Sites about web-sites ?

Hello,

I'm not looking for sites about "web design". I'm looking for sites
which discuss web-sites. In other words - rather than discussing the
nitty gritty of code, html, css, javascript, etc., I'm looking for a
web-site where people discuss things like
- does the site achieve its "purpose".
- how could that web-site be improved.

For instance, I just registered with www.digg.com and right away I
though of about 15 things I'd do to improve the site, such as:
- a better more specific list of topic categories
- allowing either html or bb code in comment responses,
- etc.

I fact I was so disappointed with digg that I thought I should
immediately write a better version of it myself!

So where do people discuss web-site functionality rather than "design" ?

For instance I discovered:
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, but no one seems to be
discussing site-design there. It just seems to be full of spam.

On 12 Sep 2006 04:53:29 -0700, "Chaddy2222"
<spamlovermailbox-sicurity (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote:
[Groups adjusted as per comments below]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:23:18 GMT, Jasbird put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Hello,

I'm not looking for sites about "web design". I'm looking for sites
which discuss web-sites. In other words - rather than discussing the
nitty gritty of code, html, css, javascript, etc., I'm looking for a
web-site where people discuss things like
- does the site achieve its "purpose".
- how could that web-site be improved.

Take a look at: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
I quite offten look at that site to see what people are doing in the
way of bad design.

For instance, I just registered with www.digg.com and right away I
though of about 15 things I'd do to improve the site, such as:
- a better more specific list of topic categories
- allowing either html or bb code in comment responses,
- etc.

I fact I was so disappointed with digg that I thought I should
immediately write a better version of it myself!

So where do people discuss web-site functionality rather than "design" ?

For instance I discovered:
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, but no one seems to be
discussing site-design there. It just seems to be full of spam.

Well, site functionality is part of the remit of this group, but I'd
also suggest taking a look at alt.www.webmaster - you'll find plenty
of people with the relevent experience and knowledge.

Mark
Yeah, I tend to agree, that seams to be the case.

I take it from the replies that no one actually discusses functional
site-design in a forum anywhere, or that no one using these forums does.

Fleeing from the madness of the ntl Cablemodem News Service jungle
Jasbird <Jasbird (AT) houdini (DOT) com> stumbled into
news:uk.net.web.authoring,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
and said:

...
I take it from the replies that no one actually discusses functional
site-design in a forum anywhere, or that no one using these forums does.

Try it and see? This thread is only about three posts long over here in
AWW. There's quite a few bods hereabouts that are happy to discuss the
perils of form over function and vice versa.

What exactly do you want to discuss?

--
William Tasso

http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp

Jasbird wrote:

On 12 Sep 2006 04:53:29 -0700, "Chaddy2222"
spamlovermailbox-sicurity (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:


Mark Goodge wrote:
[Groups adjusted as per comments below]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:23:18 GMT, Jasbird put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Hello,

I'm not looking for sites about "web design". I'm looking for sites
which discuss web-sites. In other words - rather than discussing the
nitty gritty of code, html, css, javascript, etc., I'm looking for a
web-site where people discuss things like
- does the site achieve its "purpose".
- how could that web-site be improved.

Take a look at: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
I quite offten look at that site to see what people are doing in the
way of bad design.

For instance, I just registered with www.digg.com and right away I
though of about 15 things I'd do to improve the site, such as:
- a better more specific list of topic categories
- allowing either html or bb code in comment responses,
- etc.

I fact I was so disappointed with digg that I thought I should
immediately write a better version of it myself!

So where do people discuss web-site functionality rather than "design" ?

For instance I discovered:
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, but no one seems to be
discussing site-design there. It just seems to be full of spam.

Well, site functionality is part of the remit of this group, but I'd
also suggest taking a look at alt.www.webmaster - you'll find plenty
of people with the relevent experience and knowledge.

Mark
Yeah, I tend to agree, that seams to be the case.

I take it from the replies that no one actually discusses functional
site-design in a forum anywhere, or that no one using these forums does.
For one thing, this is a usenet newsgroup (which is different to a

forum).
I gave you a link to check out (did you view the link)?. I think you
will find a lot of good info there and the site has a blog. But, yeah,
what did you want to discuss?.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:22:39 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Fleeing from the madness of the ntl Cablemodem News Service jungle
Jasbird <Jasbird (AT) houdini (DOT) com> stumbled into
news:uk.net.web.authoring,alt.www.webmaster,comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
and said:

...
I take it from the replies that no one actually discusses functional
site-design in a forum anywhere, or that no one using these forums does.

Try it and see? This thread is only about three posts long over here in
AWW. There's quite a few bods hereabouts that are happy to discuss the
perils of form over function and vice versa.

What exactly do you want to discuss?

It's not so much that I wanted to discuss something specific right now -
although I was thinking about making a dig or two over digg - I just
don't think that a Usenet group is particularly useful - probably
because a discussion would get lost in the general traffic - which tends
to be over quite specific limited topics such as the perils of css with
browser X, and such (rather than over more general functional
site-design topics).

