Simon Willison’s Weblog

"Your browser is not compatible with this site." - the conclusion on Opera. How does that fit into the big picture of the history of communications? "Your phone is not compatible with this person?" Great site btw - excellent features. There an XML-RPC interface anywhere?

HarryF - 11th July 2002 00:22 - #

After trying to nail the site down on their detection methods (disabling JS, plugins, etcetera), I gave up and went in full geared. Apparently my MSIE5.1/Mac is not on their priviliged browser list either. While a friendly, yet intrusive reminder states "Please note that this site should be viewed with Internet Explorer v5.0 or higher.", end conclusion is "Your browser is not compatible with this site. ". I think it is the other way around.

Kris - 11th July 2002 07:32 - #

..nor do they use valid XHTML1, as their DOCTYPE claims. Designers first should fix their sites before I will even start thinking about fixing my browser choice.

Kris - 11th July 2002 07:37 - #

Well said.

mark - 11th July 2002 11:33 - #

Hmm, 2000 pages of *well researched* material... about 30% of it I could write without any research, another 60% wouldn't have taken more than 20mins of research per article. Community based projects would beat this hands down.

Mark - 11th July 2002 17:57 - #

Truely ridiculous. "Nice video, shame about the song". I've blogged it :) P

pete - 11th July 2002 22:42 - #

Wow. That's bad. That's really bad. That gives bad a new name.

I had a similar (though not *quite* as bad) experience with another site recently. Blogged it. Less technical stupidity, but more hypocrisy.

Dorothea Salo - 12th July 2002 13:34 - #

"Let's humiliate these people in to never, ever creating something this bad again." Me thinks this 1st Year Computer Science Student hasn't a clue what the real world is like. I can of course provide you with some real insight if you prefer fact over conjecture. Hmm?

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 14:31 - #

Incidentally, I get this comment at the bottom of this page: "Due to an unfortunate server error, comments longer than 1100 characters may be lost upon submission. As a precaution I recommend copying any long comments to the clipboard before submitting them. This issue will be fixed when I move to a new host in the near future." Er.. Kettle calling the Pot black?

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 14:33 - #

Wow, my first troll :) I have enough real world experience to know a million pound usability disaster when I see one thanks (I worked at a dot-bomb for a year and a half before going to uni). The comments thing is an acknowledged bug which I am moving to fix - the same can not be said for connected earth's hopeless web site.

Simon - 16th July 2002 16:25 - #

not trolling.. i assure you. you are way off the mark with the story btw. i dunno where u get your facts from. been smoking something funny recently? p.s. one year at a dot-bomb does not constitute knowledge of the real outside world. what did u do there? html? har har.. he says he knows the outside world.. rofl

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 17:43 - #

If any of the facts in the story are wrong tell me and I'll correct them. A year at a dot bomb (during which I did a bit of everything, mainly site development and community management) may not count for much, but it's more than most undergrads. You'd be surprised how much you can learn watching a company fail ;)

Simon - 16th July 2002 17:57 - #

Talk about a usability disaster. I entered a comment and an error message came up,hit back and it was gone! back to the point:the fact that something might appear to have cost some figure doesn't mean that proportions were spent in the areas you think. i don't think you have actually shown any insight into this, all i've seen is conjecture and bitchin.

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:20 - #

Damn right I've been bitching :) I made no assumptions about how the money was split up - I presume a large amount of it went on the underlying content management system, research and marketing. The point remains that if you spend a million pounds on a site and end up with something virtually unusable you've wasted a lot of money - they would have done well to divert some of the huge sum in to general QA and usability testing.

Simon - 16th July 2002 18:24 - #

But surely if you're going to spend that much money on a project you'd want a reasonable site to end up with. Regardless of exactly where the money went I don't consider a site that doesn't work in most browsers you try it with to be a particularly good investment.

alpha - 16th July 2002 18:28 - #

Statistically you are completely wrong. And if you bothered to look you would see architecturally it was probably very sound. And as such, is most likely to be improved. Which is more than can be said for your comments script! Site launches are not a be-all-and-end-all. Before you go round saying things like "Let's humiliate these people in to never, ever creating something this bad again." I suggest you get yourself into a position where you can better it. Otherwise.. please shut up.

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:29 - #

Shit.. i don't want to be gettin too involved with this, but statements like "I don't consider a site that doesn't work in most browsers you try it with to be a particularly good investment." are fine. But when you actually test the site in question and compare against this predicate, you will see how irelevant it is. I suggest you look at the stats because the site actually works in a very high percentage of browsers. Please, don't be stupid. *sigh*

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:34 - #

I never quoted any statistics. I would love to see connected-earth improve, but the complete disregard shown for usability, accessibility and web standards in the first version really doesn't say much for the site, especially (oh the irony) one dedicated to the history of communications. Should they improve these essential aspects of the site I will quite happily praise them from the digital roof-tops. A few years ago their site may have been quite impressive, but web design has moved on and they are stuck resolutely in the past.

Simon - 16th July 2002 18:37 - #

You state you have no idea how the money was proportioned then state that you wish more had been spent on something. How dumb is that? How do you know that they didn't spend 3/4 of whatever amount on usability? and have u never seen bugs in a site before? jeez... that's why i doubt your experience! just for your knee-jerk reactions to a flippin web site with a few bugs that will probably be fixed, when your own site doesn't even work properly!

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:41 - #

how can you be taken seriously?

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:43 - #

If they spent three quarters of the money on usability they /really/ need to question the competency of the usability team they employed. I'm not bothered by bugs on the site (apart from the dodgy browser detection I didn't see any) - my problem with it is that the content is obscured behind a bizzare user interface that makes it extremely difficult to browse the information on the site. The user interface is terrible, and that is down to bad design decisions, not bugs in the site.

