That is kind of the point. It is the full game. Just encrypted. Not that you should believe the grandparent. He was joking. The preload thing is encrypted, so no simple "yes/no" answer return would make it bootable.
By the way, I just checked the Google Zeitgeist Image in an image editing program, and it shows approximately 7% non-IE traffic, just for clarification.
So, you're saying your site is more representative than Google? Check the Zeitgeist graph. It doesn't have numbers, but that graph definitely shows more non-IE traffic than 2.69%
I don't know the url of your site. If you provide it I may be able to venture an educated guess. Too much Flash? Uses Real? Low usability? Listed in MS search engines only? Deal with OEMs so that it is bookmarked by default? spyware leads to it? There are any number of reasons why you could have those stats.
I'd also venture a guess that your site does not cater to Apple users at all, since they're usually a big chunk of traffic, and most are not using IE anymore (have you checked your OS stats?)
That conclusion is a non sequitur, since it is usually made from the standpoint of webmasters who have non-compliant sites that break in alternate browsers. If you're looking at the traffic statistics for your site that breaks in Firefox, it is *obvious* that you won't find very many Firefox users, since you're driving them away.
To provide some numbers, check the Google Zeitgeist. Although it does show that IE 6 has a clear dominance, the Mozilla traffic is on par with IE 5.0 and IE 5.5 -- If you support those, you should support Mozilla.
If you go to more techie-oriented sites you'll see very different results. In my site's own stats, IE accounts for less than 50% of visitors (and yes, there *are* more than 5 people visiting daily).
"It's amazing the number of funky comment-within-comment hacks that you have to perform to get sites to display properly across two or three "standards compliant" browsers."
It should be pointed out that the reason you have to use hacks is precisely because the browsers are not standards-compliant.
I was going to link to the same resources. Although Nielsen has always been respected and usually knows what he's talking about, his stubbornness and incessant self repetition are making him sort of a joke in the Web Design community. There are tons of people doing far more insightful work out there, both in the field of usability and in web design in general.
For a good list of the movers and shakers check out this entry in Cameron Moll's blog.
Well, the article doesn't present a compelling case or even a decent point, so as to not let this thread go to waste, I suggest you head over to see the hey hey 16k song/animation by the b3ta crew. It's the best tribute to old gaming nostalgia I've ever seen.
Except where you can do this with real sites, without the need to spoof a whole site. If the *real* site uses frames in the design, you can just change that frame, not the whole site. The "link list" I suggested was just to increase the likelihood that the sites in question are opened.
Although it's true that this is "working as designed", it does present an interesting exploit scenario. Let's assume you visit evilguy's site, supposed to be a financial portal. From there, a list of links direct you to the (framed) pages of banks where you can run your operations.
Now, evilguy's site has javascript code running that will detect when one of the interesting frames is available (frames that contain login info). It means that you're trying to log into your account at one of the bank sites. What it does is serve you a facsimile that looks exactly like the original login screen, except this one sends the info to evilguy's site.
When your login info is in evilguy's database, he just sends it to the bank and replaces the frame again with the content the bank returned. Voila! Successfully executed framejacking to invisibly steal your login info.
You are overly harsh, in fact, I almost think you're a bit of a negative a**hole who simply cut down everything with a bit of criticism without giving some advice on the viable options.
I'm not. I know what I'm talking about. I did remark on the flaws of design and copywriting, and a few specific points on why I think they don't work. I'm not going to write a 30 page report offering improvements that could be made, if that's what you're implying.
His site has deficiencies, but given that he's prototype-early-stage, that's not a problem, I've certainly seen worse.
He's asking for Venture Capital, and that's the way he approached this forum. His site should not be in "prototype-early-stage", as you so ellegantly put it. It should wow his potential investors. It should be clear on the objectives of the business. At the very least it should convince them.
As for "doesn't have a unique product": [...] - can you name his competitors, since you've "obviously" done some research to support your claim that he doesn't have a unique product.
Did you jump to my reply without reading this entire thread, or did you just miss my very prominent "Then, there's what everybody else here is saying:" introduction to that part of the comment?
I do not disagree with the approach you delineated, but you suggested that he actually not ask for VC right away, which, in fact, was my point.
I offered advice and opinion in my area of expertise. The rest was a personal opinion and comment, and I stated it so. If being patronizing is your thing, then by all means go with it, but please don't call me a "bit of a negative asshole" when I post a straight --requested-- answer to a direct question.
Your site, although competent, seems thrown together in a rush. The color scheme is drab and the text is nigh-unreadable for your target audience (these are not designers you're catering to). That just won't cut it. And that's just your site (all you have to show for the time being).
As for the copywriting: It's just unprofessional. You have neither a "corporate" reassuring voice (something desirable in this context) nor a friendly, personal one. It's just a mix and match of faux seriousness and half hearted attempts at humor. Needs tightening.
