Bite me

Neal wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:17:14 -0500, Firas D. <fd-nospam- (AT) firasd (DOT) org> wrote:
I can attest to what Toby said... it's irritating to find that the
site logo thing is not clickable and I have read through things to see
what links to the home page. It's not any faster than snipping the URL
to leave the domain.


Having to have a home-page-linking-logo in the upper left certainly
isn't something I've seen advised before. That said, expecting it to be
is a little presumptuous.

Oh, I wouldn't call expecting the logo to link to the home page
'presumptuous'!

*Checks*

MSN does it. Google does it. Ebay does it. Amazon does it. (AOL
doesn't). Yahoo takes you back to the home page of the section you're
in. CNN, BBC, Lycos, Match.com do. Comcast.net does but breaks the back
button! Weather.com, NYtimes.com, Altavista, Mapquest, Archive.org all do.

I'm not too much of an 'advanced' user either.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:18:11 -0500, Firas D. <fd-nospam- (AT) firasd (DOT) org> wrote:

MSN does it. Google does it. Ebay does it. Amazon does it. (AOL
doesn't). Yahoo takes you back to the home page of the section you're
in. CNN, BBC, Lycos, Match.com do. Comcast.net does but breaks the back
button! Weather.com, NYtimes.com, Altavista, Mapquest, Archive.org all
do.

I'm not too much of an 'advanced' user either.

You know what my mom would say. "And if all those websites jumped off a
bridge, would you do it too?"

Just because the very models of Big Business do something does not mean it
is how it should be done. My website for a community orchestra - we do NOT
want a corporate feel. It's totally counter to what we're "selling". I
think sites which do the logo link thing (and normally this logo links to
the home page on the home page, which really just annoys the piss out of
me) end up looking like cheap imitations of the so-called "leaders" of web
commerce.

I don't copy their usually shoddy and inaccessible web design, and I sure
as hell won't copy their logo link trick.

(While I'm on a tear, the accessibility crowd is no better. If I see
another CSS page design where there's a fairly dark background under a
lighter overlay for the copy - the old "paper on the blotter" look - I
might have to be incarcerated...)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:00:41 -0600, kchayka <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote:

(While I'm on a tear, the accessibility crowd is no better. If I see
another CSS page design where there's a fairly dark background under a
lighter overlay for the copy - the old "paper on the blotter" look - I
might have to be incarcerated...)

What does this have to do with accessibility? I generally find light
text on dark backgrounds *really* hard to read, unless the text size is
larger than average. And I'm one of the more vocal advocates of web
accessibility.

Oh, I didn't explain enough. It's quite accessible. It's just that
EVERYONE does it. It's such a stale design. Even I've done it...

To me, a site needs to have a "look" all its own. A site design should be
like the golden arches - you can be in a foreign country where you can't
even ask where the bathroom is, but you see them golden arches, you can
buy fries and a coke. You could put any word on the golden arches and
everyone thinks McDonald's anyway.

A lot of the sites I see are table layouts. And they all have the same
feel to them. Nothing new. And the CSS layouts are VERY often as I
described before. How tiring it is to see the same layout tricks over and
over...