民意调查：无知的客户解释 [英] Poll: Ignorant Customer Explanations
问题描述
我想，因为我们这里的很多人为顾客设计网站。很多，
我会问一个可能在将来帮助我们很多人的一般性问题。
在与客户要求_professional_ web打交道时网站，我是
不断尝试解释为什么更少更多;专业级网站
网站应该关注功能，可用性和可访问性，然后再考虑图形设计和布局。我曾经在
webpagesthatsuck.com上读过一篇很棒的话，上面写着这样的话（释义）：
理想的网站是网站快速的网站并轻松告诉
客户购买什么，然后继续将他们的钱包拿到他们的
口袋，为他们读取他们的信用卡号码，并处理<只需点击一下鼠标即可获得
。
当然，他们使用理想这个词。意味着我们永远不会完成
这个。我认为这应该是我们应该尝试用网页设计来实现的夸张。
所以我总是争辩说最好让页面加载所有不同类型/尺寸的硬件上的人都可以访问更快且更多的b $ b，而不是通过图形，Flash，脚本和其他东西在页面上加载
/>
使网站更可爱。但是，当顾客永远正确时，和他们的竞争对手拥有图形密集的网站，他们不知道他们的资源可以比竞争对手更好通过技术支持
b $ b优势。
我非常喜欢让网站视觉上有趣，但我真的很讨厌
看到一个溺水的网站GIF和JPEG。当我提出一个
主要是文本布局，一个图形轻的布局，以及一个图形重的
布局时，它似乎总是胜过函数。而且，当然，
有一些（很少）实例，当有一个小客户端脚本
真的可以使网站更有用（如显示多种颜色的
相同的产品没有另一次去服务器）。就在这些功能的可爱这些功能变得仅仅是装饰性的时候，我开始遇到问题。
所以这是我的民意调查：
您使用什么理由/解释来尝试让技术上更好的客户使用更简单实用的布局？术语不会在这里工作
。如果客户已经开始具有幻想，那该怎么办？网站，但是
他们的内容保证更精简的外观？
您如何描述客户的标准合规性？我喜欢创建
页面，这些页面将验证为严格的HTML 4.01，但是当客户需要这些额外功能时，有时候技术会违反好。文件
结构（如外部链接，脚本kludges，专有浏览器
垃圾，框架等）。
Here''sa我的一些原因的简短列表：
1.加载图片/ Flash与文本的时间。 不是每个人都有宽带，但是。
2.可访问不同的显示器类型和尺寸。
3.可访问不同/较旧的计算机平台。
4.向后兼容兼容性。
5.有些事情你不做。 （参考
请求背景MIDI，动画GIF，动画页面过渡，
" splash"页面等...）
非常感谢所有人，
Zac
Zac Hester写道：<因此，我总是争辩说，使用所有不同类型/尺寸的硬件的人可以更快地使页面加载并且更容易访问，而不是使用图形加载
页面，Flash ，脚本和其他只是让网站更可爱的东西。但是，当顾客永远正确时，而且他们的竞争对手拥有图形密集的网站，他们不知道他们的资源可以通过技术优势比竞争对手更好。
在旧计算机上获得拨号连接将是有益的，并且如果它们确实臃肿，则加载竞争对手的网站。
我非常喜欢让网站看起来很有趣，但我真的很讨厌看到一个淹没在GIF和JPEG中的网站。当我提出一个主要是文本布局，图形光线布局和图形沉重的布局时，似乎总是形式胜过功能。
当然，做得好的CSS可以令人印象深刻，imo。我已经看到了
彩色链接在悬停时变化，并且再次变为活动状态;他们看起来像任何带有鼠标悬停变化的js按钮一样好。
你用什么理由/解释来试图让技术上的客户去有一个更简单和可用的布局？
不知道如何回答这个问题。我确定这取决于他们在网上花多少时间，他们的连接速度等等。最后
周，我姐姐之一'' s试图填写在线护理
申请表。在缓慢的加载时间里，她变得非常沮丧，并且由于该网站没有告诉她有多少页面需要支付
才能填写。因此，她不知道她是否应该放弃，或者如果
终点线即将到来。有一次，她大声说道，
你知道，去办公室的时间要快10倍。
填写纸质申请表。 br />
这不是任何网站所有者希望她/他的访问者拥有的体验。
如果客户已经开始拥有花哨的内容，该怎么办？网站，但他们的内容保证更流线型的外观？
我很快就会从头开始设计一个网站。第一次。所有东西
否则我已经完成了重新设计，这很难，因为你使用可能不合适的容器工作
。这一次，
我要设计一个没有css的功能齐全的网站。让
客户端查看它以检查功能。然后回顾一下她想要的外观变化。
您如何描述客户的标准合规性？
我用人类语言作为比喻。如果说英语的每个人都按照自己的规则制定了自己的规则，很快就不可能在英语区域内进行沟通。我们教我们的孩子
语法和拼写规则，以便沟通仍然可行。
HTML也有规则。如果每个人都遵守规则，那么沟通就很容易。如果客户的网站违反了规则，那么没有人会确定他们想要的东西。他们将不得不猜测他真正意味着什么，b $ b意味着什么。但他们可能猜错了。遵循规则，并且没有
猜测。
1.加载图片/ Flash与文本的时间。 不是每个人都有宽带，但是。
2.可访问不同的显示器类型和尺寸。
3.可访问不同/较旧的计算机平台。
4.向后和向前兼容性。
您是否经常阅读ciwa *组？如果是这样，那么你必须知道
的简单和标准的论点。使用你喜欢的那些。
我喜欢那个不打算从实体店里放逐的人
没有特定品牌鞋子的人。 />
-
Brian
按照我地址中的说明给我发电子邮件
[Followup-To：comp.infosystems。 www.authoring.site-设计]
Zac Hester< ne ** @ planetzac.net>写道：
[...]
