which in turn leads to the likelihood that they
have broadband, or are to be more interested in "flash bang" over pure
content. It was a generalisation :) I dont know who their target is.
| |
| Karl Groves 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c5onom$41877$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Grunff" <grunff@ixxa.com> wrote in message
> news:c5onkh$41cun$1@ID-152899.news.uni-berlin.de...
> the
>
> It depends... I didn't read the content carefully. But my impression was
> "inner city, affluent properties", which would suggest a target audience
> already living in a city, which in turn leads to the likelihood that they
> have broadband, or are to be more interested in "flash bang" over pure
> content. It was a generalisation :) I dont know who their target is.
It doesn't matter where they are or how much money they have.
The majority of users *still* don't have broadband. So while the target
audience is more likely to have broadband, that doesn't negate the fact that
the majority will still have dial-up.
-Karl
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c5oo5m$k8n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:c5onom$41877$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
not[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
>
> It doesn't matter where they are or how much money they have.
> The majority of users *still* don't have broadband. So while the target
> audience is more likely to have broadband, that doesn't negate the fact
that
> the majority will still have dial-up.
>
> -Karl
Well of course... I was making a point about targets. If you're designing a
mass market site (search engine, for example), it would be pretty stupid to
use heavy graphics... or Flash!
| |
|
| <uk.net.web.authoring , SpaceGirl , MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net>
<c5onkg$41iok$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de>
<Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:38:28 +0100>
> Even relatively
> 'narrowband friendly' sides take forever to download on 56k these days. We
> live in an impatient world. I think those left of narrowband are going to
> become so frustrated with the lack of speed, they'd never shop or seriously
> browse online anyway (eventually).
>
It depends on the user and what they are looking for in a internet
connection , If the user is the type of person who mostly works on a pc
using whatever app for hours at a time and doesnt actually use the net
much to surf or download then there isnt any real need for a broadband
connection .
These days I find it hard to imagine anything more mind numbingly boring
than surfing the web .
PS: nobody in star trek surfs the web even with connections thousands of
times faster than broadband - why is that :-)
--
http://www.cannabiswindow.co.uk
(buy cannabis online)
| |
|
|
| Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Trevor George wrote:
> I saw this URL http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk on the side of a
> ferry-boat in Bristol Docks and emailed the webmaster, to say that I
> thought it wasn't very user-friendly (especially for those on
> dial-ups).
>
> I'd be grateful for any other constructive cricism I could pass on.
>
> It's at http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk
This is what it looks like when you filter flash:
http://home.online.no/~ingerfaj/harboursidebristol.jpg
Nothing there...
(I hope I am not breaking any rules here, but I can't figure out what
Whitecrest meant by
"Well there is that saying about the shoe fitting... " in the Universal
font-discussion. Please bear with me, my native language isn't English! Can
someone please explain?)
--
Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen
http://home.online.no/~ingerfaj/
| |
| Barefoot Kid 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "Trevor George" <trevor@REMOVE-THISonmywindow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XBQfc.615$646.5994641@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I saw this URL http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk on the side of a
> ferry-boat in Bristol Docks and emailed the webmaster, to say that I
> thought it wasn't very user-friendly (especially for those on dial-ups).
>
> I'd be grateful for any other constructive cricism I could pass on.
>
> It's at http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk
for a flash site it looks very slick and trendy, i didnt have any probs
navigating it either. should be placed in the middle of the page tho, looks
mash up pushed to the top like that
--
Hung Diep
http://www.intro-spect.co.uk
| |
| TechnoHippie 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Trevor George wrote:
> I saw this URL http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk on the side of a
> ferry-boat in Bristol Docks and emailed the webmaster, to say that I
> thought it wasn't very user-friendly (especially for those on dial-ups).
>
> I'd be grateful for any other constructive cricism I could pass on.
>
> It's at http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk
It's fine for a flash brochure site. So I have to wait for every page
to load ... same with html and php. What, in particular, is your gripe
with the site? It's accessible and not overly slow.
Judy
--
Organization: TechnoHippie.Com aka THC
Derailed Update: http://derailed.technohippie.com/thc_derailed.txt
PHP-NukedTHC: http://www.technohippie.com/html/index.php
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
| |
| 2gy76s 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| > > I saw this URL http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk on the side of a[color=darkred]
I thought it was a well known notion that Flash and user-friendly don't
belong in the same sentance.
I bet they didn't really care to answer your unrequested critique.
They got paid for what they were asked to do we can assume.
| |
| mark | r 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| some nice touches but it looks disjointed...
mark
"Trevor George" <trevor@REMOVE-THISonmywindow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XBQfc.615$646.5994641@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I saw this URL http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk on the side of a
> ferry-boat in Bristol Docks and emailed the webmaster, to say that I
> thought it wasn't very user-friendly (especially for those on dial-ups).
>
> I'd be grateful for any other constructive cricism I could pass on.
>
> It's at http://www.harboursidebristol.co.uk
>
> --
> Cheers ..... Trevor, Bristol, UK.
> http://www.OnMyWindow.co.uk
>
>
| |
| Andrew Urquhart 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Barry Pearson wrote:
> CW wrote:
>
> Holodecks.
Nah, it just wouldn't very good TV:
KIRK: Scotty I need everything you've got, we're browsing the
Harbourside site
SCOTTY: Ack, Cap'n I canna give ye any more ban'width
--
Andrew Urquhart
- Contact: www.andrewu.co.uk/contact/
| |
| Steve Pugh 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>I suppose... but its the current trendy, and I doubt it's going to get any
>easier for narrowband users. Broadband user demand more and more broadband
>content - which means they are more likely to fall for the slick graphics
>and pretty convent, buy products etc etc. It becomes a self perpetuating
>cycle, because then the market realises the big online spenders are the
>broadband users, which means even less effort is spent on narrowband
>content...
I disagree. A totally unscientific survey amongst friends and family
tells me that users switch to broadband to get the same content
faster, not to get more content at the same speed. Things that are
only practical with broadband (downloading mp3s, movies, software,
etc.) are seen as something extra to the basic web surfing experience.
