| |
I completely agree with the other posts here. LEGO needs to hire a web
designer, not a magazine designer. Whoever is doing the site seems to be
forgetting that they are designing for an interactive medium that is,
ultimately, interpreted to the user by their browser. It's not a fixed
page like you have in print - you have to give the user something that
they can actually use! We're not READERS, we're USERS - see the
distinction? Thanks.
--
Jeromy Irvine
mail: irvinej@accuvera.com
site: http://www.accuvera.com/lego/
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:G78u9s.6x7@lugnet.com...
> Dear LEGO Direct:
>
> It seems like the official LEGO website becomes more confusing and • harder to
> use every day. Earlier today I visited:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/fairplay.asp
> http://www.lego.com/info/privacypolicy.asp
> http://www.lego.com/info/legal.asp
> http://www.lego.com/info/toyofthecentury.asp
> http://www.lego.com/info/lifelongcreativity.asp
> http://www.lego.com/info/dreamforthefuture.asp
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp?year=2000
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp?year=1999
>
> and was disappointed that I can no longer read more than just the • first few
> sentences on each page; the rest of the text on the page is physically • beyond
> my grasp. I see tiny little scrolly arrows in the lower righthand • corner of
> the text, but their behavior is neither intuitive nor correct.
>
> I moved my mouse across the down-arrow image, and the text I was • reading
> suddenly shot to the bottom. I hadn't clicked any mouse button, much • less
> asked it to scroll all the way down to the bottom in what seemed like • the
> blink of an eye. I moved my mouse across the up-arrow image and the • text
> shot back up to the top. I could see a blur of text scrolling by, but • it
> scrolled too quickly for me to read it or to stop it where I wanted • it, or
> even to scroll just a few lines at a time.
>
> To add insult to injury, I can't print the page and read it offline! • All
> that shows up is the first few words because of all that JavaScript • muckety-
> muck. You're asking an adult to read an awful lot of text in a very • tiny
> font on the screen, and it's very important text. I need to print it.
>
> I realize that I am running an OS (GNU/Linux) that isn't probably used • by
> many of your customers, so I can imagine that the JavaScript scrolling • code
> wasn't perhaps tested on all platforms as it should have been. • Nevertheless,
> turning to Netscape Communicator 4.5 on my Microsoft Windows 95 • system, the
> situation is no better: there, the text scrolled slowly enough to • read, but
> there was a line-break after every-single word, making the text • unreadable
> in a different way. And when I tried to print the page, all I got was • the
> first few words of the text.
>
> I went into my Preferences and disabled JavaScript in my browser, and • then I
> could read all the text, because the page checks whether or not • JavaScript is
> enabled. However, it's apparent that the page wasn't usability-tested • with
> JavaScript disabled, because what results looks almost as disastrous • as the
> JavaScript-enabled page. At least it's readable, but how many people • have
> the patience to go through all that work or even know how to do it?
>
> I can't figure out why these pages were redesigned. What once were • simple,
> elegant, well designed, friendly, useful and informative web pages are • now
> overly complex, inelegant, poorly designed, unfriendly, useless and
> informationless pages of muckety-muck -- even when they work as • designed.
>
> And for what? So that some poor user can mouse over itty bitty • nonstandard
> yellow arrows instead of using normal standard scrollbars or keyboard • arrows
> to scroll the text? What genious thought this up?!
>
> I say tar and feather whoever is responsible for this abomination. At • the
> very least, help them find a position in another role; they shouldn't • be
> developing web pages. If you let them stay, they'll take the LEGO • website
> down the toilet and eventually the Company with it.
>
> The very first LEGO website -- the one that went up way back in March • of
> 1996 -- was by far the most usable. It wasn't particularly zingy or
> information-rich, but it *was* simple and friendly and by golly and it
> actually worked.
>
> As a long-time LEGO customer, I can't help feeling that the people • running
> the show at www.lego.com today care less and less about good • old-fashioned
> web values and ever more about bells and whistles. This is so very
> disappointing to realize again and again every time the site is • updated.
>
> Please, show me that I am wrong!
>
> Respectful but disenchanted,
> --Todd Lehman
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
9 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
|
|
|
|
