Subject:
|
Re: Lego.com - new look
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:43:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
622 times
|
| |
|
|
> Allan Bedford <apotomeREMOVE-THIS@execulink.com> wrote:
> > site (one for new browsers, one for old) you should ALWAYS design to the
> > lowest common denominator. It's just plain rude not to. No, I really
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in article
> Greatest common denominator, probably.
>
> (You want to design for the highest level that people will have in • common.
> "Lowest common denominator" is meaningless.)
<puzzled grin>
I was expecting some contrary comments on my post, but wasn't really
expecting a debate on semantics. :)
Actually the expression "lowest common denominator" is used frequently when
discussing how to make things appeal or be understood by a large number of
people. You will often hear it in regards to television sitcoms that
"cater to the lowest common denominator". In this case the expression is
often meant as a derogatory one, in that the jokes are thought to be of a
base level and not very intellectual. (Shows like 'Married With Children'
are often accused of this.) By "catering to the lowest common denominator"
you are often thought to be aiming at the greatest number of people who
will understand your content, despite the fact that it may offend some, or
be thought by others to be crude or vulgar.
I certainly didn't mean it that way in regards to web design, and
definitely not when it comes to the LEGO site. I was just trying to
indicate that they should take a step back in technology and be sure that
as many people as possible can use their site. For as it sits right now,
the LEGO site is off limits to me. Which seems a shame, considering the
money that I funnel directly into their company each month.
My understanding of the expression, and the way in which I meant it, was
that you remove high level references or technologies from your
presentation in order to allow the highest number of people possible to
access or understand it. A site like Yahoo.com is a perfect example of
this. Despite advances in web technology they have remained true to their
original (and highly effective) design. And they are one of the busiest
sites on the web.
As far the expression being 'useless' I would have to disagree on that
point. A quick string search on Altavista showed more than 10,000 web
pages that use that expression. A similar search under the phrase
"greatest common denominator" revealed less than 200.
I do strongly agree with one of your comments though.
'You want to design for the highest level that people will have in common.'
This is absolutely true. And no matter what expression is used to describe
the principle, it would seem that LEGO has dropped the ball when it comes
to their website.
Best regards,
Allan
--
Expert Builder Website - The Megaproject Showcase
http://www.execulink.com/~apotome/expert.htm
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lego.com - new look
|
| [Followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek] (...) *grin* (...) Oh, certainly an amazing number of people use it wrongly. But a lot of people also say that they "could care less", when they mean that they couldn't. People don't think about what they're (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego.com - new look
|
| (...) Greatest common denominator, probably. (You want to design for the highest level that people will have in common. "Lowest common denominator" is meaningless.) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
30 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
|
|
|
|
