Bronz Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 All fair points, Mark. Which is why I reiterated that design is subjective and focussed my comments on the build. You may not like my sites' design, but you're not its target demographic. I'm okay with that. To someone with an eye for (web) typography and/or other web designers then it gets liked. You are also correct in the clients choosing 'a site like the one you did for so-and-so'. Cox seem to have used this to cleverly sew up the entire commercial trials market, it seems. Fair play to them on the business front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 You are also correct in the clients choosing 'a site like the one you did for so-and-so'. Cox seem to have used this to cleverly sew up the entire commercial trials market, it seems. Fair play to them on the business front. Easy tiger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 You may not like my sites' design, but you're not its target demographic. I'm okay with that. To someone with an eye for (web) typography and/or other web designers then it gets liked. As it happens, I do like typography and I'm pretty interested in design in general. Nevertheless: You are also correct in the clients choosing 'a site like the one you did for so-and-so'. Cox seem to have used this to cleverly sew up the entire commercial trials market, it seems. Fair play to them on the business front. I don't quite follow that - you seem to be implying that Cox are somehow behind people using their sites, yet the 'commercial trials market' has a free choice for which sites to go for? It's not like Cox have demanded people use their sites, or their particular designs, people go to them because they want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronz Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) Easy tiger! Apologies, the entire commercial trials website market As it happens, I do like typography and I'm pretty interested in design in general. Nevertheless… What, web typography? I don't quite follow that - you seem to be implying that Cox are somehow behind people using their sites, yet the 'commercial trials market' has a free choice for which sites to go for? It's not like Cox have demanded people use their sites, or their particular designs, people go to them because they want to. No what I'm saying is that they've obviously got a very good client-base in the trials industry. Established a name for themselves by doing Trials Site A, which gets seen by the people wanting Trials Site B, then the people starting up Trials Site C see Trials Site A and Trials Site B and think 'Well we'll use Cox too…' if that makes sense? Edited June 25, 2010 by Bronz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamR28 Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 http://www.inspiredbicycles.com/newsletter_unsubscribe.php?email=';<script>alert('DODGY SCRIPT!!!')</script> That example is fairly harmless but if you were to insert some malicious code (SQL) there's a chance you could destroy an entire database. Dave@CoxWebDesign says: "All of the sql injection attack attempts are addressed through the PHP code using PDO before anything is written to the database. The only result that kind of hack will achieve is altering the output shown to the particular user that is trying to hack the site." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronz Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 Dave@CoxWebDesign says: "All of the sql injection attack attempts are addressed through the PHP code using PDO before anything is written to the database. The only result that kind of hack will achieve is altering the output shown to the particular user that is trying to hack the site." Well that's okay then. Still a teeny bit shoddy, but safe at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 What, web typography? I don't recall typing "web" before typography, so I guess I just meant typography. No what I'm saying is that they've obviously got a very good client-base in the trials industry. Established a name for themselves by doing Trials Site A, which gets seen by the people wanting Trials Site B, then the people starting up Trials Site C see Trials Site A and Trials Site B and think 'Well we'll use Cox too…' if that makes sense? Cool, that makes more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 (edited) Actually f**k it, no wayyyy I'm getting involved.... Edited June 25, 2010 by Muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 Actually f**k it, no wayyyy I'm getting involved.... Go on Sam, you know you want to! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 Well I'm kinda in the middle of both "sides", so I'd just rather not get into the proper gritty details. Design wise, I don't don't particularly like it but I don't dislike it, it gets the words and images into my face without annoying me, so it's doing it's job really, even if it is a little 2003. I'm sure Cox have their reasons for coding it how they have, and while I don't agree in places and I'd do it slightly differently, I don't actually care enough to expand. There's only one glaring "error" in my opinion, (which is actually subjective anyway), and I'm sure if Dave actually wanted to hear it he'd get in touch. All in all, it does the job fine if you ask me, but it'd do well to have a bit of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Wood Posted June 25, 2010 Report Share Posted June 25, 2010 Oh my lord where are my skrimps. Jesus who gives a shit if a tiny piece of code is wrong and build is 'shoddy' if I, the intended user, can go look at pictures of some lovely Inspired produce and pictures of Ali C's cute bum? All this talk of design and quality and bullshit doesn't matter when the website WORKS and I get what I want from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronz Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Time and again I've said I'm looking at this as a web developer. The site has (albeit not too massive) accessibility issues so for some people the site won't work, and they won't be able to get what they want from it. Take for example the blind rider (don't know his name), he could struggle using the Inspired site as it's not as accessible as it could be. Unless you have a full working knowledge of accessibility and web standards you cannot argue me on this one. People are arguing cases they do not even understand. Ask Muel, he's seen me talk about accessibility first hand. I know my stuff, I'm not being a dick or whatever, this is inescapable fact. This has honestly gone too far, people trying to argue on topics they have no understanding of. Just try to accept that my profession and my persistence show that I may just be right… this really is becoming farcical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Thats what I was getting at without going into detail. Nick, of course it matters if the build and code are shoddy. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone. If you ask me the role of a web designer is to build sites that can be viewed by all potential viewers. This new inspired site can't be navigated by someone using a high visibility browser or a screen reader. There is at least one rider who will won't be able to use the site, and if you ask me it needs sorting just for his sake. If he wanted to view the site he should be able to! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 lol @ this thread. Site looks ok, works ok, client is happy. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Take for example the blind rider (don't know his name), he could struggle using the Inspired site as it's not as accessible as it could be. Wait... what is a blind person going to get from a website? Any website? Last time I checked you couldn't get a Braille monitor so my guess is the internet's pretty useless to someone who can't see... From another perspective I'm guessing that one blind rider in the world isn't really going to influence how someone's going to design their site. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 (edited) Never heard of speakers Dave? You use a screen reading program to read the page out loud to you. Images can't be read though, so the links are useless. Same with partially sighted people who would be using a high visibility browser, it shows only the text, so if the links are image, they can't be viewed. There are a million analogies I could come up with, but websites are like any consumer product, you never know who is going to buy (or in this case, use) them, but is that any excuse for just aiming for the masses? You need to cater for everyone, and yes actually by law now believe it or not. If a blind or deaf person believes you are discriminating against them by not having your site accessible to them, they can take you to court over it. It's in the immensely interesting Disability Discrimination Act which I had to read for a presentation I did at uni. (Actually I met Harry on the back of that as well). All the cases have been dropped so far though because whenever it came up, the companies quickly sorted their sites out. Interestingly, you can actually get a braille monitor. It puts pins up for each letter so you can read it as a printout. Obviously a lot of design is subjective, but there are guidelines for best practice out there that have been approved by the RNIB (Royal National Institute for the Blind) and the DRC (Disability Rights Commission). Anyway I'm done, as I've said before 99% of the site is fine, just the remaining 1% would stop any blind person from viewing it. This isn't new legislation either, it's been around since 2002. Edited June 26, 2010 by Muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronz Posted June 26, 2010 Report Share Posted June 26, 2010 Wait... what is a blind person going to get from a website? Any website? Last time I checked you couldn't get a Braille monitor so my guess is the internet's pretty useless to someone who can't see... From another perspective I'm guessing that one blind rider in the world isn't really going to influence how someone's going to design their site. It's ignorance like that that makes me wonder why you're even trying to argue this in the first place. I met Sam because he wanted to come talk to me about accessibility—I know my stuff… But yeah, everything Sam says is right. Also, try Googling 'Target website lawsuit'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Metcalfe Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 (edited) Irials-forum - where everyone has an opinion - unless it clashes with a mod - then its wrooooooooooooooooooooooooonnggggggg! just out of curriousty - does anyone have bronz's facebook? do me a favour and look at his last few status's brand new bike brand new parts brand new ipad sent from facebook for iphone Hmmm dont think he gets all this cool stuff from a paper round.. maybe his proffesion is a web developer and he knows what he is talking about? earning a shitload of money for being - (just a guess) good at his job? I wouldnt go to a garage and tell the mechanic how to rebuild my engine But i would comment on how it worked afterwords look at it this way lets say if i worked for a bike shop - and saw a wheel build that was absolutly shocking that flexed when you rode it and no tension held in the spoke - but if it looked okay to just look at - would that be a good wheel........ apparently so ... but not a good wheel build yes? Harry builds websites - so i think he is perfectly within his rights to comment on a web build mmmmkay? Edited June 27, 2010 by Danny Metcalfe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 People are arguing cases they do not even understand. Ask Muel, he's seen me talk about accessibility first hand. I know my stuff, I'm not being a dick or whatever, this is inescapable fact. This has honestly gone too far, people trying to argue on topics they have no understanding of. Just try to accept that my profession and my persistence show that I may just be right… this really is becoming farcical Oh get off your f**king high horse, you sound asbolutely pathetic. This thread started as a debate on design, you're slowly grasping at things the 'every day user' wouldn't understand, please. Accessibility? Yeah, I'm sure thats what Joe Public creates websites in mind for. BBC maybe, trials riding, certainly not. The idea of putting a website on here was to get feedback on design and fuctionality. So far, as the 'experienced' one of the forum I've seen none of that. I wish John Mack was still on the forum, he actually used his knowledge to help, not take the piss. Sure, I don't have a f**king clue about web design, however I'm looking out for a bike, I'm the target audience and it works! What more go you want? Danny, Ah right, Ipad, Iphone, bike and parts....must be good at his job. I know people with all that and a car and mortgage on a packing job. Nobody