|
FogCreek's site is not Google-friendly
We all love the Google toolbar, don't we ?
Looks like that web design super star doesn't : I had to turn off the toolbar and hide the taskbar in order to see the full home page on my 1024x768 display. Turn on any of these 2 and you don't get the bottom navigation bar (well, you have to scroll)
Fairly amazing because the page was obviously designed for that resolution...
Also, this bar is _mostly_ a duplicate of the top navigation bar. What's the point ? Why is Shop present below and not above ? (My guess: because Joel eventually realized Open-Source is The Solution and will stop trying to making money out of its software soon :-) )
Serge Wautier
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Most of us don't need the google toolbar. We switched to a proper browser like MozillaFirebird a long time ago.
This includes Joel:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20030601.html
With smart bookmarks and built in popup blocking, not to mention fully functional CSS support and tabbed browsing, who needs a toolbar for ie?!
I'm enjoying the new FC site, even if no-one else is
Michael Koziarski
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
There is no browser which fully supports CSS 100% in the way it is intended! :)
If you want to be picky.
James 'Smiler' Farrer
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Michael,
Since we're speaking about fogcreek.com, not joelonsoftware.com, the question is: Will FogCreek (potential) clients have a nice navigation experience on the site. Hence, do the FogCreek clients massively use Firebird ?
BTW, even without the Google toolbar (because the question above applies to it as well !), the bottom navigation bar doesn't appear in IE :-(
This is all about usability of a 'product'...
Besides this, I must add that, yes, I like the overall look and feel of the site.
Serge Wautier
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
> We all love the Google toolbar, don't we ?
No. Spyware is not welcome here.
Robert Moir
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Whoa, "spyware"? Defend that please...
Grumpy Old-Timer
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
After installation the google bar asks you if you want to switch on advanced features like the ranking indicator. If you do so all sites you visit will be sent to Google. Personally, I don't mind too much and it would be hard to get a ranking indicator without doing that.
Now, if we only could get a google ranking indicator in Firebird...
Jan Derk
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
>>We switched to a proper browser like MozillaFirebird a long time ago.
Does Firebird have the Google search functionality built into it? When you type in search terms does it make little buttons that you can click to find the search terms in the resulting pages?
Are you a browser snob or just a blind Joel follower who has no opinion of his own?
Wayne
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
What's the big deal about having to scroll a little bit? It is painfully obvious that there is more content when the scroll bar is visible.
My $0.02
Marty Turpentine
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Marty,
The scrollable part is so small that most people won't even see there is one. Or won't imagine that it contains valuable contents. Which makes buying a FogCreek product painful : 'How the hell do I enter their shop ???'
Serge Wautier
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
"After installation the google bar asks you if you want to switch on advanced features like the ranking indicator."
That's what I though he must have meant, too. That's not 'spyware'. Spyware is evil crap from scumbag companies that deserve to die a painful death.
I think he should be more careful with what he calls spyware, personally.
Grumpy Old-Timer
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Back to the subject at hand, it doesn't appear that the front page was designed for a particular resolution as much as it appears that this is simply a bottom navigation bar with some additional links on it that don't qualify for the top bar.
Its not an uncommon practice to include navigation links at the bottom of a page as well as the top to allow users to navigate without scrolling back to the top.
As for not begin Google friendly, please be more careful with word choice. While the site may not appear in its fully page glory whe you have the Google toolbar installed, that does not mean it isn't searchable by Google or that it includes text which skews Google's preception of it. And it certainly doesn't use cgi to manage pages which prevents Google from indexing it.
Lou
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
All the trouble that the goes to designing the new site and you guys find a bug.
And to make it worse, instead of realizing its a bug you fire off the conspiracy theories.
Stephen Jones
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
I'm just curious, does anyone have any statistics about what the "average" users have for their display resolution?
In the several places I've worked recently, just about everyone had it set to 800 x 600 just by default -- even when they were using the latest and greatest 19" LCD displays. Few were aware (or cared) that it could be changed. The IT departments never bothered to inform anyone or change the defaults.
Personally, I get claustrophobic using a display with anything less than 1280 x 1024.
Robert Jacobson
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
I have the google toolbar on IE and I don't see a problem.
chris
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
I saw stats about a year or so back. 1024 x 768 and 800 x 600 pretty well had the market cornered. 640 x 480 had around 5%
There will be a lot more of the higher resolutions now, particularly with people buying laptops.
Incidentally, some people seem to like low resolutions large icons. Both the secretary and the boss at work got new 17" monitors a year ago (yep, the whole college was using 14" or !5" until last year) and I changed the resolutions to 1024 x 768. They both promptly changed them back.
Stephen Jones
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Current visitors to my site are primarily using 800x600, although it's a close second for 1024x768. This surprised me, given that my site is a mainly (supposedly :-p) technical blog devoted to Windows and .NET topics.
I seem to recall that Google's Zeitgeist revealed that 800x600 was still overwhelmingly the majority.
Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
In a 19" I normally use 1024x768, because I get tired too quickly when using 1280 x 1024.
When you follow the links to CityDesk or FogBugz, the pages are a lot longer, so the need for scrolling down (and having a look at the bottom menu) is quite obvious. There are buttons with "buy X now" at the top, but they do not look like obvious links or buttons. Anyway, I think that adding a link to "shop" in the top bar would be helpful.
uncronopio
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
I love the resolution of 1152x864. Some video cards seem to skip it, but it is just perfect to me. Too many things scale too small at 1280x1024, and the aspect ratio is all wrong.
Keith Wright
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
If they're using 19" TFT screens then they should be set to the optimum resolution for the screen (there's a more precise term for it but I forget what it is). It will be a lot higher than SVGA!
I originally had my 17" TFT set to 1024 x 768 but increased it to the recommended resolution of 1280 X 1024 and it's pin sharp.
John Topley (www.johntopley.com)
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
On my sites I get about 85% 1024x768 or more.
Just me (Sir to you)
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
> On my sites I get about 85% 1024x768 or more.
And they have their browser windows at what size?
Jon Hanna
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
---"optimum resolution for the screen (there's a more precise term for it but I forget what it is)"----
Native resolution?
Stephen Jones
Thursday, November 6, 2003
 Recent Topics
Fog Creek Home
| 