Where you might notice a difference is amongst the younger audience
(pre- and early teens) who won't have experience of anything except
broadband. However, and this is digressing rapidly, when a project I
worked on conducted usability tests on an early teens group we
discovered that their attitude to the web was not what we expected -
they were actually quite resistant to innovation. As they had grown up
with the web it was part of life and not something special, as such
they expected it to work and to work reliably. Basic things such as
always underlining links (which some people think of as only important
to boring old usability pedants) were mentioned as being very
important by 12 and 13 year olds.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:20uv70dgu70ic5cufgr6msi4jrt2m9kcah@4ax.com...
> "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
any[color=darkred]
broadband[color=darkred]
>
> I disagree. A totally unscientific survey amongst friends and family
> tells me that users switch to broadband to get the same content
> faster, not to get more content at the same speed. Things that are
> only practical with broadband (downloading mp3s, movies, software,
> etc.) are seen as something extra to the basic web surfing experience.
You missed games. Consider that all consoles are broadband enabled now, and
all the 3rd gen console are coming out this Christmas, all bundled with
broadband...
There's a break point where the speed is high enough to enjoy full screen
multimedia and still have it download instantly. We have 2mbit cable here in
Edinburgh, for about £50 a month. We can happily watch full-screen video
with no waiting, and have other machines in our house surf perfectly
uninterupted too. Try doing that on a 512k or 256k line...
> Where you might notice a difference is amongst the younger audience
> (pre- and early teens) who won't have experience of anything except
> broadband. However, and this is digressing rapidly, when a project I
> worked on conducted usability tests on an early teens group we
> discovered that their attitude to the web was not what we expected -
> they were actually quite resistant to innovation. As they had grown up
> with the web it was part of life and not something special, as such
> they expected it to work and to work reliably. Basic things such as
> always underlining links (which some people think of as only important
> to boring old usability pedants) were mentioned as being very
> important by 12 and 13 year olds.
>
> Steve
Everyone is resistant to change... but when the net becomes just another
thing you do from the TV, narrowband users are dead meat. And this is
happening right now. Pretty much all cellphones coming out now are broadband
(3G) too.
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| > "Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> wrote in message[color=darkred]
> news:20uv70dgu70ic5cufgr6msi4jrt2m9kcah@4ax.com...
[snip]
A totally unscientific survey, of just me, tells me that broadband, especially
always-on broadband, enables one to think about information, news, facts, etc,
in a very different way.
Instead of assuming things, I check. I have pe-configured Google news-searches
for updates on specialist topics. Every day I find out new things that I
thought were so but are not. I build searches, etc, into my workflow, to
produce stuff of (hopefully) higher quality.
It is perhaps a bit like living in a library - but you only appreciate living
in a library if you get into the habit of looking at the books.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Pyromancer 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Karl Groves
<karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> breathed:
>It doesn't matter where they are or how much money they have.
>The majority of users *still* don't have broadband. So while the target
>audience is more likely to have broadband, that doesn't negate the fact that
>the majority will still have dial-up.
But people looking for up-market property will probably surf from work
(my boss at the last place certainly did, plus all the calls to estate
agents, etc, simply because that's when they were open - he worked late
to make the time up, and the MD was perfectly happy with this), where
the majority of them will already have a fast connection anyway.
If you want to sell to people with money, you have to package your
product in a way that appeals to the wealthy. Netto sells some
excellent products, but by and large the wealthy don't shop there
because it doesn't carry the same ambience as, say, M&S.
--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.
| |
|
|
| Andrew Banks 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| > I thought it was a well known notion that Flash and user-friendly don't
> belong in the same sentance.
Well that just bollocks for a start
| |
|
|
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Pyromancer wrote:
> ...
> where the majority of them will already have a fast connection anyway.
>
> If you want to sell to people with money, you have to package your
> product in a way that appeals to the wealthy.
Indeed, but there is no correlation between ability/willingness to spend and
technology employed - especially when it comes to telecomms. Speaking for
the UK only - there are still large parts of the country that have extremely
healthy (financially) demographics but unless the community installs
satellite technology, the net connections will remain poor to say the least.
Many of these areas don't even have cell phone coverage either so 3g is not
available to them even though they can afford it.
--
William Tasso
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c5oo5m$k8n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:c5onom$41877$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
on dialup are not[color=darkred]
instantly, and I had no[color=darkred]
my impression was[color=darkred]
target audience[color=darkred]
likelihood that they[color=darkred]
bang" over pure[color=darkred]
their target is.[color=darkred]
>
> It doesn't matter where they are or how much money they
have.
> The majority of users *still* don't have broadband. So
while the target
> audience is more likely to have broadband, that doesn't
negate the fact that
> the majority will still have dial-up.
>
And the point is . . . . ?
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Andrew Banks" <banksy@nojunkblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:muUfc.810$bh.7915651@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> Well that just bollocks for a start
;)
| |
| 2gy76s 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c5p71n$46n3n$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Andrew Banks" <banksy@nojunkblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:muUfc.810$bh.7915651@news-text.cableinet.net...
don't[color=darkred]
>
> ;)
>
>
:p
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| CW wrote:
> PS: nobody in star trek surfs the web even with connections thousands of
> times faster than broadband - why is that :-)
Imagine the crappy ping time to Earth from deep space!
Bandwidth isn't the only important issue you see -- the distance the data
has to travel would make the web unusable.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
| |
| kayodeok 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.16.18.42.16.515019@goddamn.co.uk:
> CW wrote:
>
>
> Imagine the crappy ping time to Earth from deep space!
>
> Bandwidth isn't the only important issue you see -- the distance
> the data has to travel would make the web unusable.
>
If there is the web in Star Trek, it won't be called the "World Wide
Web"; I think it would probably be routed via Sub-space (or if you
watch "Voyager", - folding space) and utilise those Alien Array
thingies which are dotted all over the star trek universe.
--
Kayode Okeyode
http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
http://www.kayodeok.btinternet.co.u...s/webdesign.htm
| |
| Eric Jarvis 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Barry Pearson news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk wrote:
> [snip]
>
> A totally unscientific survey, of just me, tells me that broadband, especially
> always-on broadband, enables one to think about information, news, facts, etc,
> in a very different way.
>
> Instead of assuming things, I check. I have pe-configured Google news-searches
> for updates on specialist topics. Every day I find out new things that I
> thought were so but are not. I build searches, etc, into my workflow, to
> produce stuff of (hopefully) higher quality.