suggested he was shit at his job, it's just his attitude and his holy status because he's a f**king web designer. Wow. How about using your knowledge to give useful advice and tips rather than little comments like you did first off? It's nothing to do with jealousy or anything like that before you ram your head even more up your own arse, it's the way you talk to people like their a different class of people. But if that's how web designers behave, I'm glad I went down the administrator route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) In an attempt to add something constructive to the Build comments, not Design. (I don't feel I'm experienced enough to comment on the design because it's not as black and white as the build): Accessibility? Yeah, I'm sure thats what Joe Public creates websites in mind for. BBC maybe, trials riding, certainly not. The idea of putting a website on here was to get feedback on design and fuctionality. IMO accessibility and functionality go hand in hand. If any user wants to get some information out of the site you're designing, they should be able to, regardless of physical/mental disability, or device/browser/connection setup. (As mentioned earlier, it is also the law and you can be prosecuted for it, so if you're designing a site for a client, if you ask me it's up to you to make sure it's legal.) One thing I hear all the time is designers saying, "I don't code for IE6 any more, it's old and depreciated". The browser usage stats show that anywhere between 10-25% of people still use IE6, so IMO they should definately be catered for. (As should all browsers). Another thing I see all the time is websites that don't cater for the most common disability related to sight, which is colour blindness. Apparantly 1 in 10 people in the UK suffer from it, and it's so easy to cater for them, you just need to remember what colours should never go near each other. Mobile browsers are being used more and more, on phones with 3G internet connections, so they also should be catered for. How about just good old fasioned old age? My Dad has had his eyes tested in the last 6 months, and the optician said his eyes were fine, and well within the top boundary. Yet he struggles to read the Radio Times, because the print keeps getting smaller. He has the same problem with 10pt and below text on a screen, and you can be sure there are older people out there that are worse, so the lowest I go for a block of text is 14pt, sometimes I use 16pt. Again, so easy to cater for. (Also if you can teach them how to zoom into a site or use a lower res as my Grandparents now do it makes life easier still for them). Using images as navigation links, (this is where the inspired site falls down IMO, other than that I think it's fine); a partially sighted user will usually be using either a high visability browser, (which I do actually test with when browser testing), or a screen reader. This again is so easy to cater for, just put text into the site as text, apart from where it is decorational. The navigation is functional, not decorational, so if you ask me it should be left as text so that a screen ready/high vis browser can read it. What about if for some reasion, the images don't download properly? Better to stick with links as text if you ask me. As you can see, the Inspired site is perfectly fine on nearly all of my "checklist", bar one point, which can be easily fixed. Just put the image as a background of each button div, position the text in the centre, float them all left inside a container and life is good. Please remember this is all my opinion, I've only been in this game properly for about a year, so not exactly experienced. Just offering my musings. Edited June 28, 2010 by Muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 This thread made my morning. Just a note, not everyone in the web industry is like Bronz, thankfully. The last person like Bronz at my work, in fact, got fired, and i hope Muel, for your sake that you only adopt his knowledge, not his attitude and mind set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronz Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 The side of me you've seen here is my response to sheer, unashamed ignorance from people arguing points they have zero knowledge of. People who are willing to listen and want constructive feedback and whatnot are definitely the kind of people I help. I am known by my peers for being helpful; people I work(ed) with, I'm sure (I hope) Muel would agree in terms of what me and my colleagues could offer him and his mates. I have written industry recognised articles for free purely to help people. I won an informal award for being the 'Most Helpful Member*' on a large design forum. I help people recode entire websites for free when they politely ask for and appreciate help. I regularly help people out via Twitter etc when they run into issues. Ask Tristan (onzatrip) and Rowan on here just how helpful I was to them when they wanted advice. What do all these people have in common? A bit of respect and a polite desire to be helped. None of them were as blatantly ignorant and rude as certain participants in this topic. Politeness shall be met with politeness, and quite frankly, the majority of people in this thread have exhibited nothing but ignorance and blatant lack-of-caring. However, if anyone has, through this thread, managed to get a less-then-favourable view of me then that's sincerely regrettable. I'd like to prove you otherwise but that all depends on whether the damage is irreparable. I would genuinely consider myself a nice guy, and hope that anyone who knows me personally would also agree. I just react badly to stubborn ignorance. *This award has no tangible worth, but it does illustrate the fact that, despite your skewed opinions, I am not a total twat. All the best, H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 earning a shitload of money for being - (just a guess) good at his job? Word. Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Frank Lampard and co. are all super well paid which is precisely why we're still in the Worl- Just a joke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Metcalfe Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 Word. Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Frank Lampard and co. are all super well paid which is precisely why we're still in the Worl- Just a joke... Made my day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.