|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/29/07 09:01
In article <kzu3j.54796$c_1.10991@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:
> "Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99F6B2D4875B0boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...
> > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:05:03
> > GMT Mika scribed:
> >
> >> Oh God I just realised I'm starting to sound like you guys! Better
> >> stop this habit fast before I end up like some in this group for years
> >> spouting the same old nonsense! :P
> >
> > Ah, don't worry. You have to know what you're talking about to get that
> > far.
>
> Yes I've only managed to prove Beauregard T. Shagnasty (real name) wrong on
> 2 occasions so far. Working my way up to the self-proclaimed masters like
> you.
A lot of stuff has gotten twisted and confused. Beauregard T.
Shagnasty is a good man and his instincts are not to be lightly
brushed aside. Never mind the micro details of the exchanges.
There is one thing I would not mind raising with you. What is
your actual evidence that in the UK itself (you are welcome to
confine it to Londoners if you like) your site is something that
people would be pleased with, use and shop, come back to and so
on. What is the control on these claims? Ever done any science?
Is there a site that has no js, no flash, no constant big or
little delays, that has perhaps simple diagramatic (rather than
the 6953 x 290px jpg you use in one of your pages) very low
bandwidth implementation of the idea at least of moving along a
street with a mouse (think low bandwidth b & w sketches or
diagrams to *represent* the street rather than *depict* it)?
Without some control of this kind, it is impossible to go on
anything but hunches and guesses. And the feedback from people
here has been pretty hard on you and irritating to you. But in
the absence of hard evidence what is there to go on?
You see, I really question whether people would be prepared to
pay the price of slowness and clunkiness for an experience that
is so far below the one of real shopping. I do not hear any
people from the UK on this newsgroup supporting the site in terms
of speed and handiess?
I have mentioned (not just as a joke) a few things before about
how great is the shortfallin any meaningfiul claim that it "like"
really being there. One can barely read any window signs or see
in for a start. I know what you would like ideally. You would
love a way to give your viewers a high quality virtual experience
(think Boeing 747 simulators). How can a jpg of your dimensions
(look at the tiny 290px height for a start) possibly do this? It
falls *so far short of any real experience* that perhaps you
should bite the bullet and not even try to be so realistic and
fail. Better to be representative, to enable things efficiently
and quickly in another way.
If you are having commercial success with your site, good luck to
you. But there is more to consider than the micro details.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|