By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,370 Members | 1,534 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,370 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Mysterious link on a page

P: n/a
On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a small
line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one of the
buttons. I have no idea how this line got in there and would appreciate
anyone checking it out for a clue that I may be missing. The page is at
http://www.ultimateinsurancejobs.com/test2/login1.asp The line is between
the Register and Lost Password buttons, and links to the same page as the
Register button.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
28 Replies


P: n/a
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Glenn Alcott
<ga*****@nyc.rr.com> said:
On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a small
line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one of the
buttons.


Did you try validating the page?
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...st2/login1.asp
(watch wrapping)

That would have told you (amongst other things) that you are missing the
</a> on both the links (errors 8 and 10-13).

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 24 '05 #2

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<wj******************@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented Glenn Alcott
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a small
line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one of the
buttons. I have no idea how this line got in there and would appreciate
anyone checking it out for a clue that I may be missing. The page is at
http://www.ultimateinsurancejobs.com/test2/login1.asp The line is between
the Register and Lost Password buttons, and links to the same page as the
Register button.


This page is full of a lot of javascript crap, &nbsp; and other
screw-ups, images are used for lost password and register links
without any alt texts, and is pretty much lousy overall.
However, perhaps your problem is that you haven't closed the A
tags for lost password and register. You may not understand
what that means, judging from the rest of this document. It
means when you have <a href> you have to have </a> and you
cannot nest <a href> tags.

--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/
Dynamic linking error: Your mistake is now everywhere.
Jul 24 '05 #3

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<sl*********************@goodwill.io.com>,
the lovely and talented Lars Eighner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
In our last episode,
<wj******************@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented Glenn Alcott
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a small
line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one of the
buttons. I have no idea how this line got in there and would appreciate
anyone checking it out for a clue that I may be missing. The page is at
http://www.ultimateinsurancejobs.com/test2/login1.asp The line is between
the Register and Lost Password buttons, and links to the same page as the
Register button.

This page is full of a lot of javascript crap, &nbsp; and other
screw-ups, images are used for lost password and register links
without any alt texts, and is pretty much lousy overall.
However, perhaps your problem is that you haven't closed the A
tags for lost password and register. You may not understand
what that means, judging from the rest of this document. It
means when you have <a href> you have to have </a> and you
cannot nest <a href> tags.


Not to mention you have </td</tr>. Have you ever heard of a
validator? Are you getting paid for this???
--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague
Jul 24 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl*********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<sl*********************@goodwill.io.com>,
the lovely and talented Lars Eighner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
In our last episode,
<wj******************@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented Glenn Alcott
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a small line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one of the buttons. I have no idea how this line got in there and would appreciate
anyone checking it out for a clue that I may be missing. The page is at
http://www.ultimateinsurancejobs.com/test2/login1.asp The line is between the Register and Lost Password buttons, and links to the same page as the Register button.

This page is full of a lot of javascript crap, &nbsp; and other
screw-ups, images are used for lost password and register links
without any alt texts, and is pretty much lousy overall.
However, perhaps your problem is that you haven't closed the A
tags for lost password and register. You may not understand
what that means, judging from the rest of this document. It
means when you have <a href> you have to have </a> and you
cannot nest <a href> tags.


Not to mention you have </td</tr>. Have you ever heard of a
validator? Are you getting paid for this???
--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com

http://www.larseighner.com/ War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague


I really don't appreciate the snide tone of your comments. First of all, I
did not create this page
but am fixing up someone else's work. The "javascript crap" is a menu
system - hardly what I
would call crap! And I do understand missing closing tags - they just got
lost somehow and I
didn't see it because I was tired. The </td</tr> was a typo - don't those
happen to you?
Your condescending attitude is really offensive.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #5

P: n/a
Once upon a time *Glenn Alcott* wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl*********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<sl*********************@goodwill.io.com>,
the lovely and talented Lars Eighner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
> In our last episode,
><wj******************@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> the lovely and talented Glenn Alcott
> broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

>> On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a small >> line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one of the >> buttons. I have no idea how this line got in there and would appreciate
>> anyone checking it out for a clue that I may be missing. The page is at
>> http://www.ultimateinsurancejobs.com/test2/login1.asp The line is between >> the Register and Lost Password buttons, and links to the same page as the >> Register button.

