| |
I'm using NetScape 4.5 on NT 4.0 and it works (techinally, I can see all of
the text with the up/down arrows). The html source seems to have a lot of
work arounds for NetScape (WM_netscapeCssFix, WM_netscapeCssFixCheckIn, ...)
To print, I can select all of the text. Click of at the top of the text,
scroll down to the bottom then <CTRL><SHIFT><CLICK> at the end of the text
to select all of the text, then copy/past to your favorite app. Trying to
print from NetScape only gets you 3-4 words. Printing from IE 5.5 will get
you all of the text, but it is right justified, just as wide as you see on
the screen and overlaid ontop of the page. <YUK on both counts!>
This is good for eye-candy, but very, very bad for usability.
Ron
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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 is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
