haha.. exactly. You'll never forget what Victoria's Secret sells. And if your girlfriend/wife ever asks you to buy her lingerie, what company do you think you'll think of first??!!
Companies spend TONS of money on magazine ads, billboards, newspaper ads..etc. And you can't track how many views or sales leads they generate the way you can on the web.
I bet those billboards and newspaper ads create less web page views than web banners.
Yet companies still spend money on those types of advertising.. Why? Because advertising is all about familiarity. Getting the name and image out and making it stick in people's heads. Banners are an effective way of doing that.
Nobody expects someone to read a newspaper ad and run to the store to buy something, so why do people expect that kind of behaviour on the web??
Porsche frequently gets their designers and engineers to tackle various industrial design challenges. Take their much sought-after coffee maker for example.
It keeps their designers on their toes, and lets them explore areas they wouldn't normally be exposed to.
Academically, yeah the web is about sharing information. However, it is also a marketing media for business.
If you look at the web from a business perspective, it's a worldwide stage where companies compete for attention and sales. The web is a medium for advertising and marketing where information is shared in a way that needs to impress and convince the consumer to buy a product or service. That's where things like flash and good graphic design improve the chances of impressing a consumer. Such features create emotions, which are proven to work better than facts in advertising.
To bring this back to the topic at hand, sites (including the airline website in question) are designed to address the needs of the company's target market. Perhaps blind people aren't part of the airline's target market. Whether or not we feel that blind people (or other disabled people) should be considered in that target market then becomes an issue of the public telling a company how to run their business.
Is that what we think should happen? All companies should sell and service all sorts of disabled people? Sure, I would love to see more companies think about accessibility. But to enforce it by law may not be feasible, relevant or necessary for a good proportion of companies out there.
Sure it's USEABLE...it's very easy to use...but how many people would be impressed by a site like that? I wasn't even interested enough to click a single link! If that is what people wanted to see for information, wouldn't newspapers be just as boring?:)
lol I hadn't heard the 28.8 modem thing yet (I haven't finished reading his book and I doubt I ever will)
I'm behind you, most of his points are rediculous. Things like recommending all links be blue because to change the colour would cause the user to lose "several seconds" of "cognitive overhead"... give me a break!
I wouldn't go so far as to call the guy an idiot though, because overall he does have a point. That point being that most web designers don't think as much about how people will use the interface as much how good it will look.
That attitude tends to produce navigation where you have to SEARCH to find the links on the page.. While that's great for a piece of art or for a popular band's website wehre people want to have fun...that REALLY sucks for business.
The guy's got the right idea, the web needs to be built with the user in mind. He doesn't seem to have the knack for really understanding a user though, he takes a much too scientific approach to something that is clearly an art.
I agree, the RIAA has gone about this ALL wrong. When MP3s first came out, it was a great way to try before you buy. Listening to a few MP3s of songs you've never heard before would sometimes make you think "hey, this band isn't bad, I'm gonna pick up their CD."
Now because of all the crap that has gone down, people are more likely to rebel and not even consider purchasing a CD. While the action is aimed at the RIAA, this also hurts the recording artist as well. The RIAA should have thought more carefully before taking the heavy-handed approach. Leaders lead and motivate by example. Oppressive action inevitably leads to more rebellion.
<grin> give him a break
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
<sarcasm>Oh you're right...We don't know how to do it now, so we'll probably never be able to do it. Damn the guy for dreaming to climb the mountain.</sarcasm>
Haha, come on! With nay-sayers like you humans would never have created the wheel...or dared to fight back against Microsoft!
presumptuous of you..no?
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
While I agree with your post, I find it funny that you are sure enough of yourself to presume that the other guy "just doesn't get it". How can you be so sure until time travel is actually performed?
You said yourself that your thoughts are based on current ideas and understanding. What would happen should Ronald Mallett succeed (or even fail, you learn from that too) in his attempts? Current ideas and understanding could be obliterated.
Sometimes the best solutions come from the craziest, most uninformed ideas (fresh, unbiased perspective). I believe that closing your mind to those ideas, closes your doors to success.
Without regulations on it, would it not be (significantly) more difficult for them to make it mandatory?
There doesn't need to be a hard fast rule to make something mandatory in our society. It just needs to be accepted enough to make your life miserable without it.
Take this little tidbit I read in a related article Interesting and informative read, though some of it is a bit biased.
After all, the government has never forced
anyone to have a driver license, [but] try getting along without one, when
everyone from your local banker to the car rental man to the hotel operator to
the grocery store requires one in order for you to take advantage of their
services, that amounts to a de facto mandate. If the government can force you
to surrender your fingerprints to get a drivers license, why can't it force
you to get a computer chip implant?
I'm hoping politicians will take their time with this one.