> This page is full of a lot of javascript crap, &nbsp; and other
> screw-ups, images are used for lost password and register links
> without any alt texts, and is pretty much lousy overall.
> However, perhaps your problem is that you haven't closed the A
> tags for lost password and register. You may not understand
> what that means, judging from the rest of this document. It
> means when you have <a href> you have to have </a> and you
> cannot nest <a href> tags.


Not to mention you have </td</tr>. Have you ever heard of a
validator? Are you getting paid for this???
--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com

http://www.larseighner.com/
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague


I really don't appreciate the snide tone of your comments. First of all, I
did not create this page
but am fixing up someone else's work. The "javascript crap" is a menu
system - hardly what I
would call crap! And I do understand missing closing tags - they just got
lost somehow and I
didn't see it because I was tired. The </td</tr> was a typo - don't those
happen to you?
Your condescending attitude is really offensive.


The errors may not be yours. But honestly, the validator at W3C could
have told you what's wrong in the matter of your questions. So, did
you validate the page before posting here?

And no matter who wrote it or put it on the page, the Javascript menu
system is crap. My JS Consol told me this on several lines:

"Warning: Non-standard Global Element reference was used. Use W3C
standard document.getElementById() instead.
Source File:
http://www.provant.be/jeugd/Lay-out%...linkermenu.htm

BTW, as you may know, directories (folders) and file names should not
have spaces in them, as you can see above. So you can maybe fix that
to, since you are on "fixing up someone else's work"? :)

--
/Arne

Top posters will be ignored. Quote the part you
are replying to, no more and no less! And don't
quote signatures, thank you.
Jul 24 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Arne" <in*****@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f************@individual.net...
Once upon a time *Glenn Alcott* wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl*********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<sl*********************@goodwill.io.com>,
the lovely and talented Lars Eighner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

> In our last episode,
><wj******************@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> the lovely and talented Glenn Alcott
> broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

>> On a page I am working on which has three graphic buttons, there is a
small
>> line between two of the buttons which links to the same page as one
of the
>> buttons. I have no idea how this line got in there and would
appreciate >> anyone checking it out for a clue that I may be missing. The page is at >> http://www.ultimateinsurancejobs.com/test2/login1.asp The line is between
>> the Register and Lost Password buttons, and links to the same page

as the
>> Register button.

> This page is full of a lot of javascript crap, &nbsp; and other
> screw-ups, images are used for lost password and register links
> without any alt texts, and is pretty much lousy overall.
> However, perhaps your problem is that you haven't closed the A
> tags for lost password and register. You may not understand
> what that means, judging from the rest of this document. It
> means when you have <a href> you have to have </a> and you
> cannot nest <a href> tags.

Not to mention you have </td</tr>. Have you ever heard of a
validator? Are you getting paid for this???
--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com

http://www.larseighner.com/
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague


I really don't appreciate the snide tone of your comments. First of all, I did not create this page
but am fixing up someone else's work. The "javascript crap" is a menu
system - hardly what I
would call crap! And I do understand missing closing tags - they just got lost somehow and I
didn't see it because I was tired. The </td</tr> was a typo - don't those happen to you?
Your condescending attitude is really offensive.


The errors may not be yours. But honestly, the validator at W3C could
have told you what's wrong in the matter of your questions. So, did
you validate the page before posting here?

And no matter who wrote it or put it on the page, the Javascript menu
system is crap. My JS Consol told me this on several lines:

"Warning: Non-standard Global Element reference was used. Use W3C
standard document.getElementById() instead.
Source File:

http://www.provant.be/jeugd/Lay-out%...linkermenu.htm
BTW, as you may know, directories (folders) and file names should not
have spaces in them, as you can see above. So you can maybe fix that
to, since you are on "fixing up someone else's work"? :)

--
/Arne


You're right, the validator probably would have been useful in this case.
But in the past I
have found it to list so many insignificant errors that it is hard to weed
out the important ones.
I just ran a few major commercial sites (Google, Yahoo, NY Times, Cnet, ABC
News) through the
validator and most of them had hundreds of errors - Cnet had over 2000! So
how can
you wade through all that to find what matters?

