 | | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) The only conclusion I've been able to reach is that AFOLs probably aren't part of the target market at www.lego.com. AFOLs are useful for spreading contagious enthusiasm and giving feedback on the website, but we really don't need to be wowed (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) There are a couple good sources of stats like this. Statmarket.com used to be one of them, but now you have to pay to get access to their stats. After they changed to pay-only, a couple handy pages like these popped up: (URL) links to lots of (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) Well, www.lego.com has been "too cool" for me since virtually day one anyway, so if its webdesigners can't figure out these issues, it'd be no big loss if I can never access content on it. LUGNET is *much* more friendly (and more human IMO) (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) Does anyone have any reliable stats on how many people are left out (as a percentage) due to platform issues, due to using obsolete browsers (perhaps for perfectly legitimate reasons) and due to running with restrictions turned on? Where I am (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) was (...) small (...) bread- (...) hasn't (...) Funny? The KB I work for not only has the Chrome Castle sets but also just got the Women's Soccer Team in. Just FYI. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | RE: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) I believe this problem exists for Netscape 4.x on all platforms. Netscape 4.x does a horrible job with CSS positioning anyway, so I don't know if it's a big loss. --Bram Bram Lambrecht bram@cwru.edu (URL) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) It's dead. Web sites that just use plain HTML without JS or animations or other glitz are just not "cool" enough. I agree with you, don't get me wrong. But the reality is that the vast majority of Web users these days are using M$ Internet (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section
|
|
(...) I'd vote for a no-javascript fix. Until Lego's website is viewable without it, you're alienating people who don't have Javascript due to platform or security issues. Whatever happened to plain old regular HTML, anyway? Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GD6KF3.828@lugnet.com... (...) I agree with Larry. The customer is not always right. I have seen this dozens of times with our customers. What customers do have the right to do is (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
|
(...) I disagree. It's not an unequivocal truth, although it has to be a guiding principle. There ARE exceptions. ++Lar (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