>
> It is perhaps a bit like living in a library - but you only appreciate living
> in a library if you get into the habit of looking at the books.
>
I've been doing that since I first got dial up...though these days it
means having Opera set up with a default of images and scripting off,
otherwise it would take forever to find anything...the thing that gets to
me is that even when I've got the right book immediately to hand I'll
still look on the web first
it's better than a library though...it's a library with a tea room
containing a huge range of experts on various subjects
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:c5p5s6$42eo7$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Pyromancer wrote:
connection anyway.[color=darkred]
package your[color=darkred]
>
> Indeed, but there is no correlation between
ability/willingness to spend and
> technology employed - especially when it comes to
telecomms. Speaking for
> the UK only - there are still large parts of the country
that have extremely
> healthy (financially) demographics but unless the
community installs
> satellite technology, the net connections will remain poor
to say the least.
> Many of these areas don't even have cell phone coverage
either so 3g is not
> available to them even though they can afford it.
>
Thats what I thought also - until I found out the farmer
next to me has a satelite up/down link and does all his
telecoms / internet etc via that. (mind you, he is
***very*** well endowed (financially:-)
Our govt has also just begun a 'broad band to rural area's'
programme to ensure that all parts of the country can hook
up without the hassle of connecting via the local fence
line!
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c5onkg$41iok$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I suppose... but its the current trendy, and I doubt it's going to get any
> easier for narrowband users. Broadband user demand more and more broadband
> content - which means they are more likely to fall for the slick graphics
> and pretty convent, buy products etc etc. It becomes a self perpetuating
> cycle, because then the market realises the big online spenders are the
> broadband users
What a lot of shite.
When will you and your ilk ever learn??
I'll tell you when. When your clueless clients' are losing out to their
competitors who understand the nature of the medium and surfers.
Some may never learn, which will at least keep you in work.
So when do you think Google will enjoy your enlightenment about all these
users with super-fast connections, and fill their site with images and
videos?
Speaking of target markets for yachts, with their broadband connections,
demonstrating your cluelessness. Do you know anyone who can afford a luxury
yacht? I do. He can't even use email!!
Not a XXXXing clue.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c5oobv$41tc4$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Well of course... I was making a point about targets. If you're designing
a
> mass market site (search engine, for example), it would be pretty stupid
to
> use heavy graphics... or Flash!
Mir. You have used this crap before about target markets to justify heavy
sites.
In fact you do it every time.
Lets say we believe you. The up-to-speed prospect is a professional, lots
of disposable income, good computer and fast connection.
This self-same person is also very mobile. Is he still your XXXXing target
when he's trying to access such sites on his laptop??
Not a XXXXing clue.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Eric Jarvis 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Charles Sweeney me@charlessweeney.com wrote:
>
> Speaking of target markets for yachts, with their broadband connections,
> demonstrating your cluelessness. Do you know anyone who can afford a luxury
> yacht? I do. He can't even use email!!
>
I know three people at least in that bracket...all three use
broadband...two from desktops, both of whom have expressed irritation at
the amount of junk they have to download to get at anything useful...the
other tends to use a small handheld or laptop whilst out and about
what happens at the high income end is that a wider range of browsing
options become available...so it's worth offering them high quality
streaming video...but it's also worth allowing basic access to the content
in a seriously stripped down form
the people with serious money tend to be the people who don't like sitting
around waiting for stuff to happen
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| Karl Groves 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message news:40801c21@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
> news:c5oo5m$k8n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> on dialup are not
> instantly, and I had no
> my impression was
> target audience
> likelihood that they
> bang" over pure
> their target is.
> have.
> while the target
> negate the fact that
> And the point is . . . . ?
Since you fancy yourself to be an intelligent person, I'm quite surprised
you can't figure this out on your own.
-Karl
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:c5pd32$4ft57$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:c5oobv$41tc4$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
designing[color=darkred]
> a
> to
>
> Mir. You have used this crap before about target markets to justify heavy
> sites.
>
> In fact you do it every time.
>
> Lets say we believe you. The up-to-speed prospect is a professional, lots
> of disposable income, good computer and fast connection.
>
> This self-same person is also very mobile. Is he still your XXXXing
target
> when he's trying to access such sites on his laptop??
>
> Not a XXXXing clue.
> --
> Charles Sweeney
> www.CharlesSweeney.com
Because that's a different target... hand held devices are used by different
sorts of people for different reasons. You're not likely to find someone
doing their monthly Tescos shopping via a cellphone browser; they MAY want
to get the latest music news. NME have a mobile-device specific site.
Different sorts of media for different devices and different people, that's
all.
| |
|
| On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:51:54 +0100, SpaceGirl <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net>
wrote:
> Judging by the product, I'd say those who are still on dialup are not the
> target market :)
I disagree. Financial success does not mean you have a high-speed
connction available. How do you manage a high-speed connection on YOUR
yacht?
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:c5pcs5$3mutk$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:c5onkg$41iok$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
any[color=darkred]
broadband[color=darkred]
graphics[color=darkred]
>
> What a lot of shite.
>
> When will you and your ilk ever learn??
You're trying to apply labels. It doesn't work; we design sites here using
whatever technology is best suited for the clients needs. Your "ilk" seems
to think there is no room in the market for multimedia online. It's terribly
short-sighted. It'd be just as short-sighted as assuming everyone has
broadband...
> I'll tell you when. When your clueless clients' are losing out to their
> competitors who understand the nature of the medium and surfers.
And you call me clueless? Can't you admit that sometimes media rich sites
are exactly what the audience AND client wants?
> Some may never learn, which will at least keep you in work.
Nice cop out.
> So when do you think Google will enjoy your enlightenment about all these
> users with super-fast connections, and fill their site with images and
> videos?
Who cares? Google is going down the pan. It's not up to you or I Charles...
just look what's happening out there in the real world...
> Speaking of target markets for yachts, with their broadband connections,
> demonstrating your cluelessness. Do you know anyone who can afford a
luxury
> yacht? I do. He can't even use email!!
Just one, and he's not that smart :)
> Not a XXXXing clue.