你用什么理由/解释来试图获得技术上的支持
客户采用更简单实用的布局？
您如何描述客户的标准合规性？我喜欢创建将验证为严格的HTML 4.01的页面，但是当客户需要这些额外的功能时，有时该技术会违反好的标准。文件
结构（如外部链接，脚本kludges，专有浏览器
垃圾，框架等）。
这是我的一些原因的简短列表：
1.加载图片/ Flash与文本的时间。 不是每个人都有宽带，但是。
2.可访问不同的显示器类型和尺寸。
3.可访问不同/较旧的计算机平台。
4.向后和向前兼容性。
5.有些事你不做。 （参考
请求背景MIDI，动画GIF，动画页面过渡，
飞溅页面等...）
再多几点：
6.分离内容和设计的优点：
- 在整个网站上更容易保持一致的外观。
更新网站的视觉外观可以通过
编辑一个或多个样式表（css文件）来完成。
（另一种方法是浏览每个html文件，寻找要更改的元素。这很容易出错。这很有用。）
- 打印时页面看起来会更好。
可以在样式表中指定打印布局。
- 该网站可用于各种各样的浏览器，
屏幕阅读器和掌上电脑。
- 更新内容可以通过任何短信服务器完成
-
Vlad
在文章< 3f ******** @ news.enetis.net> ;, ne ** @ planetzac.net 说...所以这里是我的民意调查：
你用什么理由/解释试图获得技术上的平局
客户使用更简单实用的布局？行话不会在这里工作。如果客户已经开始具有幻想，那该怎么办？网站，但
他们的内容保证更精简的外观？
我的前老板用来推广非Flash内容的一个原因是给了
在仅限Flash的情况下创建新主页的公司示例。声音
好。除了他们忘了允许他们的公司防火墙通过
Flash内容，所以没有员工能看到结果。
具有讽刺意味的是，我是现在正在一个网站上工作，那就是同样的情况。其中有大量的Flash，但整个公司只有一台
计算机（数千名员工），他们可以在这里查看它。所有其他电脑都不允许这样做。所以他们必须走到那台
专用电脑才能看到他们自己的主页！
一般来说，如果比较管理成本和浏览器，它会更好用吗？ br />
统计数据。比方说，对于所有浏览器中的1％，我们需要99％的时间（
换句话说，Netscape 4和无尽的解决方案）。但是，如果您接管另一个网站，那么就会出现问题，而且已经有50,000个页面的非验证内容。然后你必须添加另一个变量：
转换旧内容所需的时间。通过成千上万的旧页面进行重构并重构它们可能是不合理的，没有工具像Tidy HTML那样将b表格布局转换为有意义的
CSS（从某种意义上说它会创建有意义的类名，所以
on）。
另外，你可以列出带宽成本（CSS缓存等）。
最后一点，下载速度和客户满意度。
I figured since a lot of us around here design sites for "customers" a lot,
I''d ask a general question that might help a lot of us in the future.
When dealing with clients asking for _professional_ web sites, I am
constantly trying to explain why less is more; that professional-grade web
sites should focus on functionality, usability, and accessibility before you
even think about graphical design and layout. I read a great quote once on
webpagesthatsuck.com that said something like this (paraphrasing):
The ideal web site is one in which the site quickly and easily tells the
customer what to buy, then proceeds to take their wallet our of their
pocket, read their credit card numbers for them, and processes the order in
one click of the mouse.
Of course their use of the word "ideal" means that we will never accomplish
this. I consider it a hyperbole of what we should attempt to accomplish
with web design.
So I always argue that it''s better make the page load faster and be more
accessible to people on all different types/sizes of hardware than to load
down the page with graphics, Flash, scripting and other things that just
make the site more "cute." However, when the customer is "always right" and
their competitors have graphically-heavy web sites, they don''t know that
their resource can be better than the competitions'' through technical
superiority.
I''m a big fan of making the site visually interesting, but I really hate to
see a great web site drowning in GIFs and JPEGs. When I propose a
mostly-text layout, a graphically-light layout, and a graphically-heavy
layout, it always seems that forms wins over function. And, of course,
there are some (very few) instances when having a little client-side script
really can make a site more useful (like displaying multiple colors of the
same product without another trip to the server). It''s when the "cuteness"
of these features becomes merely decorative that I start having issues.
So here''s my poll:
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won''t work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?
How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).
Here''s a short list of some of my reasons:
1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don''t do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)
Many thanks to all,
Zac解决方案Zac Hester wrote:
So I always argue that it''s better make the page load faster and be more
accessible to people on all different types/sizes of hardware than to load
down the page with graphics, Flash, scripting and other things that just
make the site more "cute." However, when the customer is "always right" and
their competitors have graphically-heavy web sites, they don''t know that
their resource can be better than the competitions'' through technical
superiority.
It would be instructive to get a dialup connection on an old computer
and load their competitors'' sites, if they are indeed bloated.
I''m a big fan of making the site visually interesting, but I really hate to
see a great web site drowning in GIFs and JPEGs. When I propose a
mostly-text layout, a graphically-light layout, and a graphically-heavy
layout, it always seems that forms wins over function.
Of course, well-done css can be quite impressive, imo. I''ve seen
colored links that change on hover, and again on active; they look as
good as any js buttons with mouseover changes.
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout?
Not sure how to answer this one. I''m sure it depends on how much time
they spend on the web, what their connection speed is, etc. Last
week, one of my sister''s was trying to fill out an online nursing
application. She grew *very* frustrated at the slow load times, and
by the fact that the site did not tell her how many pages she had to
fill out. Thus, she didn''t know if she should give up, or if the
finish line was just around the corner. At one point, she exclaimed,
"You know, it would be 10 times faster to just go to the office and
fill out a paper application."
This is not the experience any site owner wants her/his visitors to have.
What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?
I''m going to design a site from scratch soon. First time. Everything
else I''ve done has been redesigns, which are hard because you''re
working with a container that might not be appropriate. This time,
I''m going to design a fully functioning site with no css. Have the
client look at it to check for functionality. Then go over what
changes she wants for the appearance.
How do you describe standards compliance to the customer?
I use human language as an analogy. If everyone who spoke English
made up their own rules, it would quickly become impossible to
communicate within an English-speaking region. We teach our children
grammar and spelling rules so that communication remains possible.
HTML also has rules. If everyone follows the rules, communication is
easy. If the customer''s site breaks the rules, then noone will be
certain what they want. They''ll have to guess at what (s)he "really
meant," but they might guess wrong. Follow the rules, and there''s no
guessing.
1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
Do you read the ciwa* groups regularly? If so, then you must be aware
of the arguments for simplicity and standards. Use the ones you like.
I like the one about not banishing from a brick and mortar store
anyone who doesn''t have a certain brand of shoes.
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
[ Followup-To: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design ]
Zac Hester <ne**@planetzac.net> wrote:
[...]
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout?
How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).
Here''s a short list of some of my reasons:
1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don''t do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)
A few more points:
6. Advantages of separating content and design:
- Easier to maintain a consistent look throughout the website.
Updating the visual appearance of the site can be done by
editing one or more stylesheets (css-files).
( The alternative is wading through each html-file looking for
elements to change. This is error-prone and time consuming. )
- The pages will look better when printed.
Layout for printing can be specified in the stylesheet.
- The site is usable with a wide range of browsers,
screen-readers and handheld computers.
- Updating contents can be done with any texteditor
--
Vlad
In article <3f********@news.enetis.net>, ne**@planetzac.net says...So here''s my poll:
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won''t work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?
One reason my ex-boss used to promote non-Flash content was to give an
example of a company which created a new homepage in Flash-only. Sounds
good. Except they forgot to allow their company firewall to let through
Flash content, so no employee could see the result.
The irony is that I''m now working on a site where it''s just the same
situation. There''s heavy Flash in it, but there''s just one single
computer in the whole company (thousands of employees) where they can
view it. All other PCs won''t allow that. So they have to walk to that
special computer just to see their own homepage!
In general, it works better if you compare management costs and browser
statistics. Say, for 1% of all browsers, we need 99% of all time (in
other words, Netscape 4 and the endless work-arounds). However, there''s
a problem if you take over another website, and there''s already 50,000
pages of non-validating content. Then you have to add another variable:
time it will cost to convert old content. It might be unreasonable to go
through tens of thousands of old pages and restructure them, and no tool
like Tidy HTML will do the job of converting table layout to meaningful
CSS (in the sense that it will create meaningful class-names, and so
on).
Also, you can list bandwidth costs (CSS caching and so on).
Last not least, download speed and customer satisfaction.
这篇关于民意调查：无知的客户解释的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
