91–100 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zeldman is dead?! Did it happen in the last 24hrs? He posted on his site yesterday https://zeldman.com/
Maybe I’m wrong. I would have sworn there was a big deal about his passing on this site, not long ago. Happy to be wrong. [EDIT] Yup. I’m wrong. Glad to be.
This article put Nielsen in the corner of "technically correct", but the influence he had on me at least was a strong focus on "empirically correct". i.e. doing actual tests (with humans) on what kind of things work to convey information. He did this to the detriment of "looking good", which is why his stuff ended up looking "hopelessly outdated", but I think he was on the right side of the fight.
I realise I’m judging the book (and possibly the authors) by the cover but Nielsen’s book cover is objectively more readable. It’s also probably the only one that would still look new, or current, if it was released today
On the flip side, I cherish my torn and beaten up copy of The New Masters of Flash. RIP Macromedia.
In the early 2000s amazon.com was not in my country, India, but they deliver books for a hefty shipping fee. I bought my first book and the first ever order from Amazon - "Object-Oriented Programming with ActionScript" by Branden Hall for a whooping $51.97 (just checked my order history). After a few years, seating in the room with all of the authors, the whos who, and the father of ActionScript at the Macromedia office in Townsend was sureal for me. Spot them here https://www.flickr.com/photos/brajeshwar/albums/720575940814...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the same thing of his website when he first hit the scene. Great info, but the design was so bad it made it difficult to read. It was quick though, and today’s reader view would have fixed that issue. Being usable doesn’t mean zero design; everything needs to work together.
It’s kind of ironic that Nielsen’s site and even his book layouts were often frustrating to use. But maybe that proves his own points.
Another seminal book for me, was Web Pages That Suck . They actually used to throw shade on Creating Killer Web Sites . Lots of big egos, back then. I learned quite a bit from that book. I think Flanders may still have a site. I was on his mailing list, but I haven’t heard anything for the last decade or so.
Nowadays everything is so optimized and efficient, I've become nostalgic for the days when webpages sometimes sucked. At least they had personality, even if they were hard to use. It's like cars, I like looking at super old old cars in museums and wondering what all those pedals and levers do, even if I'm happy to not drive them.
Now David Siegel has changed his opinion on climate change. He created a website with independent climate research: https://www.cuttingthroughthenoise.net
> Jeffrey Zeldman — who turned 42 in early 1997 I’m today years old, realizing that Jeffrey Zeldman was 40+ in 1997. I always thought he was kinda just a few years older than us in the early 2000s. “View Source” of their websites was an educational time well spent. Warning: In some regions, “View Source” may be illegal. Please use it at your own discretion. Starting my career in the early 2000s, and my design and oth…
> Warning: In some regions, “View Source” may be illegal. Please use it at your own discretion. Where is "View Souce" illegal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplicity was nice, but people switched to Google because of PageRank.
right, but they could have polluted the google.com page with endless garbage based off of the popularity of search....but they didn't for example...they could have dropped some links below the search bar to some homegrown sports site they set up...and that would have become the most popular sports site...its hard for most people to resist that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltaVista
Google's simplicity and clarity became part of the brand. No one else was doing that at the time. Even "efficient" designs were maximalist, so extreme minimalism with a splash of colour was a real innovation.