From what I see, I wouldn't bet much on the business plan. Then, there's what everybody else here is saying: You don't have a unique product. No market differentiator, no apparent viable business model, no real professional experience (no, "tried and failed" doesn't cut it when requesting capital for a business providing services for the area in which you failed).
I'm sorry, but I think the problem with your proposal is that it's not good enough. Good luck improving it.
Similarly: How come God creates this bunch of people he knows (since he's omniscient) will sin and crap on each other and be a bunch of degenerate perverts, and then decides to get all angry, save a few of them and drown the rest? How can he get angry at all? Is he not all-knowing? If he is, he should've seen it coming since the beginning, so the getting-angry-and-smiting people left and right part is kind of an overreaction, isn't it?
But then again, God, as presented in the Old Testament reminds me a lot of the Greek Gods and Goddesses, what with all the bickering and fighting and jealousy and pettiness going on.
Pagerank (Google's ranking algorithm) checks how many people are linking something and which words they are using in said linkage (it's a safe bet that very few people link back to Google using a link titled "search engine").
There are also other factors (context is taken into account), not least of which is the site's meta info (of which google has none) and other things (page link density, structure, etc.).
All of those things can affect google's pagerank. Which I'm sure they don't mind in the least.
Here here and amen! When looking for programmers [...]
Ok. Let's nitpick: It's not "Here here". It's "Hear, hear". Why do I bring this up? Because so many people here are saying that yes, you need math and problem solving skills. No one mentions that being able to communicate effectively (and correctly) is also very important.
I think the new tendency in the IT industry is to have well-rounded people who can do a good technical job, but still perform passably at the graphic design and copy writing stages. I'm not just talking about Web Development here. Every area of IT is approaching this point.
As deadlines and Time-to-shipment get smaller, programmers are getting thrown more to the forefront of the development cycle. This means dealing with humans, whether it be through well structured language, fanciful graphic design or good interface design. A lot of people are still stuck in the "I'm a rilly good coder, I don need that language stuff aniways" attitude, and I believe that is detrimental to the industry as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
and you should check your dictionary. "Debatable" is a perfectly valid word (look it up).
That is kind of the point. It is the full game. Just encrypted. Not that you should believe the grandparent. He was joking. The preload thing is encrypted, so no simple "yes/no" answer return would make it bootable.
By the way, I just checked the Google Zeitgeist Image in an image editing program, and it shows approximately 7% non-IE traffic, just for clarification.
So, you're saying your site is more representative than Google? Check the Zeitgeist graph. It doesn't have numbers, but that graph definitely shows more non-IE traffic than 2.69%
I don't know the url of your site. If you provide it I may be able to venture an educated guess. Too much Flash? Uses Real? Low usability? Listed in MS search engines only? Deal with OEMs so that it is bookmarked by default? spyware leads to it? There are any number of reasons why you could have those stats.
I'd also venture a guess that your site does not cater to Apple users at all, since they're usually a big chunk of traffic, and most are not using IE anymore (have you checked your OS stats?)
That conclusion is a non sequitur, since it is usually made from the standpoint of webmasters who have non-compliant sites that break in alternate browsers. If you're looking at the traffic statistics for your site that breaks in Firefox, it is *obvious* that you won't find very many Firefox users, since you're driving them away.
To provide some numbers, check the Google Zeitgeist. Although it does show that IE 6 has a clear dominance, the Mozilla traffic is on par with IE 5.0 and IE 5.5 -- If you support those, you should support Mozilla.
If you go to more techie-oriented sites you'll see very different results. In my site's own stats, IE accounts for less than 50% of visitors (and yes, there *are* more than 5 people visiting daily).
Oops. My bad. =)
Or you can try iCapture, which is free.
"It's amazing the number of funky comment-within-comment hacks that you have to perform to get sites to display properly across two or three "standards compliant" browsers."
It should be pointed out that the reason you have to use hacks is precisely because the browsers are not standards-compliant.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. And the squares are favicons.
I was going to link to the same resources. Although Nielsen has always been respected and usually knows what he's talking about, his stubbornness and incessant self repetition are making him sort of a joke in the Web Design community. There are tons of people doing far more insightful work out there, both in the field of usability and in web design in general.
For a good list of the movers and shakers check out this entry in Cameron Moll's blog.
Well, the article doesn't present a compelling case or even a decent point, so as to not let this thread go to waste, I suggest you head over to see the hey hey 16k song/animation by the b3ta crew. It's the best tribute to old gaming nostalgia I've ever seen.
Except where you can do this with real sites, without the need to spoof a whole site. If the *real* site uses frames in the design, you can just change that frame, not the whole site. The "link list" I suggested was just to increase the likelihood that the sites in question are opened.
Although it's true that this is "working as designed", it does present an interesting exploit scenario. Let's assume you visit evilguy's site, supposed to be a financial portal. From there, a list of links direct you to the (framed) pages of banks where you can run your operations.