The Javascript menu I am using (http://www.milonic.com) may not validate
perfectly but that hardly
makes it crap. It works extremely well and is used on thousands of sites, as
are other similar systems.
Please get real here! By the standards you are using, almost any Javascript
on the web is probably crap,
and in fact most of the web is probably crap also. Fortunately, browsers are
tolerant so lots of this "crap"
ends up looking pretty good.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #7

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:
I really don't appreciate the snide tone of your comments. First of all,
I
did not create this page
but am fixing up someone else's work. The "javascript crap" is a menu
system - hardly what I
would call crap! And I do understand missing closing tags - they just
got
lost somehow and I
didn't see it because I was tired. The </td</tr> was a typo - don't
those
happen to you?
Not after validating the page...
Your condescending attitude is really offensive.

Welcome to Usenet! <insert flock of smileys>
You're right, the validator probably would have been useful in this case.
But in the past I
have found it to list so many insignificant errors that it is hard to weed
out the important ones.
I just ran a few major commercial sites (Google, Yahoo, NY Times, Cnet, ABC
News) through the
validator and most of them had hundreds of errors - Cnet had over 2000! So
how can
you wade through all that to find what matters?

The Javascript menu I am using (http://www.milonic.com) may not validate
perfectly but that hardly
makes it crap. It works extremely well and is used on thousands of sites, as
are other similar systems.
Please get real here! By the standards you are using, almost any Javascript
on the web is probably crap,
and in fact most of the web is probably crap also. Fortunately, browsers are
tolerant so lots of this "crap"
ends up looking pretty good.


Do realize that your JavaScript menu will not be found or be usable by
~10% of your visitors - those who disable it or where it is not
available in their browsers.

Your most important visitor - the Googlebot - will not be able to
follow your links.

Please fix your newsreader's line length to something around 80
characters or less.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:zb******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...

Do realize that your JavaScript menu will not be found or be usable by
~10% of your visitors - those who disable it or where it is not
available in their browsers.

Your most important visitor - the Googlebot - will not be able to
follow your links.

Please fix your newsreader's line length to something around 80
characters or less.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.


Yes, I realize that some people disable JS (I've seen a few different
figures
but I don't think anyone really knows how many). But it's impossible to
create a functional site of this type, with data entry and a database back
end,
without using JS. If people disable it they are disabling a huge chunk of
the
web. As far as it not being available in browsers, when was the last browser
version that didn't have it? Maybe 7 or 8 years ago? I'm not going to worry
about that, for sure.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #9

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:
But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type, with
data entry and a database back end, without using JS.


No, it isn't.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 24 '05 #10

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:
You're right, the validator probably would have been useful in this
case. But in the past I have found it to list so many insignificant
errors that it is hard to weed out the important ones.
Write code that validates from the outset.
I just ran a few major commercial sites (Google, Yahoo, NY Times,
Cnet, ABC News) through the validator and most of them had hundreds
of errors - Cnet had over 2000! So how can you wade through all that
to find what matters?
Write code that validates from the outset. Others' bad examples are no
excuse for your own.
The Javascript menu I am using (http://www.milonic.com) may not
validate perfectly but that hardly makes it crap. It works extremely
well and is used on thousands of sites, as are other similar systems.
Please get real here! By the standards you are using, almost any
Javascript on the web is probably crap, and in fact most of the web
is probably crap also. Fortunately, browsers are tolerant so lots of
this "crap" ends up looking pretty good.


You're right, but if you want help here, make it good first. You are now
expecting *us* to wade through hundreds of errors to find the important one.

It is possible to write good JS. See:

http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/...ipt/index.html

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 24 '05 #11

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote
Please fix your newsreader's line length to something around 80
characters or less.

