Subject:
|
Re: Specific problem: finding members - general conclusion: principle of least surprise needed on Lugnet
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:09:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
624 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in article
<FoAsq9.3z9@lugnet.com>...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > > IIRC, http://quotes.yahoo.com/ actually used to go to Yahoo's stock • quotes
> > > page a while back. I don't know about you, but it's much easier for me • to
> >
> > Try <URL:http://quote.yahoo.com/>.
>
> I think you missed the point, Matt. (and Alan, you did too...) Todd isn't
> asking where to get stock quotes, he's elaborating on my example.
I wasn't really worried about what was really being searched for with the
quote.yahoo.com URL. In fact, I was using it as an example as well. Just
trying to point out that assuming what structure or words have been used on
the back end of a site, during it's design, may not always get you the
information that you want. And my point was that it's not designed that
way. Isn't that why the 'web' was added to the internet? So that people
would no longer have to guess the arcane paths that sometimes comprise
URL's? Granted that today many dot.com URL's are pretty easy to guess, but
I still feel it somehow defeats the beauty of the web in that it was
designed to be traversed by clicking from one page to the next. Maybe I'm
wrong, maybe I'm just weird... I'm not sure. :)
> For a high traffic website like Lugnet, that has a lot of areas to • explore, it
> is a GOOD THING to put redirect links rather than 404s in common error
places.
If people were starting at the front page and clicking into whatever area
they want, then they should never come across a 404 error. [provided that
the site has included all pages that link to each other] I have to believe
that if you start punching in any 'ol URL, you are sort of asking for
whatever you get, 404 or otherwise.
Let me make a perhaps vain attempt to make this point once more to whoever
is still reading this, and I'm not sure that that's too many. :)
There is a 'section' linked from CNN's front page, called VIDEO. You can
see it right on their top text navigation bar, just below their logo. So,
in keeping with the theory that has been proposed, I should be able to type
in the following URL and get to that section:
http://www.cnn.com/video
That *ought* to work.
But it doesn't.
For whatever reason, the real link is:
http://www.cnn.com/videoselect/
[In fact, run your mouse across that entire bar. Each link leads to a
major section of the site, and only one, FEEDBACK, sticks to the URL
convention that you are suggesting for LUGNET]
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I just think that URL's should,
essentially, be meaningless and transparent. URL's are not what makes the
web a great device. Hotlinks are what makes it so that anyone can use it;
regardless of their knowledge of computers, files, directory structures
etc.
Tim Berners-Lee had this to say on the subject:
"The Web should be a medium for the communication between people:
communication through shared knowledge. For this to work, the computers,
networks, operating systems and commands have to become invisible, and
leave us with an intuitive interface as directly as possible to the
information. "
[Taken from... http://www.w3.org/1998/02/Potential.html]
I'm sure there are lots of other opinions on how the web and websites
should be utilized and/or designed. And I'm sure that for some people,
finding the right URL for what they want is a fun and satisfying way to
surf. But I must admit, I just don't get it. :)
And I'm sure by this point I've made way way too much of this whole thing.
:)
> Alan's site is more like my site than it is like Lugnet. Noone is likely • to be
> poking around trying to find services. So we don't really need redirect • pages,
> it's fine to walk the menus we have set up.
I do agree with you here Larry. And perhaps a dot.com site like LUGNET
should be structured differently, and be expected to cater more to the
public's expectations. I guess I was thinking that I wasn't the only one
who doesn't worry about URL structures and is content to clickety click. I
guess I was posting a note on behalf of those of us with a mouse
bio-embedded in our dominant hand. When I surf the web, I stop to type for
no one. :)
> Alan: Sorry if what I said came off abrupt to you, but I was in a hurry, • it was
> targeted mostly to Todd, and he knew exactly what I was saying and agreed • with
> me. Thanks for the lecture just the same, though, as your points ARE • valid in
> the general case.
No harm done Larry, as I said, I was just hoping to get in a bit of
friendly debate. I don't often post "I disagree" messages on LUGNET, but I
was intrigued by your posting.
I had sort of posted my original reply as a, "Hey, don't pick on Todd he's
doing a great job." message, but I suspect that wasn't necessary in
hindsight. :)
Best regards,
Allan
--
Expert Builder Website - The Megaproject Showcase
http://www.execulink.com/~apotome/expert.htm
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
