I'm focusing on the fact that I think the one on the right is style over function. Based on the jquery hiding the select box and displaying a list of spans (or something similar, depending how you go about it). Either way, the original select box is mutated all for a simple change of aesthetic.
So my question is focused on the designed/engineered implementation of the select box. I was interested if anyone would bring this up or agree/disagree.
On principal, I see this as the equivalent of printing a white piece of paper with a black background. Thoughts?
Thanks for clarifying your question. So, if I get it right this time, we're talking about the design of the behind-the-scene stuff (code), regardless of the appearance.
Definitely, the code on the left appears to be a better solution. At least, since "your code is my hell", I'd rather be presented with the code on the left.
But, as you know, there are ways to encapsulate the code on the right so that it is exposed just like (or pretty close to) the one on the left if you really need to.
Very interesting to hear you say that. Why do you feel that way? I mean obviously users can't come up with a cohesive design, but they can certainly tell you when it's good or when it sucks...I mean I think...
Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the full page. It was the first browser to do so - it don't require a lite version. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the full depth of the page. Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that."
That's your main reason for not having a mobile site?
In terms of usability, zooming in on a mobile device to click on a website designed for a desktop browser is a nightmare. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It results in a horrible experience.
That's your main reason for not having a mobile site
No. I never said that. We do have a Mobile site. If you're not going to read the comment please state tl;dr so I can save replying and just go to bed.
I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like.
I am also adding: We did find that a larger chunk of users preferred the regular Homepage on their iPhones and did NOT want to go to the Mobile version.
Side note:
In terms of usability, zooming in to click on a website designed
for a desktop browser is a nightmare. Just because it can be done,
doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It results in a horrible
experience.
Agreed. It wasn't done because it could be done. You may not like this choice. However, this wasn't about what you or I or the Times wanted, this was about our readers and what they wanted.
NOTE:
I keep saying "we" as in the Times and I. I don't work there any more but the strongest force in the universes is still the force of habit. Apologies.
That justification is more acceptable, but still a poor excuse (which doesn't sound like your fault), and if anything highlights the problem with the focus of user-centered design.
I'm sure you'd agree, design isn't a democracy. Clearly, your users are wrong.
Mobile sites suck; I detest when I get redirected to them on my Android phone. About the only time they are justified is when the site is heavily dependent on mouse hovering and other desktop-centric interaction idioms.
"I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like."
My point still stands. Just because Apple give you the choice to pinch and zoom doesn't mean that's the way it should be.
The fact you already have a mobile site but choose not to put it to its full use baffles me even further.
Please re-read my response. I said it is what our readers wanted. Readers. Sometimes your audience isn't always right and you have to deal with that and show them the way (like Apple), but was not one of those cases.
To re-iterate: OUR READERS WANTED THE HOMEPAGE AND NOT THE MOBILE SITE ON THEIR IPHONES.
Personally I dislike it when a site redirects me to some mobile version (often breaking the permalink and sending me to the main page). I think a URL should render the same no matter what browser it is being viewed from.
A bunch of CSS3 animations whizzing around the page is the last thing we need. (Though it's likely to happen as people go crazy with new capabilities).
But with a bit of constraint these can be used to add value, simply the difference between good and bad design.
Simple HTML markup with a bit of CSS position would be a huge step up from flat jpegs, particularly as far as type is concerned.
I merely make a comparison between the early days, intentions and motives of both Google+ and Facebook, how they're different and why I think that difference is important.
Innovation isn't the only thing that leads to success, not by a long shot. Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.
People don't use Google search because it's innovative, and people don't use Facebook because it innovated and people won't make their decisions on Google+ based on its innovations.
> Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.
Not if it's something people don't need or want in the first place.
If Google have 'innovated' then it means they've created something original and new that is useful for people. Only time will tell, but my personal opinion, based on what I've seen so far is they haven't.
Well yes, if the users don't want the product then nothing else matters, but I don't see what that has to do with innovation.
I have no problem with your argument that Google+ will need to be useful in some sense to be successful, but originality is hardly necessary for that to be the case.
If what they're going for is "Like Facebook, but better!" then they certainly are going to have a difficult time convincing many users to switch, but I wouldn't say it's anything approaching impossible.
Have Google really built Google+ out of a real human need/problem? I don't think so.
I'm not excusing Facebook and how they make money today. These aren't the same motives that influenced their reason for being, which were a lot more focused on people and universities.
There's general misrepresentation throughout this conversation and the article that design is merely a veneer that you either choose to implement or not at some point.
Design is about solving problems, and a design led company/individual adopts a certain mind frame that often tends to contrast that of the engineer.
If you're designing a consumer product and your engineered concept works so well that you can actually consider whether or not you 'design' it, well, lucky you.
