Posted by dorayme on 11/30/07 21:46

In article <l6W3j.55587$c_1.31640@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Mika" <anon@anon.com> wrote:

> We ... do not expect
> everybody on the planet to agree with the BBC Website of the Day, Personal
> Computer World magazine, Capital Radio Website of the Day, PC Magazine,
> About.com London Blog, Google Maps Mania, Pocket-lint Website of the Day, or
> the hundreds of repeat visitors we get. You are entitled to like or dislike
> anything you choose and I have and will never argue with that point. This
> thread was about Firefox.

Laura Porter (on her "London Travel Blog") says on About.com:

"I've recently heard about this new web site that allows you to
look at a streetscape of Oxford Street..."

and not much else beyond that she "has heard about a new website"
and that readers "can check it out". Their is a facility for
people to "comment" and the comment count is zero.

I have not been able to locate quickly any of your other
references.

It may well be that you are enjoying various kinds of success.
Being one of those refined types you mentioned in one of your
posts (you know, someone from Enga and other cultured lands stuck
in a hot unforgiving country with white barbarian footy sexist
sporty rednecks and drunks), I do wish you luck.

You will need it because, as I have said before, there is much
about your site that just does not work. It is simply not a
shopping experience in any real sense of the word and I have gone
into *some* of the details on this before. Others have criticised
the bandwidth aspects and the slowness (even in UK). But my
objection is simply that you are stuck in delivering a product
that is neither one thing, (an efficient fast uncluttered way of
finding info on what shops are in a street and what you can buy
online from some of them) or the other (a virtual reality
experience of high quality).

Frankly, I think you should bite the bullet one way or the other.
Either go representative (low bandwidth, not photo-realistic) or
very photo/auralistic for which you would need orders of
magnitude more bandwidth. There is nothing wrong at all with
either of these options. If I really could get a more realistic
experience, see in shop windows etc etc and hear better sounds,
and wanted it, it would be nothing to wait minutes to download
the materials needed (I do it with trailers and movies and have
done it with dialup too. No I don't sit around watching it load.
I work on other things while it happens, I go make a cup of tea).

Are you getting any of this? Stand tall and do one or other of
these things and not something that is neither here nor there. If
you say again how great the UK user experience is, I will know
you are simply not cottoning on to what I am trying to get across
to you.

My point is about value for bandwidth. I am not saying you need
to reduce the load time. Either reduce it or increase the goddamn
thing. But don't leave it where it is for what it is. (Yes, I
know, you have made many changes, but if you think the changes
you have made are any answer to this criticism, you are simply
not understanding it)

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]