|
|
Posted by jojo on 07/07/06 20:17
Chris Tomlinson wrote:
> We appreciate your thoughts, but over 80% of a random selection of
> people felt it was a good idea in our market research. We are not
> here to gather more opinions at this late stage, and obviously will
> not drop the idea because someone
ore more than one
> on an HTML group says they don't want to use it. It is not aimed at
> your market group so this is fair enough.
Yes, I understood. It's just very difficult to think like the people who
would use this ;-)
>
> To answer your question 'why', tell us how else you could 'walk along'
> 5th Avenue New York, and pop into Tiffany's, if you live in London.
Hard to imagine, too, because I do not live in London..
> In fact you can literally put on your dressing gown and have
> breakfast, at Tiffany's. We think this is pretty cool. Sorry you don't.
I didn't say that it isn't cool. I just said that I cannot see any use
of this.
>
>>> >> At least 50%.
>> >
>> > I personally do not believe this figure.
>
> That is okay, other reports say 60% in the markets we are targetting ;)
Depends on the country...
>
>>> >> Perhaps we could add aliens and laser fire to the streets ;)
>> >
>> > Yes, not a bad idea at all. And the aliens than can destroy the
>> street and the customers have to stop them... sounds like a nice
>> idea for a computer game! Perhaps you better invent games than
>> virtual streets, I'm convinced that would draw more people's
>> attention.
>
> Thanks! :)
You're welcome! But before you start programming a game perhaps it would
be useful first to finish this site (to get some experience...).
Nut after that.. Why not? If you find any editor which could do the
coding for you...
>>> We researched Flash thoroughly, however sadly recreating Oxford
>>> Street in photo-quality as you will see in our site over the next
>>> month would simply be close to impossible, and incredibly
>>> painstaking using texture bits. And that's just one street! We
>>> wish to add dozens.
>> >
>> > Sounds like: As far as we do not have much work everything will be
>> fine.
>
> In a way but you have misunderstood -- the more work there is to do
> per street, the less streets there will be to explore. What about the
> comic shop districts in Tokyo, what about Paris, or Rodéo Drive.
Just a question of preference. Maybe some people would prefer one real
good simulated street than 20 bad ones...
> The researched way is the quickest and most realistic. All it relies
> on is increasingly common broadband connections. We are not going to
> spoil it for those able to get broadband by designing it for dial-up.
Yes, you said this before. As said above: it actually depends on the
country if there are enough users with broadband.
>
>> I advise you to take a little more time to improve your site.
>> Maybe, if you work hard on it, it will be fine before broadband
>> spread that much.
>
> Again, it's not even launched yet, just a beta, and we are here to do
> just that! :-S
Good luck again!
>
>>> This was a decision made intentionally and knowingly, to preserve
>>> the ease of building new streets using photo-realism instead of
>>> Flash simulations.
>>
>> And why?
>
> Because people who prefer real high streets, but miss out on the web
> deals, showed a desire to have photo-realistic streets that looked and
> sounded exactly like those they knew or could never visit in real life.
I think I have to accept your market research because I do not have any
equivalent proof against it...
>
> And it's not just a shopping site, so for virtual tours do you want to
> go to a computer-game like 5th Avenue, or the real thing? The answer
> is pretty obvious. Even if it takes 15 seconds to load, or longer on
> dial-up, it is quicker than flying to NY.
You're right in this point, nothing to say against it.
>
>> > So why almost everybody here tries to stop you developing that kind
>> of > page if all people could not wait for it?
>
> This group is the only negative feedback the idea gets, but we notice
> a lot of people's ideas that are posted here get negative reactions.
> You tell me why...
I can just guess... Sometimes I get very negative or even unkind
reactions to my posts, too. But only if they are not 100% correct...
Perhaps it is the fact that people always think to know everything but
do it wrong... I your term it would be the fact that you really have no
idea about HTML or CSS, do you? But you use it and if someone tries to
correct the (often really extremely wrong) code which FrontPage uses you
just point out that it is a beta... Some kind of arogant, isn't it?
>
>>> As I said before: I've got DSL 2000 (so it's not the lowest speed),
>>> but the site still takes about have a minute up to a minute to load.
>
> There must be something very wrong somewhere. We test on 2Mb
> connections and it loads in 7 seconds with a clear cache. Several
> other computers also all come in under 15 seconds. Our testers all
> load in around 10 seconds even on 0.5Mb.