Please do look into setting your line length.
Yes, I realize that some people disable JS (I've seen a few different
figures
~10% give or take. Depending on JS for your business is like ...
shutting off your web server for about six weeks a year.
but I don't think anyone really knows how many). But it's impossible to
create a functional site of this type, with data entry and a database back
end,
without using JS.
<ROF,L> I write and maintain functional sites with data entry and
(obviously) a database back end, and I don't use JavaScript *anywhere*.
If people disable it they are disabling a huge chunk of
the
web. As far as it not being available in browsers, when was the last browser
version that didn't have it? Maybe 7 or 8 years ago? I'm not going to worry
about that, for sure.


It has been awhile since a major browser did not *have* JavaScript. It
has been just *today* when one of your potential customers *disabled
it* because of either security reasons, stupid popup windows, or other
trash that so many authors think is .. cool.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #12

P: n/a

"Mark Tranchant" <ma**@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
Glenn Alcott wrote:
But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type, with
data entry and a database back end, without using JS.


No, it isn't.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/


Maybe I'm missing something here but how can you do stuff like
client-side validation without JS?

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #13

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:
"Mark Tranchant" <ma**@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
Glenn Alcott wrote:
But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type,
with data entry and a database back end, without using JS.


No, it isn't.


Maybe I'm missing something here but how can you do stuff like
client-side validation without JS?


You still need to validate it on the server, therefore you do not
*need* the JavaScript. Consider it an enhancement.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #14

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote [in part]:

You're right, the validator probably would have been useful in this case.
But in the past I
have found it to list so many insignificant errors that it is hard to weed
out the important ones.
I just ran a few major commercial sites (Google, Yahoo, NY Times, Cnet, ABC
News) through the
validator and most of them had hundreds of errors - Cnet had over 2000! So
how can
you wade through all that to find what matters?


Please don't dismiss the W3C validator so easily.

You asked for help in finding out why a page seems to display
incorrectly. Before asking, your first step should indeed be
validating the page. The second step should be removing ALL errors
reported by the validator because that increases the ability of ALL
browsers to display your page appropriately.

When all HTML syntax errors are eliminated, it then becomes easier
to find the logical errors (those not detected by the validator)
that cause a page to display not as intended. Without you removing
the syntax errors reported by the validator, the rest of us cannot
really tell which of those errors is causing your problem.

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
Jul 24 '05 #15

P: n/a

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:oC******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Glenn Alcott wrote:
"Mark Tranchant" <ma**@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
Glenn Alcott wrote:

But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type,
with data entry and a database back end, without using JS.

No, it isn't.


Maybe I'm missing something here but how can you do stuff like
client-side validation without JS?


You still need to validate it on the server, therefore you do not
*need* the JavaScript. Consider it an enhancement.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.


It is usually much more convenient for the user to validate data entry
errors on the client when they don't require going to the server. It is
much more immediate and I would not give that up (neither would my
users!).

There are other instances where JS is essential, such as when you
need to do an instant calculation and display the result after the user
enters some data. I have designed order forms that work like this.

If people want to disable JS, that's their option although I think it's
dumb. But I put notices on my sites when necessary, saying that they will
have to enable it at least temporarily to use the site.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Glenn Alcott" <ga*****@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:oC******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com. ..
Glenn Alcott wrote:
> "Mark Tranchant" <ma**@tranchant.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:42***********************@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
>> Glenn Alcott wrote:
>>
>>> But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type,
>>> with data entry and a database back end, without using JS.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here but how can you do stuff like
> client-side validation without JS?
You still need to validate it on the server, therefore you do not
*need* the JavaScript. Consider it an enhancement.


It is usually much more convenient for the user to validate data entry
errors on the client when they don't require going to the server. It is
much more immediate and I would not give that up (neither would my
users!).


No one is asking you to give it up. You have to have validation on the
server side as well otherwise malicious users can bypass your
validation (either by simply disabling JS or by rewriting your page
code a little) and upload and data they like.