Projecting again? :P
> --
> Charles Sweeney
> www.CharlesSweeney.com
>
>
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Neal" <neal413@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:opr6khqonmdvhyks@news.rcn.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:51:54 +0100, SpaceGirl <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net>
> wrote:
>
>
the[color=darkred]
>
> I disagree. Financial success does not mean you have a high-speed
> connction available. How do you manage a high-speed connection on YOUR
> yacht?
I was making a point about target markets... I don't know what his market
is... that's why you research these things, rather than sticking up some
pretty site that takes forever to download. There's not like 'one universal
design' for the web. The web is more than just an information resource; it's
a form of entertainment and a advertising channel too.
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:c5oobv$41tc4$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
[snip][color=darkred]
> Lets say we believe you. The up-to-speed prospect is a professional,
> lots of disposable income, good computer and fast connection.
>
> This self-same person is also very mobile. Is he still your XXXXing
> target when he's trying to access such sites on his laptop??
[snip]
Different times of day, for different purposes. (I use broadband from my
laptop!)
You need to be aware of DILO - "Day In the Life Of". An established marketing
analysis technique. Not "can this person access this site via the PDA?". But
"does this person have the opportunity to access this site when it matters?"
On the move, that person may want urgent emails & breaking news. At the office
or at home, much more information & analysis.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> "Neal" <neal413@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
> news:opr6khqonmdvhyks@news.rcn.com...
[snip]
>
> I was making a point about target markets... I don't know what his
> market is... that's why you research these things, rather than
> sticking up some pretty site that takes forever to download. There's
> not like 'one universal design' for the web. The web is more than
> just an information resource; it's a form of entertainment and a
> advertising channel too.
Yes. The web comprises many implicit communities, with their own requirements
& capabilities.
Photographers will expect & tolerate things that others won't. 100KB images,
at least 700px across. An assumption that the audience had calibrated
monitors, or at least won't complain if they haven't. Etc.
There isn't a standard viewer. It is important to understand the audience.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FWXfc.2477$UG1.1176@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
> I use broadband from my laptop!
Aye, and when did you last use it with your phone!?
Slow aint the word, even with the "quickest" phone connection.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c5pgtp$3tsv9$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
> news:c5pd32$4ft57$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
message[color=darkred]
If you're[color=darkred]
> designing
would be pretty stupid[color=darkred]
markets to justify heavy[color=darkred]
professional, lots[color=darkred]
your XXXXing[color=darkred]
> target
>
> Because that's a different target... hand held devices are
used by different
> sorts of people for different reasons. You're not likely
to find someone
> doing their monthly Tescos shopping via a cellphone
browser; they MAY want
> to get the latest music news. NME have a mobile-device
specific site.
> Different sorts of media for different devices and
different people, that's
> all.
>
A-hem, if I may jump in here? While even I recognise that
access to broadband is not universal I note that at least
here broadband is now becvomming widely available on mobile
devices. Cards are out there that enable hand helds and
laptops to connect via broadband using the mobile phone
system. Our telecom provides a jetstream service which,
depending on B/W plan selected can even be affordable. Large
numbers of 'mobile' execs are now seen roaming the streets
or sitting in sidewalk cafes sharing video presentations
with clients elsewhere. For around $50 month you can have a
flat rate plan that gives video quality browsing. Personally
a cell phone or hand held type screen is too small for me
but a lap top in the car checking out a multimedia or splash
type site is a reality.
| |
|
| On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:56:38 +0100, SpaceGirl <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net>
wrote:
>
> Who cares? Google is going down the pan. It's not up to you or I
> Charles...
> just look what's happening out there in the real world...
Enlighten me, this is news...
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message news:40804e28@clear.net.nz...
> Cards are out there that enable hand helds and laptops to connect via
broadband using the mobile phone
News to me Mr Logan. A wee link perhaps?
I looked into this with my own phone provider, Orange, not so long ago.
Also looked at some others.
The fastest service just about came up to normal dial-up speed.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c5pfnp$hch$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
> "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message
news:40801c21@clear.net.nz...
message[color=darkred]
still[color=darkred]
statement.[color=darkred]
But[color=darkred]
suggest a[color=darkred]
"flash[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
doesn't[color=darkred]
>
> Since you fancy yourself to be an intelligent person, I'm
quite surprised
> you can't figure this out on your own.
>
Perhaps if you fancied yourself the same way you might also
question the logic of the above statement.
Think about it - where is the justification for denying
those who can afford broadband and who appreciate multimedia
type sites (that only work well on broadband) simply on the
basis that not everyone can do so?
It is a bit like saying that so long as most people can only
afford McDonalds and whose taste buds are geared to that
level we should not provide gourmet restaurants for the few
who can afford and enjoy the additional benefits provided.
Yeah, right - in Russia maybe - 20 years ago perhaps.
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Neal" <neal413@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:opr6khqonmdvhyks@news.rcn.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:51:54 +0100, SpaceGirl
<MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net>
> wrote:
>
>
dialup are not the[color=darkred]
>
> I disagree. Financial success does not mean you have a
high-speed
> connction available. How do you manage a high-speed
connection on YOUR
> yacht?
I can answer that! Ever hear of Satelite? Ever hear of broad
band radio?
There is pleasure in checking your e-mail and browsing your
favourite game site from the middle of the Pacific.
| |
| Alan J. Flavell 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Bill Logan wrote:
> I can answer that! Ever hear of Satelite?
Sure have, though the speling[1] was a bit different. Ever heard of
RTT and its effect on TCP? Satellite is great for broadcast, but not
so great for interaction with a server.
[1]please have your sic bag ready :-}
| |
| Karl Groves 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message news:4080507e@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
> news:c5pfnp$hch$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> news:40801c21@clear.net.nz...
> message
> still
> statement.
> But
> suggest a
> "flash
> they
> doesn't
> quite surprised
> Perhaps if you fancied yourself the same way you might also
> question the logic of the above statement.
>
> Think about it - where is the justification for denying
> those who can afford broadband and who appreciate multimedia
> type sites (that only work well on broadband) simply on the
> basis that not everyone can do so?
My statements on this matter have revolved around the fact that although
more affluent people *can afford* broadband, they still don't have
significantly higher adoption rates of the service - at least not in the
amounts required to make the business decision to create a site that
requires broadband.
-karl
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:c5pkuf$n0f$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> My statements on this matter have revolved around the fact that although
> more affluent people *can afford* broadband, they still don't have
> significantly higher adoption rates of the service
Paradoxically. It is not uncommon for wealthy people to live in rural
areas, those worse served by broadband.