To be honest:
a) I was just looking to join a good web-forum where those things
(site-design) were discussed.
b) I'm thinking a putting up a new political discussion forum using
dotnetnuke and I wanted to float some ideas I had - I guess it's
probably best to do what I think would work and go with it - if it
bombs, it bombs - if it works: great.

There was a two-fold purpose, but (a) was by far the most important
point, as the functional ideas I had for (b) would probably be best
discussed with the politicos I might try to entice over to my site
(rather than the web-design crowd here) and I sense I already know what
those politicos think! (PS: one thing I've noticed about most political
web-sites I've seen is how they group like-minded people together - this
is not necessarily what I want to achieve - but the kind of anarchy
present at general-topic political sites is not what I want either. I'm
not sure that my dilemma over (b) is a site-design problem - more likely
to be an editorial control problem for content managers.

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<Jasbird>
<Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:42:35 GMT>
<k31hg21jm8ki9772to7mlrg8iqa2lteb1d (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>

It's not so much that I wanted to discuss something specific right now -
although I was thinking about making a dig or two over digg - I just
don't think that a Usenet group is particularly useful - probably
because a discussion would get lost in the general traffic - which tends
to be over quite specific limited topics such as the perils of css with
browser X, and such (rather than over more general functional
site-design topics).

To be honest:
a) I was just looking to join a good web-forum where those things
(site-design) were discussed.
b) I'm thinking a putting up a new political discussion forum using
dotnetnuke and I wanted to float some ideas I had - I guess it's
probably best to do what I think would work and go with it - if it
bombs, it bombs - if it works: great.

I recently suggested on a tv newsgroup that a tv show on web design and
tv show on php scripting would be a good idea - but everybody hates
krusty because i'm a trolling bastard and all the regular users did was
slag the idea instead of supporting it .

While theres never been any proof that the tv networks do monitor the tv
newsgroup in question - i made the effort and trolled the idea for a
week on the longshot it would plant the seed of possibility in somebodys
head .

One good point the slaggers did make was that a tv show on web design
most probably mostly focus on shite like flash because it does visual
whizzo stuff all over the browser screen - and personally i'm in the
same opinion as them as unless the web design tv show did take the
stance of totally ignoring shite like flash and javascript a web design
tv show would be utter shite .


--
Encrypted email address
www.emailuser.co.uk/?name=KRUSTOV
True or false quiz
www.emailuser.co.uk/tof.php

Message-ID: <MPG.1f72ab7a120e8ea1989f5a (AT) news (DOT) newsreader.com> from
Krustov contained the following:

I recently suggested on a tv newsgroup that a tv show on web design and
tv show on php scripting would be a good idea - but everybody hates
krusty because i'm a trolling bastard and all the regular users did was
slag the idea instead of supporting it .

Well I'd not exactly slag the /idea/ but you only have to look at the
gadget show's technical guides to get some idea of what it might look
like. Can you imagine how much they would dumb it down?

--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Krustov wrote:

everybody hates krusty because i'm a trolling bastard and all the regular users did was
slag the idea instead of supporting it .

Who said Krusty never posted anything sensible?

If you don't like being treated like a troll, why troll?

Andy Dingley wrote:

Krustov wrote:


everybody hates krusty because i'm a trolling bastard and all the regular users did was
slag the idea instead of supporting it .


Who said Krusty never posted anything sensible?

If you don't like being treated like a troll, why troll?

You cut the first (and most important) part of the message, Andy:

"I recently suggested on a tv newsgroup ..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex (AT) attglobal (DOT) net
==================

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:58:37 +0100, Krustov <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote:

uk.net.web.authoring
Jasbird
Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:42:35 GMT
k31hg21jm8ki9772to7mlrg8iqa2lteb1d (AT) 4ax (DOT) com

It's not so much that I wanted to discuss something specific right now -
although I was thinking about making a dig or two over digg - I just
don't think that a Usenet group is particularly useful - probably
because a discussion would get lost in the general traffic - which tends
to be over quite specific limited topics such as the perils of css with
browser X, and such (rather than over more general functional
site-design topics).

To be honest:
a) I was just looking to join a good web-forum where those things
(site-design) were discussed.
b) I'm thinking a putting up a new political discussion forum using
dotnetnuke and I wanted to float some ideas I had - I guess it's
probably best to do what I think would work and go with it - if it
bombs, it bombs - if it works: great.


I recently suggested on a tv newsgroup that a tv show on web design and
tv show on php scripting would be a good idea - but everybody hates
krusty because i'm a trolling bastard and all the regular users did was
slag the idea instead of supporting it .

I don't think there would be enough of an audience for a terrestial TV.
But web-radio or web-TV could work ... or a pod-casts.

While theres never been any proof that the tv networks do monitor the tv
newsgroup in question - i made the effort and trolled the idea for a
week on the longshot it would plant the seed of possibility in somebodys
head .

One good point the slaggers did make was that a tv show on web design
most probably mostly focus on shite like flash because it does visual
whizzo stuff all over the browser screen - and personally i'm in the
same opinion as them as unless the web design tv show did take the
stance of totally ignoring shite like flash and javascript a web design
tv show would be utter shite .