November 2002 | ||||||
Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Oct Dec |
11:27:36 AM Google It! comment [] IM Me About This
Here's a thought for web designers for laptop computer companies. In my lust for the perfect notebook I am always looking for a new machine (I'm an unhappy ThinkPad user who's vowed to never, ever, ever buy another ThinkPad). But what I can't understand -- at all -- is why laptop websites rarely if ever list the weight. Even when it's to their advantage! Take the Sharp Actius UM series of machines, link, one of the smallest and lightest laptops out there. Here are the stats they make easily available:
| |
Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III processor 1 Ghz-M | |
256 MB expandable to 512 MB | |
High resolution 12.1" XGA AGLR TFT LCD display (1024 x 768) | |
Integrated Wireless 802.11b | |
Self-powered external CD Drive (included) | |
40 GB HD | |
Optional extended life battery |
Well that's all well and good but this is your "Ultra Light" notebook. So am I supposed to just trust you? Come on Man! What's the weight! I mean I have to turn to Gizmodo to find out it's "about 3 pounds".
And, yes, I know there is a PDF file there. So freaking what. I mean why do I have to load up a whole PDF file just to find out what is probably the most important stat of all? Am I the only person out there who's had this problem? Or is everyone like me and assumes "No weight listed; Must be as fat as a bloated hippo after Thanksgiving dinner"?
Update: I just saw the stats on the VPR Matrix, the new laptop from Best Buy????, which does list it's weight. Nice Job! But good web design from Best But? [ Go ]
6:28:19 AM Google It! comment [] IM Me About This
Note to Self: Read Mark Bernstein's blog more often. I don't know why I don't always read Mark's blog but for some reason, I don't. I need to fix that (I just added him to my blogroll so that should fix it). I just saw this tidbit over there:
Information Architects sound as if the Web is terrible. That's not my experience. I bet it's not yours, either. Perhaps it used to be bad, back in the day. (I was there, and it wasn't that bad, but never mind) It's not that bad now. In fact, it's great!
Why do people say this? Perhaps, a few years ago, it was more tactful to tell your client, "Your web site is poorly designed" instead of the blunt truth, "You have no business model."
...
Trying to establish a profession on the foundation of a myth is, I think, a tactical error. [ Go ]
All I have to say here is "Y E S"!!! I'll agree that while there are bad websites they really aren't all that bad. Most sites are pretty good. And he nails it dead on -- if you try and convince everyone that there's a problem it might be good for your profession. This sort of reminds me of the whole re-engineering fad of 10 years ago -- convince people of a (partially) existent problem and create a whole new profession. Is there a need for Information Architects? Sure. Is the sky going to fall without them? No.
Note: Mark is also the man behind Eastgate Systems and the primary author of Tinderbox one of the coolest blogging tools out there. Mac only so far but it does make even me think longingly of using a Mac on a regular basis. Recommended.
5:40:16 AM Google It! comment [] IM Me About This
Interesting. ExtremeTech actually likes Ximiam Evolution, an Outlook "clone" for Linux. Given the traditional attitude of Ziff Davis stuff towards Open Source that's a big win. [ Go ]
5:05:53 AM Google It! comment [] IM Me About This