So you could say that affluent people are less likely to have broadband.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:c5pius$3uu75$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message
news:40804e28@clear.net.nz...
>
to connect via[color=darkred]
> broadband using the mobile phone
>
>(News to me Mr Logan. A wee link perhaps?
>
> I looked into this with my own phkne provider, Orange, not
so long ago.
> Also looked at some others.
>
> The fastest service just about came up to normal dial-up
speed.
Telecoms jetstream is the slowest and the link is below. Im
in a bit of a hurry to collect my wife so I will hunt up the
other links - particularly gool ones with vodaphone - and
post them later.
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,...2-200524,00.htm
l
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message news:40806121$1@clear.net.nz...
: Telecoms jetstream is the slowest and the link is belo. Im
> in a bit of a hurry to collect my wife so I will hunt up the
> other links - particularly good ones with vodaphone - and
> post them later.
>
> http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,...2-200524,00.htm
: l
Thanks Bill. That's the type I've seen, works about average dial-up speed.
It was the broadband speeds that intriqued me!
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Stuart Millington 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:12:50 GMT, "Andrew Banks"
<banksy@nojunkblueyonder.co.uk>(wrote:
[To 2gy76s, please lon't snip attribution lines as they are there for
a good reason.]
>
>Well that just bollocks for a start
Your comment is, within this context, bollocks. How am I, as a
user, meant to bookmark an individual page/frame within a Flash
"site"/animation? Oh, sorry, am I not allowed to do that? Do I have to
go back to YOUR "entrance page" each time I want to look at a specific
page within the "site". How do I view the site with graphics off and a
text-only display, for either bandwidth or visibility issues? Flash,
used in this - broken - manner *is* user-UNfriendly.
Flash can be used sensibly, as can cars and guns. However, in this
case, the use of Flash shows that the "designer" either knows SFA
about the web medium for which they are, supposedly, designing or they
just don't care and have good liability insurance in place. Either
this was designed by an over-paid BS'er or a kiddie. Neither of which
are likely to have read the recent press articles about discriminating
websites.
After a quick browse, I don't see anything that (aside from the
pointless slide-in/out's) could not have been achieved with an
accessible HTML layout.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- mailto:phupp@dsv1.co.uk http://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -
begin OE is broken read MS knowledgebase Q265230
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:c5poa6$44tad$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message
news:40806121$1@clear.net.nz...
>
Im[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,...2-200524,00.htm[color=darkred]
>
> Thanks Bill. That's the type I've seen, works about
average dial-up speed.
> It was the broadband speeds that intriqued me!
Sorry about that Charles, was in a bit of a rush - Telecoms
jetstream does do braodband but at the lower end of the
scale, probably because they are committed to CDMA!
Amoungst the better options here is the like of Walker
wireless or Vodaphone who now offer GPRS so we are talking
about speeds in the range of 1.5 - 2 Mbps which is as fast
if not faster than the average home broadband user gets?
The govt has started to release access to the 3G spectrum
and Vodaphone now provides the service which includes voice
over internet as well as video conferenceing, messaging,
internet access etc.
This link will give a bit of background but it is dated from
last year. Vodaphone has since got the ball rolling.
http://www.gsmmobile.co.nz/3GUTMS.htm
Here is vodaphones site link but again - it is a bit short
on info although you should get enough to see what I mean.
http://www.vodaphone.co.nz/business...mobile_data.jsp
?hd=4yourbusiness&st=need2know&ss=mobiledata
Unfortunately - to get any real answers you need to phone
them :-(
Hope that gives a better picture. I can get more links if
you need for the likes of walker and other broad band
operators who are now jumping on the mobile bandwagon down
here.
Mobile broad band is here and it is growing fast!
| |
| Eric Bohlman 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Pyromancer <pyromancer@beeching.stormshadow.com> wrote in
news:G817DCF1pAgAFwYv@pyromancer.firstnet.co.uk:
> But people looking for up-market property will probably surf from work
> (my boss at the last place certainly did, plus all the calls to estate
> agents, etc, simply because that's when they were open - he worked
> late to make the time up, and the MD was perfectly happy with this),
> where the majority of them will already have a fast connection anyway.
You've got to be careful here. The company may have a big fat pipe to the
Internet, but that pipe might well be shared by thousands or tens of
thousands of users.
> If you want to sell to people with money, you have to package your
> product in a way that appeals to the wealthy. Netto sells some
> excellent products, but by and large the wealthy don't shop there
> because it doesn't carry the same ambience as, say, M&S.
And do you have evidence that what "appeals to the wealthy" is lots of
gimcracks?
Jakob Nielsen and others have actually studied Web users by using eye-
tracking equipment. They've discovered a rather interesting thing about a
lot of the visual elements that designers claim make their pages more
exciting and are therefore worth the increased load time: the users' eyes
never land on them. If the user is asked why, the response is usually "I
thought it was an ad."
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Bill Logan wrote:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> news:c5p5s6$42eo7$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> ability/willingness to spend and
> Thats what I thought also - until I found out the farmer
> next to me has a satelite up/down link and does all his
> telecoms / internet etc via that. (mind you, he is
> ***very*** well endowed (financially:-)
That's part of the joy of the human condition - there will always be
exceptions and oddballs that stand out at either extreme. btw: a satellite
link installation is (financially) within reach of anyone who would use
broadband otherwise (in the UK).
Anyway, the point is ... there is still no excuse for bloat even if
broadband were available everywhere.
> Our govt has also just begun a 'broad band to rural area's'
> programme to ensure that all parts of the country can hook
> up without the hassle of connecting via the local fence
> line!
yep - ours too. Conspiracy theorists may form an orderly queue.
--
William Tasso
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> ...
> You're not likely to
> find someone doing their monthly Tescos shopping via a cellphone
> browser;
you just got to be kidding
--
William Tasso
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Toby A Inkster wrote:
> CW wrote:
>
>
> Imagine the crappy ping time to Earth from deep space!
>
> Bandwidth isn't the only important issue you see -- the distance the
> data has to travel would make the web unusable.