Take a hint man... If she's THAT interested in dick size then she's not lookin' to snuggle and watch Bambi with you. Slut-factor is probably high;) Go for her!
Slashdot Mirror
Lucky bastard, he got one of those "new and improved" models...
haha.. exactly. You'll never forget what Victoria's Secret sells. And if your girlfriend/wife ever asks you to buy her lingerie, what company do you think you'll think of first??!!
great example man!
Companies spend TONS of money on magazine ads, billboards, newspaper ads..etc. And you can't track how many views or sales leads they generate the way you can on the web.
I bet those billboards and newspaper ads create less web page views than web banners.
Yet companies still spend money on those types of advertising.. Why? Because advertising is all about familiarity. Getting the name and image out and making it stick in people's heads. Banners are an effective way of doing that.
Nobody expects someone to read a newspaper ad and run to the store to buy something, so why do people expect that kind of behaviour on the web??
Porsche frequently gets their designers and engineers to tackle various industrial design challenges. Take their much sought-after coffee maker for example.
It keeps their designers on their toes, and lets them explore areas they wouldn't normally be exposed to.
Academically, yeah the web is about sharing information. However, it is also a marketing media for business.
If you look at the web from a business perspective, it's a worldwide stage where companies compete for attention and sales. The web is a medium for advertising and marketing where information is shared in a way that needs to impress and convince the consumer to buy a product or service. That's where things like flash and good graphic design improve the chances of impressing a consumer. Such features create emotions, which are proven to work better than facts in advertising.
To bring this back to the topic at hand, sites (including the airline website in question) are designed to address the needs of the company's target market. Perhaps blind people aren't part of the airline's target market. Whether or not we feel that blind people (or other disabled people) should be considered in that target market then becomes an issue of the public telling a company how to run their business.
Is that what we think should happen? All companies should sell and service all sorts of disabled people? Sure, I would love to see more companies think about accessibility. But to enforce it by law may not be feasible, relevant or necessary for a good proportion of companies out there.
wow you're a phreakin genius. I know, how about you go first and we'll all get in line behind you.
:P
DAMN that's ugly!
Sure it's USEABLE...it's very easy to use...but how many people would be impressed by a site like that? I wasn't even interested enough to click a single link! If that is what people wanted to see for information, wouldn't newspapers be just as boring? :)
lol I hadn't heard the 28.8 modem thing yet (I haven't finished reading his book and I doubt I ever will)
I'm behind you, most of his points are rediculous. Things like recommending all links be blue because to change the colour would cause the user to lose "several seconds" of "cognitive overhead"... give me a break!
I wouldn't go so far as to call the guy an idiot though, because overall he does have a point. That point being that most web designers don't think as much about how people will use the interface as much how good it will look.
That attitude tends to produce navigation where you have to SEARCH to find the links on the page.. While that's great for a piece of art or for a popular band's website wehre people want to have fun...that REALLY sucks for business.
The guy's got the right idea, the web needs to be built with the user in mind. He doesn't seem to have the knack for really understanding a user though, he takes a much too scientific approach to something that is clearly an art.
I agree, the RIAA has gone about this ALL wrong. When MP3s first came out, it was a great way to try before you buy. Listening to a few MP3s of songs you've never heard before would sometimes make you think "hey, this band isn't bad, I'm gonna pick up their CD."
Now because of all the crap that has gone down, people are more likely to rebel and not even consider purchasing a CD. While the action is aimed at the RIAA, this also hurts the recording artist as well. The RIAA should have thought more carefully before taking the heavy-handed approach. Leaders lead and motivate by example. Oppressive action inevitably leads to more rebellion.
<sarcasm>Oh you're right...We don't know how to do it now, so we'll probably never be able to do it. Damn the guy for dreaming to climb the mountain.</sarcasm>
Haha, come on! With nay-sayers like you humans would never have created the wheel...or dared to fight back against Microsoft!
While I agree with your post, I find it funny that you are sure enough of yourself to presume that the other guy "just doesn't get it". How can you be so sure until time travel is actually performed?
You said yourself that your thoughts are based on current ideas and understanding. What would happen should Ronald Mallett succeed (or even fail, you learn from that too) in his attempts? Current ideas and understanding could be obliterated.
Sometimes the best solutions come from the craziest, most uninformed ideas (fresh, unbiased perspective). I believe that closing your mind to those ideas, closes your doors to success.
Hackers? Mating? Wouldn't this just be a lot of stories about late nights looking at Pr0n?
There doesn't need to be a hard fast rule to make something mandatory in our society. It just needs to be accepted enough to make your life miserable without it.
Take this little tidbit I read in a related article Interesting and informative read, though some of it is a bit biased.
I'm hoping politicians will take their time with this one.
Take a hint man... If she's THAT interested in dick size then she's not lookin' to snuggle and watch Bambi with you. Slut-factor is probably high ;) Go for her!