Once you have server side validation you can then add client side
validation as enhancement (as BTS called it) and a convenience (as you
call it). So for users with JS switched on the validation is faster,
but for users with JS switched off the form data is still validated.
There are other instances where JS is essential, such as when you
need to do an instant calculation and display the result after the user
enters some data. I have designed order forms that work like this.
Same principle. Do it server side first then add a JS version as an
enhancement. Everyone wins.
If people want to disable JS, that's their option although I think it's
dumb. But I put notices on my sites when necessary, saying that they will
have to enable it at least temporarily to use the site.


And your competitors who have sites that work without the user needing
to adjust their browser settings are very grateful for that.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 24 '05 #17

P: n/a
Steve Pugh wrote:
<>
...what I would have replied with, but you got there first. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 24 '05 #18

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:01:13 GMT, "Glenn Alcott" <ga*****@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
You're right, the validator probably would have been useful in this case.
But in the past I
have found it to list so many insignificant errors that it is hard to weed
out the important ones.


So our time is so unimportant that you can't waste your own time, but
you'll waste ours ?
I have sympathy for the newbie who can't understand a validator's report
(as they're far from easy to learn), but little sympathy for someone too
lazy to do so.

Jul 24 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:53:15 GMT, "Glenn Alcott" <ga*****@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type, with data entry and a database back
end, without using JS


"My site is uniquely sophisticated on all the web"

What rubbish.

Jul 24 '05 #20

P: n/a

"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:ai********************************@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:53:15 GMT, "Glenn Alcott" <ga*****@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type, with data entry and a database backend, without using JS


"My site is uniquely sophisticated on all the web"

What rubbish.


I'm afraid you've lost me here. What exactly are you calling rubbish?
Are you saying that my statement about using JS is equivalent to
claiming that my site is uniquely sophisticated? I don't see the connection,
and would certainly never make that laughable claim.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:01:03 GMT, "Glenn Alcott" <ga*****@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:
Are you saying that my statement about using JS is equivalent to
claiming that my site is uniquely sophisticated?
Yes. Other sites manage without that JS. Your site doesn't _need_ it.
It might _benefit_ from it, but that's a separate issue.

Your original comment:But it's impossible to create a functional site of this type, with data entry and a database back
end, without using JS.

is clearly false.
Jul 24 '05 #22

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:

most of the web is probably crap


A good deal of it is. However, authors and designers can make it less so
if they stop being so self-serving and start thinking a bit more about
their users. Note that users and clients are two separate groups, which
often have different requirements.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #23

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott writes:
Please get real here! By the standards you are using, almost any
Javascript on the web is probably crap, and in fact most of the web is
probably crap also.


Yes. And some sites are quite good. The trick is to find the good
ones without wasting too much time on the bad ones. So many of us
develop a low tolerance for craptitude, and various ways - conscious
or not - to notice that this is a site we are not interested in.

Having poor and not very accessible content quite often goes hand in
hand with broken HTML/Javascript, which is one reason turning off
Javascript can be quite useful - to help notice sites one is not
interested in wasting time on. Other reasons to leave a site quickly
are annoying pop-ups, pages with keep changing to catch users'
attention (like your test2/index.html), etc. Though tools like
Adblock can help.

Another thing which loses a lot of users is when the home page takes
too long to load - e.g. if the home page has many images. I saw some
test statistics once for home page size (including images) vs. how
many users left without going further than the home page, and it was
clear that "too long" is a very short time, maybe too long for
test2/index.html.

--
Hallvard
Jul 24 '05 #24

P: n/a

"Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.**********@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
news:hb**************@bombur.uio.no...
Glenn Alcott writes:
Please get real here! By the standards you are using, almost any
Javascript on the web is probably crap, and in fact most of the web is
probably crap also.


Yes. And some sites are quite good. The trick is to find the good
ones without wasting too much time on the bad ones. So many of us
develop a low tolerance for craptitude, and various ways - conscious
or not - to notice that this is a site we are not interested in.