The word you are searching for is: latency
--
William Tasso
| |
|
| <uk.net.web.authoring , William Tasso , SpamBlocked@tbdata.com>
<c5qa6m$4facn$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de>
<Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:03:54 +0100>
>
> The word you are searching for is: latency
>
That word is no longer used in the 23rd century .
--
http://www.sparesorrepair.co.uk
MOT failures - sometimes given away free to collect
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:c5q9d3$4iklu$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Bill Logan wrote:
message[color=darkred]
connection[color=darkred]
package your[color=darkred]
telecomms.[color=darkred]
of the[color=darkred]
demographics but[color=darkred]
net[color=darkred]
these areas[color=darkred]
available to[color=darkred]
>
> That's part of the joy of the human condition - there will
always be
> exceptions and oddballs that stand out at either extreme.
btw: a satellite
> link installation is (financially) within reach of anyone
who would use
> broadband otherwise (in the UK).
Boo Hoo, looks like I am the exception, looked around again,
(now I know what I am looking for) and found that I am
surrounded by farmers (5) and 1 talk show (lifestyler) host
who also have those sat linky thingys :-( - I gotta get with
the programme otherwise they will start calling me pinky!
>
> Anyway, the point is ... there is still no excuse for
bloat even if
> broadband were available everywhere.
Aww, thats not fair - bloat is good - ask anyone who loves
mutton fat (reminds me, roast lamb and fresh mint peas from
the garden for dinner - mmmm )
area's'[color=darkred]
hook[color=darkred]
>
> yep - ours too. Conspiracy theorists may form an orderly
queue.
>
What is a conspiracy called when it becomes reality?:-(
| |
| Eric Bohlman 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:c5qa6m$4facn$1@ID-
139074.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
> The word you are searching for is: latency
And, to bring the discussion back to Earth, latency is independent of
bandwidth, so a page that's got 100 images (spacers, sliced images, images
of text, etc.) is going to be slow to load regardless of how fast a
connection the user has.
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94CDE0248F6Debohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
> Pyromancer <pyromancer@beeching.stormshadow.com> wrote in
> news:G817DCF1pAgAFwYv@pyromancer.firstnet.co.uk:
>
surf from work[color=darkred]
calls to estate[color=darkred]
he worked[color=darkred]
with this),[color=darkred]
connection anyway.[color=darkred]
>
> You've got to be careful here. The company may have a big
fat pipe to the
> Internet, but that pipe might well be shared by thousands
or tens of
> thousands of users.
>
package your[color=darkred]
sells some[color=darkred]
shop there[color=darkred]
>
> And do you have evidence that what "appeals to the
wealthy" is lots of
> gimcracks?
>
> Jakob Nielsen and others have actually studied Web users
by using eye-
> tracking equipment. They've discovered a rather
interesting thing about a
> lot of the visual elements that designers claim make their
pages more
> exciting and are therefore worth the increased load time:
the users' eyes
> never land on them. If the user is asked why, the
response is usually "I
> thought it was an ad."
Just a guess here but I would say the very rich would not be
the sort to take part in surveys and particularly the sort
of test carried out by Nielsen et al. Which of course means
that their findings are totally meaningless when it comes to
them - or even when it comes to the type of web user who
would not take part - even if not rich.
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Bill Logan wrote:
> ...
> What is a conspiracy called when it becomes reality?:-(
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one"
~ Thomas Jefferson
--
William Tasso
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Bill Logan wrote:
> ...
> them - or even when it comes to the type of web user who
> would not take part - even if not rich.
depends how one defines 'rich'
wealth isn't (currently) a major factor in defining broadband usage.
UK costs are (average) £30/month or £1 per day. a fee that is well within
reach of any working adult (e&oe)
What else does £1 buy ...
o 5 cigarettes
o 1/3 pint beer
o 1 liter petrol
o 1/2lb butter
o 1 loaf bread
o 1 tin cola
o 10 minutes parking (central London)
o Sunday newspaper
--
William Tasso
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:c5qeen$4r48t$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Bill Logan wrote:
>
> "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain
security, will not
> have, nor do they deserve, either one"
> ~ Thomas Jefferson
>
I just know this is OT but - given the above, what 'has'
happened to america?
| |
|
|
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| William Tasso wrote:
[snip]
> wealth isn't (currently) a major factor in defining broadband usage.
>
> UK costs are (average) £30/month or £1 per day. a fee that is well
> within reach of any working adult (e&oe)
[snip]
Is that what you actually pay, or the marginal extra cost?
I suspect it may be the actual cost, and not take into account that you would
be paying for dial-up anyway.
I came to the conclusion that, since I got cheaper phone calls as well, cable
broadband may even work out no more expensive. (Unfortunately, I had to get
cable TV first!)
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
|
|
| Barry Pearson 2004-04-21, 11:00 pm |
| Eric Bohlman wrote:
[snip]
> And, to bring the discussion back to Earth, latency is independent of
> bandwidth, so a page that's got 100 images (spacers, sliced images,
> images of text, etc.) is going to be slow to load regardless of how
> fast a connection the user has.
In theory, you can use parallelism to exploit bandwidth, despite the latency
effects, to reduce the problem of having 100 things to do.
In practice, I assume this gets limited to about 2 or 4 things at a time.
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| Barry Pearson wrote:
> William Tasso wrote:
> [snip]
> [snip]
>
> Is that what you actually pay, or the marginal extra cost?
I based that on a straw poll of advertised aDSL services.
> I suspect it may be the actual cost, and not take into account that
> you would be paying for dial-up anyway.
Correct - It doesn't take into account that dial up costs would disappear.
> I came to the conclusion that, since I got cheaper phone calls as
> well, cable broadband may even work out no more expensive.
I moved from ISDN to aDSL - the cost saving was considerable.
> (Unfortunately, I had to get cable TV first!)
A family conference has just decided to dump CATV in favour of the
Terrestrial top-up (http://www.topup.tv) service for this household.
--
William Tasso
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| Bill Logan wrote:
> Amoungst the better options here is the like of Walker
> wireless or Vodaphone who now offer GPRS so we are talking
> about speeds in the range of 1.5 - 2 Mbps which is as fast
> if not faster than the average home broadband user gets?
Things have progressed a bit since late '99, early 2000 when I used to
connect my desktop computer to the Internet via my mobile phone (no land
line). I got speeds of 9600 bytes per second.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
| |
| Toby A Inkster 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| William Tasso wrote:
> What else does £1 buy ...
Where do you shop? Harrods?
> o 1/3 pint beer
A pint is usually about £2.50 where I live (West London). I know a place
in Kensington where you can get a pint for under £1.50.
> o 1 loaf bread
Or 2.
> o 1 tin cola
Or 2. (Or 3 or 4 if you go to a supermarket.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
| |
| 2gy76s 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"Stuart Millington" <news@dsv1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c6r080pd61t0tqi5rubp18l27022lacpno@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:12:50 GMT, "Andrew Banks"
> <banksy@nojunkblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [To 2gy76s, please don't snip attribution lines as they are there for
> a good reason.]
Hee, sorry about that!
| |
| Eric Jarvis 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| Toby A Inkster UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com wrote:
>
> A pint is usually about £2.50 where I live (West London). I know a place
> in Kensington where you can get a pint for under £1.50.
>
I wonder if it's the same place I know? :)
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:c5pius$3uu75$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote in message news:40804e28@clear.net.nz...
>
> broadband using the mobile phone
>
> News to me Mr Logan. A wee link perhaps?
>
> I looked into this with my own phone provider, Orange, not so long ago.
> Also looked at some others.
>
> The fastest service just about came up to normal dial-up speed.
> --
> Charles Sweeney
> www.CharlesSweeney.com
3G networks range from 150kbps to a couple of megabits per second. You can
go out and buy a "3" phone right now from any highstreet shop; they run the
net at 384kbps - not bad for £25 a month. Vodaphone launched it's own
service last week, but there's no indication yet how fast that is - plus
it's currently limited to plug in cards for laptops, not phone services.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:c5q9v8$4lptk$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> you just got to be kidding
>
> --
> William Tasso
No... why? We do our monthly shops online. We don't have a car... Lots of
big stores now do online shopping for groceries and home delivery. It costs
£8 to come home by taxi from Tescos, or £5 for their home delivery service.
We'd be mad not to! (Plus, it's nice not to do the mall zombie thing...
makes your brain melt).
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94CDE0248F6Debohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
> Pyromancer <pyromancer@beeching.stormshadow.com> wrote in
> news:G817DCF1pAgAFwYv@pyromancer.firstnet.co.uk:
>
>
> You've got to be careful here. The company may have a big fat pipe to the
> Internet, but that pipe might well be shared by thousands or tens of
> thousands of users.
I doubt there are any cells quite that big. Even bog standard cheepo DSL
offers a 50/1 ratio. We're lucky here in that our block has it's own cell
for 10 apartments - so we get 10/1 ratio at 2Mbit.
>
> And do you have evidence that what "appeals to the wealthy" is lots of
> gimcracks?
Not 'gimcracks', but style over content. Of course it works. Have you ever
looked around Harvey Nicks? It looks a lot nicer that George at Asda...
> Jakob Nielsen and others have actually studied Web users by using eye-
> tracking equipment. They've discovered a rather interesting thing about a
> lot of the visual elements that designers claim make their pages more
> exciting and are therefore worth the increased load time: the users' eyes
> never land on them. If the user is asked why, the response is usually "I
> thought it was an ad."
Nielsen is a hack... He always focuses on the small things while totally
missing the big picture.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"Stuart Millington" <news@dsv1.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c6r080pd61t0tqi5rubp18l27022lacpno@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:12:50 GMT, "Andrew Banks"
> <banksy@nojunkblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [To 2gy76s, please don't snip attribution lines as they are there for
> a good reason.]
>
>
> Your comment is, within this context, bollocks. How am I, as a
> user, meant to bookmark an individual page/frame within a Flash
> "site"/animation? Oh, sorry, am I not allowed to do that? Do I have to
> go back to YOUR "entrance page" each time I want to look at a specific
> page within the "site". How do I view the site with graphics off and a
> text-only display, for either bandwidth or visibility issues? Flash,
> used in this - broken - manner *is* user-UNfriendly.
>
> Flash can be used sensibly, as can cars and guns. However, in this
> case, the use of Flash shows that the "designer" either knows SFA
> about the web medium for which they are, supposedly, designing or they
> just don't care and have good liability insurance in place. Either
> this was designed by an over-paid BS'er or a kiddie. Neither of which
> are likely to have read the recent press articles about discriminating
> websites.
>
> After a quick browse, I don't see anything that (aside from the
> pointless slide-in/out's) could not have been achieved with an
> accessible HTML layout.
Really... and if you think of the site as an advert, what then? Tell me, can
you bookmark commercials on TV?
| |
|
| In article <c5r0cj$4r59n$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de>,
MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net says...
>
> Really... and if you think of the site as an advert, what then? Tell me, can
> you bookmark commercials on TV?
>
>
>
Of course you can, quite a few years ago someone invented something
called a video recorder, perhaps you've heard of them ;p
--
| |
| SpaceGirl 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"Dave" <capt80@home.atm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aeb1b447f2b893989969@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <c5r0cj$4r59n$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net says...
>
can[color=darkred]
> Of course you can, quite a few years ago someone invented something
> called a video recorder, perhaps you've heard of them ;p
> --
LOL okay *sighs* :)
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| SpaceGirl wrote:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> news:c5q9v8$4lptk$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> No... why? We do our monthly shops online. We don't have a car...
> Lots of big stores now do online shopping for groceries and home
> delivery. It costs £8 to come home by taxi from Tescos, or £5 for
> their home delivery service. We'd be mad not to!
of course, but think of commuters and all their dead-time sitting on or
waiting for trains/buses etc.
> (Plus, it's nice not
> to do the mall zombie thing... makes your brain melt).
except in summer when the best views are to be had lurking amongst the chill
cabinets.
--
William Tasso
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| Toby A Inkster wrote:
> William Tasso wrote:
>
>
> Where do you shop? Harrods?
>
>
> A pint is usually about £2.50 where I live (West London).
Mr Inkster, you are splitting hairs. If I had enough to spare, I'd join
you.
> I know a
> place in Kensington where you can get a pint for under £1.50.
me too, but I also know plenty places where beer costs more than £3.00
>
> Or 2.
Please, I am referring to bread, not that ersatz splodge than is sold in the
brightly coloured plastic bags.