>
> You say it takes up to a minute.
I found the problem, it was a FF extension... "UnPlug". this extension
searches the site for any multimedia content and provides links to
download the source. And there is so much multimedia on your page that
it needed quite a long time to analyze the code (and even longer because
of your code (Tags not closed, more than one HTML-Tag, ... Yes, I know,
it's beta.)
>
> It is bizarre here how all our testers report good speeds and all our
> market research showed 80% positive response, yet *just* at this
> newsgroup a few people hate the idea, need an afternoon to learn how
> to use it
Perhaps he just had no other argument but wanted to show his object to
your idea... Or perhaps it really is a little bit intricate...
> and can't load it on 2Mb broadband in under a minute! That might give
> you
> some psychology to answer your earlier question why everyone here is
> against it. You tell me why..
I did.
>
>> > When I install a game that takes maybe 5 minutes (if it isn't to
>> big which > a street simulation certainly is not). And after
>> installing I can use it > as often as I want to.
>
> The same applies to your web cache. Even when the cache is emptied of
> it, you can still use it 25 times before it becomes slower than the 5
> minute game install. That's fine by most people.
I do not really think the idea of the game was ever meant serious... I
guess it was just a try to point out that such a project perhaps exceeds
the possibilities of the Internet.
>
>> > As I said before: the thing which takes the most time to load at my
>> > computer is the sound.
>
> The sound is 100K. The street is 300-400K per slice. We'd appreciate
> any technical feedback from you as to why your findings might be.
> Thanks.
As I said above: I found the problem. It might disappear if your code is
cleaned up.
>
>> > Of course you *can* do. all we are about to tell you is *please
>> don't do*. > (or at least not this way)
>
> A bit late for that, and it's not what we're here asking so let's
> agree to disagree.
I agree, a bit late. If you just had asked earlier...
>
>> And if you scroll before the rest is loaded the browser crashes...
>> Really nice!
>
> You obviously have some problem understanding that the site is in
> beta, we didn't ask for any testing, and we are here asking one
> question about JPG loading. But hey, insult it anyway. Bizarre.
Al right, I do not test it anymore. And if there might be problems you
do not find (perhaps because they just appear at users with a special
setting or browser/OS combination) than they will stay in your code...
>
>> And if someone does not want to buy anything in the first shop he
>> has to wait. Nice, too!
>
> Or she. (It's not the first shop then they wait, it's the first row
> of shops that loads first.) How quickly do you run down the high
> street in real life?
>
Quickly if I search for a specific shop.
>> Why don't you do it the way round: first it is off, and if someone
>> really wants to have "street atmosphere" he can switch it on. I'm
>> quite confident that this feature will remain almost unused than...
>> Wtf wants to hear cars and all the noise? I think this is the last
>> thing I anybody would miss in a street (OK, maybe the smell is
>> last. Why don't you apply smell to your site?).
>
> This is why it is on:
>
>>> But market research and testing showed that the user is more
>>> likely to stay and have their interest 'caught' if they 'arrive'
>>> at a full sensoral version of a high street, with the senses they
>>> would normally experience, namely the photo-realistic visuals,
>>> and the sound of being there. Silent streets did not impact on
>>> them as greatly.
>> >
>> > Again: What would be the advantage of a virtual street to a
>> "ordinary" > online-portal?
>
> As above - virtual tours and to attract the many people who hate
> shopping sites but love high streets, or could never fly to other
> world famous ones.
Hey, I think I got your point. The site should not only provide the
possibility to go shopping online but should also cover some touristic
aspects. Now the sense of such website became clearer... ;-D
>
>>> >> We're sure you understand, although we are still toying with the
>>> idea of >> starting with the sound off. It is a dilemma as we could
>>> lose visitors >> either way.
>> >
>> > If you really get much visitors you can loose...
>
> I'm sure you know what you meant to type. :P
My apologies. We don not have two words for many/much in German so I
sometimes mix them up if I type quickly...
>
> Anyway, we can't chat all day as we have cities to build ;) Thanks
> for the fun debate, let's agree to disagree
I agree
> as it has nothing to do with our question above
Yes, I realized it.
> which is already being answered by your colleageus
by some of them (mainly by those who didn't share my opinion)
> in this group, in a very positive helpful way.
And if they answer it positively someone else has to point out the
negative aspects.
> -- Thanks, Me
And thanks to you, me.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|