Having poor and not very accessible content quite often goes hand in
hand with broken HTML/Javascript, which is one reason turning off
Javascript can be quite useful - to help notice sites one is not
interested in wasting time on. Other reasons to leave a site quickly
are annoying pop-ups, pages with keep changing to catch users'
attention (like your test2/index.html), etc. Though tools like
Adblock can help.

Another thing which loses a lot of users is when the home page takes
too long to load - e.g. if the home page has many images. I saw some
test statistics once for home page size (including images) vs. how
many users left without going further than the home page, and it was
clear that "too long" is a very short time, maybe too long for
test2/index.html.

--
Hallvard


When you talk about "pages which keep changing" in reference to my site,
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it the little Java animation at the bottom?
That's the only thing that keeps changing. I don't like it myself but the
client wanted it. Believe it or not, they make money from it because the
companies mentioned in the animation pay to be there.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #25

P: n/a

"Hallvard B Furuseth" <h.**********@usit.uio.no> wrote in message
news:hb**************@bombur.uio.no...
Glenn Alcott writes:
Please get real here! By the standards you are using, almost any
Javascript on the web is probably crap, and in fact most of the web is
probably crap also.


Yes. And some sites are quite good. The trick is to find the good
ones without wasting too much time on the bad ones. So many of us
develop a low tolerance for craptitude, and various ways - conscious
or not - to notice that this is a site we are not interested in.

Having poor and not very accessible content quite often goes hand in
hand with broken HTML/Javascript, which is one reason turning off
Javascript can be quite useful - to help notice sites one is not
interested in wasting time on. Other reasons to leave a site quickly
are annoying pop-ups, pages with keep changing to catch users'
attention (like your test2/index.html), etc. Though tools like
Adblock can help.

Another thing which loses a lot of users is when the home page takes
too long to load - e.g. if the home page has many images. I saw some
test statistics once for home page size (including images) vs. how
many users left without going further than the home page, and it was
clear that "too long" is a very short time, maybe too long for
test2/index.html.

--
Hallvard


When you talk about "pages which keep changing" in reference to my site,
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it the little Java animation at the bottom?
That's the only thing that keeps changing. I don't like it myself but the
client wanted it. Believe it or not, they make money from it because the
companies mentioned in the animation pay to be there.

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #26

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:

When you talk about "pages which keep changing" in reference to my site,
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it the little Java animation at the bottom?
That's the only thing that keeps changing. I don't like it myself but the
client wanted it. Believe it or not, they make money from it because the
companies mentioned in the animation pay to be there.


Well, they get income from it -- which isn't necessarily the same thing.
It's possible that it drives away enough visitors to lose them more
money that that amount of income.

Dave

Jul 24 '05 #27

P: n/a

"Dave Anderson" <da**@daveanderson.com> wrote in message
news:3Y********************@speakeasy.net...
Glenn Alcott wrote:
>
When you talk about "pages which keep changing" in reference to my site,
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it the little Java animation at the bottom? That's the only thing that keeps changing. I don't like it myself but the client wanted it. Believe it or not, they make money from it because the
companies mentioned in the animation pay to be there.


Well, they get income from it -- which isn't necessarily the same thing.
It's possible that it drives away enough visitors to lose them more
money that that amount of income.

Dave

Is there any research to support the idea that stuff like this drives
people away or is it just speculation?

Glenn
Jul 24 '05 #28

P: n/a
Glenn Alcott wrote:
"Dave Anderson" <da**@daveanderson.com> wrote in message
news:3Y********************@speakeasy.net...
Glenn Alcott wrote:
When you talk about "pages which keep changing" in reference to my site,
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it the little Java animation at the
bottom?That's the only thing that keeps changing. I don't like it myself but
the
client wanted it. Believe it or not, they make money from it because the
companies mentioned in the animation pay to be there.


Well, they get income from it -- which isn't necessarily the same thing.
It's possible that it drives away enough visitors to lose them more
money that that amount of income.


Is there any research to support the idea that stuff like this drives
people away or is it just speculation?


I don't know. Sorry.

Anecdotally, it definitely makes it more likely that *I'll* leave.

Dave

Jul 24 '05 #29

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.