Now, evilguy's site has javascript code running that will detect when one of the interesting frames is available (frames that contain login info). It means that you're trying to log into your account at one of the bank sites. What it does is serve you a facsimile that looks exactly like the original login screen, except this one sends the info to evilguy's site.
When your login info is in evilguy's database, he just sends it to the bank and replaces the frame again with the content the bank returned. Voila! Successfully executed framejacking to invisibly steal your login info.
This might be serious.
You are overly harsh, in fact, I almost think you're a bit of a negative a**hole who simply cut down everything with a bit of criticism without giving some advice on the viable options.
I'm not. I know what I'm talking about. I did remark on the flaws of design and copywriting, and a few specific points on why I think they don't work. I'm not going to write a 30 page report offering improvements that could be made, if that's what you're implying.
His site has deficiencies, but given that he's prototype-early-stage, that's not a problem, I've certainly seen worse.
He's asking for Venture Capital, and that's the way he approached this forum. His site should not be in "prototype-early-stage", as you so ellegantly put it. It should wow his potential investors. It should be clear on the objectives of the business. At the very least it should convince them.
As for "doesn't have a unique product": [...] - can you name his competitors, since you've "obviously" done some research to support your claim that he doesn't have a unique product.
Did you jump to my reply without reading this entire thread, or did you just miss my very prominent "Then, there's what everybody else here is saying:" introduction to that part of the comment?
I do not disagree with the approach you delineated, but you suggested that he actually not ask for VC right away, which, in fact, was my point.
I offered advice and opinion in my area of expertise. The rest was a personal opinion and comment, and I stated it so. If being patronizing is your thing, then by all means go with it, but please don't call me a "bit of a negative asshole" when I post a straight --requested-- answer to a direct question.
Your site, although competent, seems thrown together in a rush. The color scheme is drab and the text is nigh-unreadable for your target audience (these are not designers you're catering to). That just won't cut it. And that's just your site (all you have to show for the time being).
As for the copywriting: It's just unprofessional. You have neither a "corporate" reassuring voice (something desirable in this context) nor a friendly, personal one. It's just a mix and match of faux seriousness and half hearted attempts at humor. Needs tightening.
From what I see, I wouldn't bet much on the business plan. Then, there's what everybody else here is saying: You don't have a unique product. No market differentiator, no apparent viable business model, no real professional experience (no, "tried and failed" doesn't cut it when requesting capital for a business providing services for the area in which you failed).
I'm sorry, but I think the problem with your proposal is that it's not good enough. Good luck improving it.
Bravo, good sir! This made my day. Thanks.
Yeah, 'cause we should never aspire to improve any of our skills! And anyone who tries to help in such an endeavour should be summarily dismissed!
Similarly: How come God creates this bunch of people he knows (since he's omniscient) will sin and crap on each other and be a bunch of degenerate perverts, and then decides to get all angry, save a few of them and drown the rest? How can he get angry at all? Is he not all-knowing? If he is, he should've seen it coming since the beginning, so the getting-angry-and-smiting people left and right part is kind of an overreaction, isn't it?
But then again, God, as presented in the Old Testament reminds me a lot of the Greek Gods and Goddesses, what with all the bickering and fighting and jealousy and pettiness going on.
Which brings us to my original point:
"If you really want to communicate effectively, you might even want to put a subject and verb in the aforementioned sentence."
You state that after mentioning two sentences. =)
PNG transparency (its Alpha channel) is what is not widely supported. Most browsers display non-transparent PNG's well.
Pagerank (Google's ranking algorithm) checks how many people are linking something and which words they are using in said linkage (it's a safe bet that very few people link back to Google using a link titled "search engine").
There are also other factors (context is taken into account), not least of which is the site's meta info (of which google has none) and other things (page link density, structure, etc.).
All of those things can affect google's pagerank. Which I'm sure they don't mind in the least.
Which one of the two?
=)
Grammer != Grammar
Hah! good retort. In all fairness, your post was very well structured. I was just making a point.
Here here and amen! When looking for programmers [...]
Ok. Let's nitpick: It's not "Here here". It's "Hear, hear". Why do I bring this up? Because so many people here are saying that yes, you need math and problem solving skills. No one mentions that being able to communicate effectively (and correctly) is also very important.
I think the new tendency in the IT industry is to have well-rounded people who can do a good technical job, but still perform passably at the graphic design and copy writing stages. I'm not just talking about Web Development here. Every area of IT is approaching this point.
As deadlines and Time-to-shipment get smaller, programmers are getting thrown more to the forefront of the development cycle. This means dealing with humans, whether it be through well structured language, fanciful graphic design or good interface design. A lot of people are still stuck in the "I'm a rilly good coder, I don need that language stuff aniways" attitude, and I believe that is detrimental to the industry as a whole.