Simon - 16th July 2002 18:45 - #

And believe me, if I could fix the comments problem I would. As it is, I'm moving the site to a different host where I can have more control over the server configuration.

Simon - 16th July 2002 18:47 - #

I doubt very much that the problems with that site are going to fixed. There are fundamental usability issues in the navigation which would require a complete redesign.

alpha - 16th July 2002 18:48 - #

Ever thought that the site design just doesn't suit you? Maybe you just ain't in their target demographics? Sounds like you would be wiser to express your views as subjective rather than as objective. you may find people take to what you have to say with more interest. Having said that, your last comment is far better structured than your previous posts. And is an example of better online writing. Now.. you gonna fix your own usability disaster?

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:48 - #

Lol.. a complete redesign.. har har.. you see... these comments are so funny. if you stop.. i'll leave

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:49 - #

I meant a complete rethink of their navigation method, which is a comment I stand by.

alpha - 16th July 2002 18:53 - #

You're absolutely right that my original post was more of a flame than a carefully worded argument, but sometimes you just want to let yourself go (that's the great thing about having a personal weblog). Thanks for the discussion. As for the usability problems on this site (by which I presume you mean the comments problem) they will be fixed as soon as I move hosts, likely within the next week or two.

Simon - 16th July 2002 18:54 - #

lol. i've seen your site.. i rate the quality of Connected Earth's design over your examples... which are very poor i have to say. What's with the homepage? YUCK! Everyone's opinion is, of course, important. But there are some people whose opinions are blatently not that significant.

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:55 - #

i was referring to http://tfountain.co.uk/

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 18:56 - #

Okay, so how are you defining quality of a website?

alpha - 16th July 2002 19:01 - #

alpha.. i'm just countering your poorly constructed arguments. As for how you define the quality of a website, i'll leave that one to you. Ciao

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 19:04 - #

You seem to be jumping in pretty quickly to point out problems with this site and my own, rather than actually answering our criticism of Connected Earth. And you say we have poorly constructed arguments?

alpha - 16th July 2002 19:07 - #

Poorly constructed arguments: 1- Most browsers can't access it 2- The design is a usability disaster What we really have are opinions being spouted. I haven't put any arguments forward. I'm going now. I'm assuming you are a very lonely soul alpha.

Anonymous Coward - 16th July 2002 19:10 - #

Opinions yes, but opinions backed up by examples, which you seem to just ignore. I don't consider myself to be a lonely soul, but thanks for the concern ;).

alpha - 16th July 2002 19:15 - #

"I suggest you look at the stats because the site actually works in a very high percentage of browsers." When I count over 400 (admitted, some obscure ones included) browsers, MIE5.0/Win, MIE5.5/Win and MIE6.0/Win make a mere 1% of that figure (and I am being generous today). I actually know what you are after with stating this, but since your words say something different I cannot point you down. What if you were saying, "But, the lion share of users browse with a MIE5+/Win browser"? True, still there remains a percentage of visitors that do not and they are blocked out. And what if you were saying, "But those visitors are probably not their target group", then I would reply "How do you know?". Is a target group nowadays profiled by their browser choice? Would a Mac or Unix user, with a Lynx, MIE or Opera browser be less of a potential customer or interested visitor than someone who uses MIE5+ on a Windows platform?

Kris - 17th July 2002 07:52 - #

"Poorly constructed arguments: 1- Most browsers can't access it 2- The design is a usability disaster" These are not only arguments, these are facts. Ignoring the facts would make you look either: 1. ignorant or downward stupid, or 2. like the typical troll prototype And for the sake of your rethorics, can you perhaps disclose some of your own backgrounds before dissing someone elses with strawman arguments.

Kris - 17th July 2002 07:52 - #

Kris Oh do shut up. Check your statistics and realise your own failings

Anonymous Coward - 17th July 2002 21:23 - #

Actually, non-compatibility aside, the biggest preblem I have with the site is that the navigation. It uses a variety of methods in combination, but inconsistently. Speaking entirely subjectively, I think it's unsubtle typographically and not hugely attractive. Use of colour and white space seems amateur to me. That said, BT isn't a public service and it's not my money they're wasting, nor is the information very interesting so I think I'll vote with my feet (by not going there again)...

Lisa - 18th July 2002 05:24 - #

This is Simon's website, not mine, nor is it a shared mailing list or anything - so I won't expect you to listen to me. But if you do, good. What I suggest is that this discussion ends. Why? Two reasons - they're both sort of connected, but anyway. The first is that this Anonymous Coward refuses to accept even the most basic facts. It's been objectively proven by dozens (to my personal knowledge, though there's undoubtedly many many more) of people - people who're bound to *know* what they're talking about - that browsers for Linux and the Macintosh will be given a nasty "bugger off"-type message then shown a site that doesn't work. It's been proven that on Windows, only IE will "work", and even then it depends on your definition of "work" (not having access to the 'net on IE/Win, I can't say how it looks there). So saying "check your statistics" is rather stupid.

mark - 18th July 2002 17:52 - #

Secondly, I do believe I know this Anonymous Coward. If I'm right, s/he's been trolling my own site a bit, too, on the same subject. Same comments, too - "how can you say this site is crap, yours is ugly and/or doesn't work either". If so, AC is a bone fide troll and you won't get anywhere with him/her. So, yeah. If you're enjoying yourselves, go for it. But don't let AC fluster you - that's all s/he's trying to do.

mark - 18th July 2002 17:53 - #

BTW, bit late I know, but that comment was broken in two to get around the comments bug.

mark - 18th July 2002 17:55 - #