>
> Or 2. (Or 3 or 4 if you go to a supermarket.)
I don't - except in dire circumstances.
--
William Tasso
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| "Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.17.07.38.35.846393@goddamn.co.uk...
> I got speeds of 9600 bytes per second.
Still do Toby with Orange's standard data calls. I also have GPRS with them
which isn't much quicker. Last time I checked, they also had a "high speed"
connection which just about amounted to dial-up speed.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| "SpaceGirl" <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:c5qv06$4joen$1@ID-129131.news.uni-berlin.de...
> 3G networks range from 150kbps to a couple of megabits per second. You can
> go out and buy a "3" phone right now from any highstreet shop; they run
the
> net at 384kbps - not bad for £25 a month.
Very interesting. Amazing how things change in a few months!
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tH4gc.18102$4N3.13951@newsfe1-win...
> I suspect it may be the actual cost, and not take into account that you
would
> be paying for dial-up anyway.
>
> I came to the conclusion that, since I got cheaper phone calls as well,
cable
> broadband may even work out no more expensive. (Unfortunately, I had to
get
> cable TV first!)
I pay £25 per month for broadband, Blueyonder/Telewest cable.
I had to take my phone line with them too, at £10 per month.
As you suggest, I was already paying a line rental to BT, plus their dial-up
Anytime service, or whatever it's called. So some of this cost is marginal.
I wasn't obliged to take the TV service, which was convenient because I
don't have a TV!
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:c5r52h$4r4t0$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
> me too, but I also know plenty places where beer costs more than £3.00
Get you lot with your Kensington watering holes, pah!!
I twice had coffee at a pavement cafe in South Kensington. Only two months
left on the payments.
--
Charles Sweeney
www.CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
> news:c5r52h$4r4t0$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Get you lot with your Kensington watering holes, pah!!
>
> I twice had coffee at a pavement cafe in South Kensington. Only two
> months left on the payments.
Kensington is a big borough (burgh to you) - has a bio-diversity all of its
own. Done that way deliberately so the posh totty know how to find a bit of
rough.
--
William Tasso
| |
|
| In uk.net.web.authoring on 17 Apr 2004 04:49:44 GMT, Eric Bohlman
<ebohlman@earthlink.net> wrote:
}And, to bring the discussion back to Earth, latency is independent of
}bandwidth,
Yes.
}so a page that's got 100 images (spacers, sliced images, images
}of text, etc.) is going to be slow to load regardless of how fast a
}connection the user has.
Total rubbish; the speed of loading of any site is almost directly
proportional to the available bandwidth, up to the point where there is
some other limiting factor.
{R}
| |
|
| On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:20:06 +0100, SpaceGirl <MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net>
wrote:
> Really... and if you think of the (all-Flash) site as an advert,
> what then? Tell me, can
> you bookmark commercials on TV?
If web design is going to become advertising design, no one will stay.
Besides, an ad is meant to get you interested in a product or service. If
they come to your website, they likely already are interested. Why waste
resources on a Flash advertisement when they are already in the store?
| |
| Jim Ley 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:09:12 +0100, "SpaceGirl"
<MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>There's a break point where the speed is high enough to enjoy full screen
>multimedia and still have it download instantly.
Except of course a local PVR is a much more likely model to win that
battle, it works with the same equipment people are used to matching
video on, and has some of the largest and most successful marketing
companies behind it.
On demand video, isn't even being pushed by my local cableco.
>We have 2mbit cable here in
>Edinburgh, for about £50 a month. We can happily watch full-screen video
>with no waiting, and have other machines in our house surf perfectly
>uninterupted too. Try doing that on a 512k or 256k line...
Why would I want to waste the bandwidth - 2mb isn't really good enough
for decent video + audio, it's adequate, but nothing more.
>Everyone is resistant to change... but when the net becomes just another
>thing you do from the TV,
Oops, that's highly unlikely to happen (video on demand maybe, but the
internet one, TV's are passive, the internet is an active medium)
>Pretty much all cellphones coming out now are broadband
Er, no. It's near impossible to get a broadband data-connection,
there are no EDGE services in the UK, and few phones are enabled
anyway, and the 3G data service is limited to the thames valley and
London, then it just rolls over to GPRS rates.
A cellphone and a TV also require very different things, so your
conclusion that the net becomes something you do from the TV somewhat
jars with the mobilephone reference.
Jim.
| |
| Jim Ley 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:31:15 +0100, Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis.co.uk>
wrote:
>it's better than a library though...it's a library with a tea room
>containing a huge range of experts on various subjects
They also don't mind if you shout, and are much more relaxed about
requiring clothing.
Jim.
| |
| Jim Ley 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:10:47 +1200, "Bill Logan" <who@what.com> wrote:
>A-hem, if I may jump in here? While even I recognise that
>access to broadband is not universal I note that at least
>here broadband is now becvomming widely available on mobile
>devices. Cards are out there that enable hand helds and
>laptops to connect via broadband using the mobile phone
>system.
The only solution available in the UK on this vodaphones, it'll cost
you around 100 UKP per month for 1GB downloaded + 50p MB thereafter,
download speeds within london and thames valley will be up 300kbs,
upload speed is comparable to dialup - so latency can be pretty high.
All other areas are covered by GPRS, so speed is comparable to dialup.
Jim.
| |
| Jim Ley 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:56:25 +0100, "SpaceGirl"
<MirandaNoSpam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>3G networks range from 150kbps to a couple of megabits per second. You can
>go out and buy a "3" phone right now from any highstreet shop; they run the
>net at 384kbps - not bad for £25 a month.
There is no dataservice available from 3 - whilst yes you can get data
at the 384kbps, it's walled garden data, and it costs per MB, you
cannot access the general internet on a 3 phone, (yet)
Voda is your only option, and then not over much of the country, and
it's considerably more expensive than the above rates.
Jim.
| |
| Jim Ley 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
| On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:39:12 +0100, Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Toby A Inkster UseTheAddressInMySig@deadspam.com wrote:
>
>I wonder if it's the same place I know? :)
c'mon every wetherspoons in west London is at the 1.90 mark, members
clubs also abound.
Jim.
| |
| Bill Logan 2004-04-21, 11:01 pm |
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:c5r8al$4tc0i$1@ID-162618.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig@d | | |