 | | Re: shop.lego.com Broken —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | (...) I can't believe you wrote that -- you're basically defending bad code / bad design. There is no reason for a simple left nav to bomb in ANY browser. And while I haven't investigated why it doesn't work (not my job), everything that I saw in (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: shop.lego.com Broken —James Stacey
|
| | | | "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:H0rpsE.LM2@lugnet.com... (...) or (...) bad (...) while (...) javascript, (...) variety (...) right? (...) Communicator (...) Well speaking as a web developer (and quite a few people on (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: shop.lego.com Broken —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) I don't see this as being that kind of issue -- we are talking about a simple left navigation device. 60% of one's time? Just do it right the first time and keep reusing the code. Lugnet, Bricklink, eBay, Amazon, bluelight, target, cdnow, etc. (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: shop.lego.com Broken —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) Lego.com is a site which sells Lego. If the extra 5% of users can pay for the extra development costs and return a decent margin the answer is "YES". It is all about costs and benefits. Scott A (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: shop.lego.com Broken —James Stacey
|
| | | | "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:H0s2zn.7z@lugnet.com... (...) basic... (...) OK I agree fully that the navigation is the one item you need to make sure is working throughout. a simple link to a html only version would (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
