The press release read in part "Many retailers have designed their sites for the lowest common denominator, which is shortsighted, particularly for vendors of high consideration goods" and went on to recommend that retailers use technologies like Java, Flash and chat rooms "to enhance online shopping experience and close sales."
Goodexperience.com's Mark Hurst, always a proponent of streamlined e-commerce, was quick to respond, writing a week later in his September 8th column
"Now I agree that there are some ways to make Flash and other plug-ins useful to e-commerce customers, and that sites should explore those technologies. But it's just wrong to state, as Jupiter did, that "consumers expect a richer online shopping experience because of the exposure they receive through new interfaces on most sites."
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Hurst. There are far too many instances where Flash works well, (high impact entertainment sites, interactive games, sports sites and internal presentations come to mind) to possibly excuse using it in the wrong context, which is probably going to be the case if you're talking about using it in an e-commerce related project.
Our opinion: If you feel strangely compelled to design with Flash at all times, you should think about taking projects where it's use is appropriate or applying for a job at Macromedia.
In a July Alertbox column titled The End of Web Design Nielson took his argument even farther, calling for uniformity, "Users spend most of their time on other sites. This means that users prefer your site to work the same way as all the other sites they already know." In other words, web surfers have already made up their minds. They've adjusted to the navigational structure of the Yahoos and the Amazons of the world. Anything that strays from those norms is probably unwelcome and probably will not be accepted.
followed up in an interview with a Jeffrey Selingo of the New
York Times saying
It was hardly surprising that the comments provoked a mini-firestorm of criticism. Web Sites that Suck author Vincent Flanders wrote "Jacob views the web as this wonderful place where you can find information quickly and easily and the information comes quickly directly to you and the web is this one, big organic world where we all get along".
Michael Sippey of Stating the Obvious didn't mince words, writing "To put it bluntly. Neilson has it backwards."
They make life harder for everybody else and soak up our bandwidth without pausing for a second to consider the consequences of their actions.
Meet the weasels.
The web site designers you keep hearing about who somehow sign clients, make money and win awards - all without knowing a single line of code
Zen and the art of clickability
Igarashi Susumu is one example
But there's also a dark side - sites that seem to have been handed down from Bob in accounting. Then there are those which frankly make absolutely no sense at all.
A not particularly serious look at web pages that suck courtesy of expert suckologist Vincent Flanders
The success of his fonts and a dedication to the art of cool has made Chank a mini-celebrity in web design circles. Sadly, copycats have taken his ideas and quickly reduced them to cliché. The widespread overuse of fonts based on his work meant the whacked-out font movement in web design was gone almost as quickly as it arrived.
To think we knew him back when he was just another college kid passed out in the snow in front of the Mac Weekly.....
Web pages have a habit, of shall we say, behaving in unexpected ways when viewed in in different browsers.
The best way to protect yourself?
Testing. Testing. Testing
© the netwebly guide 2000