Browser survey

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[dorayme]

In article
<ab************ *************** *******@m45g200 0hsb.googlegrou ps.com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@ hotmail.comwrot e:

On Jul 2, 7:37*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

What can I say, we have different opinions.

Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"

Do you have evidence that fluid design is best for every kind of
website? We all have out opinions, all of them faith based.

You cannot gather evidence for something you have not defined properly.
Like arguing for or against the existence of God - quite irresolvable
because no one has a properly meaningful idea about what the hell they
are talking about.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article
<d1************ *************** *******@34g2000 hsf.googlegroup s.com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@ hotmail.comwrot e:

On Jul 2, 7:20*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

It *is* the great temptation: Preaching impossible to dispute
generalities.

You say this all the time (or something similar) please explain how I
preach the impossible to dispute generalities.

I said that? It makes no sense? I suspect dorayme was rushed and made a
typo... I know it went on to say:

"For obvious reasons: it is easy to do, it does not require research,
you have a stranglehold on all your opponents who attempt an assault on
your statements because they don't really think you are saying something
so general or unassailable."

From this I gather that what dorayme might have meant to say in answer
to your earlier "Man dorayme, is this guy preaching from the Book of
Travis or what?" was:

It is the great temptation. To profess views that are either vague or
motherhoody or both that no one can really dispute them profitably.

--
dorayme

[Scott Bryce]

Steve wrote:

Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?

I used to work in a department store. We always thought about whether
the store was shoppable, because shoppable meant more sales. Maybe it is
different with groceries than it is with clothes.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Travis Newbury wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:37 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centra l.netwrote:

>>What can I say, we have different opinions.

Sure and you are welcome to it. Options though to not have to be backed
by any supporting evidence...sort of "faith-based"

Do you have evidence that fluid design is best for every kind of
website? We all have out opinions, all of them faith based.

I gave you one earlier...

"It is much easier for flexible-layout sites to accommodate visitors
that prefer static fixed-layouts then fixed-layout sites to accommodate
visitors that prefer flexible-layouts."

Fact not opinion.

Fixed-layoutists can either reduce there browser width to the 800px
width that they so dearly love, of if need for the browser to cover that
desktop is irresistible then employ a user stylesheet

body { max-width: 800px !important; margin-left: auto !important;
margin-right: auto !important; }

Flexible-layoutists do not have such options, they are either forced to
change the browser width or horizontal scroll which is unquestionably
not ergonomic for reading digital print.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Mason C]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:37:49 +0000, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gma il.com>
wrote:

I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell. org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

103 Opera on a 22" screen I win I win I win I win !

However, I worry about designing a web page on this screen.
Maybe I need a survey. It sounds like 72 would be a good
page width ???

Mason C

[Jonathan N. Little]

Steve wrote:

Scott Bryce wrote:

>The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.

Wrong. Accessibility and conversion ratios are totally different
metrics with only a minor correlation. If you can bump up your
conversion rate 6% by inconveniencing 3% of your audience - you do it.

>In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.

That's not even close to accurate.

As an example: no sector spends more on brick-and-mortar shopping
experience than grocery stores. So what are their common approaches to
make a more "shoppable" experience?

They routinely move items on shelfs to new areas to force the consumer
to seek out these items - thereby forcing them to see more (and newer)
items in the process.

They stick the essentials most consumers purchase (meat, dairy, bread,
etc) in the furthest corners of the stores to force the customers to
move around the most.

They purposefully complicate their promotions to make price comparisons
more difficult ("Buy 2, get one free", "Four for $15.49", etc).

The most expensive/ highest margin items are at eye level, irregardless
of consumer's preference. Low yielding items are relegated around the
floorboards.

Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?

Not shoppable, accessible, which both web and brick and mortar share.
Brick and mortars fail without, or with poor accessibility. Bad
locations with a poor road, poor visibility, not enough parking (look
what happened to Main Street). How successfully will your brick and
mortar be if the entrance to it is two flights of stairs from the rear
alley?

Now the blockages in the aisles, jumbled product placement and all only
are "delay tactics" to keep you in the store once you have gained
access. Marketing has found the longer they can keep you there the more
you are likely to buy, but you had to have easy access to get you there
in the first place.
--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Ed Mullen]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Steve wrote:

>Scott Bryce wrote:

>>The problem with your argument is that a more accessible site will be
more profitable.

Wrong. Accessibility and conversion ratios are totally different
metrics with only a minor correlation. If you can bump up your
conversion rate 6% by inconveniencing 3% of your audience - you do it.

>>In the brick and mortar world they say that if your store is shoppable,
you will sell more. The same is true on the web.

That's not even close to accurate.

As an example: no sector spends more on brick-and-mortar shopping
experience than grocery stores. So what are their common approaches
to make a more "shoppable" experience?

They routinely move items on shelfs to new areas to force the consumer
to seek out these items - thereby forcing them to see more (and newer)
items in the process.

They stick the essentials most consumers purchase (meat, dairy, bread,
etc) in the furthest corners of the stores to force the customers to
move around the most.

They purposefully complicate their promotions to make price
comparisons more difficult ("Buy 2, get one free", "Four for $15.49",
etc).

The most expensive/ highest margin items are at eye level,
irregardless of consumer's preference. Low yielding items are
relegated around the floorboards.

Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?

Not shoppable, accessible, which both web and brick and mortar share.
Brick and mortars fail without, or with poor accessibility. Bad
locations with a poor road, poor visibility, not enough parking (look
what happened to Main Street). How successfully will your brick and
mortar be if the entrance to it is two flights of stairs from the rear
alley?

Now the blockages in the aisles, jumbled product placement and all only
are "delay tactics" to keep you in the store once you have gained
access. Marketing has found the longer they can keep you there the more
you are likely to buy, but you had to have easy access to get you there
in the first place.

The dominant supermarkets in my area are Kroger and Publix. I avoid
going in a Kroger store like the plague. Reason one is the crowding,
the annoying movable displays, etc. Reason two is the people who are
/not/ customer oriented. Reason three is that the store layouts are
just plain annoying to me.

I go to Publix because their stores are always laid out in one of about
three formats no matter where I am and I feel comfortable there. Plus,
the people are trained to be nice and helpful. The checkers stand out
in front of the lines and ask if you're ready to check out, then direct
you into their empty line. They forbid tipping but they always ask if
you need help out to your car with your purchase. They smile. They
remember you. They (oh-my-God!) actually seem like they are enjoying
their job!!! And, frankly, the store and its environs are always
cleaner than Kroger stores.

So, yes, I understand the marketing. I was a marketing manager for many
years. I also understand that some of the "best" researched marketing
plans do the most to alienate customers. And that the most successful
ones are those where the vendor has actually asked the customer what
they want that will keep them coming back. Duh?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Where do forest rangers go to get away from it all?

[Neredbojias]

On 02 Jul 2008, Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbr yce.comwrote:

Neredbojias wrote:

>Well, my vision is pretty good so I almost never run across sites
where I absolutely _have to_ change something, but when it's
happened, no, I don't go back if there is any viable alternative at
all. Okay, so I'm not "most people", but I'll bet there are plenty
of gentlemen who react the same.

My vision is not what it is when I was younger. Sometimes I will lean
back in my chair, away from my monitor, which requires me to increase
the font size on a site. As long as the site does not break when the
font is resized, I see no reason to leave.

Yes. Some fixed-widths sites _will_ break, though, but some won't. I saw a
really good one 'bout 6 months ago but dinklescoofer if I can remember what
the url was.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

[Neredbojias]

On 02 Jul 2008, "Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra l.netwrote:

Neredbojias wrote:

>I've seen several good fized-width sites - as long as the screen
resolution doesn't get so wide that it dwarfs the content width. But
within 1280 px, a (for instance) centered "column" of say 800 px or so
_can be_ fine. (Well, maybe a bit less to accommodate 800 px rez
monitors.) The fact that users can't view the site sans horz scrollbar
with a half-width browser doesn't hold much water with me. What if the
page has a 500px image or something?

An image is an image (modern web browsers do have a fit-image to browser
window feature), but it sure is a pain when researching and you have a
600-odd pixel browser window with a 600-odd pixel word processor window
adjacent and you cannot read the dang website copy because the site is a
fixed 800 pixels! A real-world possible scenario for folks who use the
the web from more than "reality TV" or computers from more than playing
games...

Well, true, 800 px may be a little wide for fixed width, but I don't believe
a page is automatically obligated to accommodate a half-width environment,
either.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

[Neredbojias]

On 02 Jul 2008, Scott Bryce <sb****@scottbr yce.comwrote:

Steve wrote:

>Do any of these approaches sound like the highly-funded,
thoroughly-researched grocery layouts are seeking more "shoppable"
experience for their visitors?

I used to work in a department store. We always thought about whether
the store was shoppable, because shoppable meant more sales. Maybe it is
different with groceries than it is with clothes.

Sometimes, but don't forget about edible underwear...

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds