Comments on: Damnation http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/ web 2.0, design & community Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tigerblade http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/comment-page-1/#comment-95349 Tigerblade Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:00:11 +0000 http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/#comment-95349 No, I think what he meant was that he wants it to feel as though you're using a tv, not a computer. He doesn't want it to look like a typical website (good or bad) - he wants it to look like a non-web interface. Like when you switch on your tv and use the digital channel guide... that's slick and easy and not like a website. That doesn't mean websites aren't slick and easy, but websites don't generally look or feel like the interface employed by the channel channel. No, I think what he meant was that he wants it to feel as though you’re using a tv, not a computer. He doesn’t want it to look like a typical website (good or bad) – he wants it to look like a non-web interface. Like when you switch on your tv and use the digital channel guide… that’s slick and easy and not like a website.

That doesn’t mean websites aren’t slick and easy, but websites don’t generally look or feel like the interface employed by the channel channel.

]]> By: Tigerblade http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/comment-page-1/#comment-100172 Tigerblade Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:00:00 +0000 http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/#comment-100172 No, I think what he meant was that he wants it to feel as though you're using a tv, not a computer. He doesn't want it to look like a typical website (good or bad) - he wants it to look like a non-web interface. Like when you switch on your tv and use the digital channel guide... that's slick and easy and not like a website. That doesn't mean websites aren't slick and easy, but websites don't generally look or feel like the interface employed by the channel channel. No, I think what he meant was that he wants it to feel as though you’re using a tv, not a computer. He doesn’t want it to look like a typical website (good or bad) – he wants it to look like a non-web interface. Like when you switch on your tv and use the digital channel guide… that’s slick and easy and not like a website.

That doesn’t mean websites aren’t slick and easy, but websites don’t generally look or feel like the interface employed by the channel channel.

]]> By: Jeff Hester http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/comment-page-1/#comment-95230 Jeff Hester Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:44:34 +0000 http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/#comment-95230 That is exactly how I read it as well (slick and easy, <i>unlike a website</i>). This is what troubles me. Are websites that bad? Is it impossible to make a website that is slick, easy and stress-free? Hastings seems to imply that it is. I will agree that most websites are considerably more complex than they need to be. We (web publishers) need to learn a thing or two from (the better) TV interfaces, where the options are limited and attention is focused on the task at hand (usually finding and watching a program). The trouble is, most websites don't bother to consider what the actionable task is! Instead, they attempt to be a portal or a sort of "mission control" for everything. Maybe... just maybe... we need to simplify things. That is exactly how I read it as well (slick and easy, unlike a website). This is what troubles me. Are websites that bad? Is it impossible to make a website that is slick, easy and stress-free? Hastings seems to imply that it is.

I will agree that most websites are considerably more complex than they need to be. We (web publishers) need to learn a thing or two from (the better) TV interfaces, where the options are limited and attention is focused on the task at hand (usually finding and watching a program).

The trouble is, most websites don’t bother to consider what the actionable task is! Instead, they attempt to be a portal or a sort of “mission control” for everything. Maybe… just maybe… we need to simplify things.

]]> By: Jeff Hester http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/comment-page-1/#comment-100171 Jeff Hester Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:44:00 +0000 http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/#comment-100171 That is exactly how I read it as well (slick and easy, <i>unlike a website</i>). This is what troubles me. Are websites that bad? Is it impossible to make a website that is slick, easy and stress-free? Hastings seems to imply that it is. I will agree that most websites are considerably more complex than they need to be. We (web publishers) need to learn a thing or two from (the better) TV interfaces, where the options are limited and attention is focused on the task at hand (usually finding and watching a program). The trouble is, most websites don't bother to consider what the actionable task is! Instead, they attempt to be a portal or a sort of "mission control" for everything. Maybe... just maybe... we need to simplify things. That is exactly how I read it as well (slick and easy, unlike a website). This is what troubles me. Are websites that bad? Is it impossible to make a website that is slick, easy and stress-free? Hastings seems to imply that it is.

I will agree that most websites are considerably more complex than they need to be. We (web publishers) need to learn a thing or two from (the better) TV interfaces, where the options are limited and attention is focused on the task at hand (usually finding and watching a program).

The trouble is, most websites don’t bother to consider what the actionable task is! Instead, they attempt to be a portal or a sort of “mission control” for everything. Maybe… just maybe… we need to simplify things.

]]> By: Tigerblade http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/comment-page-1/#comment-95228 Tigerblade Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:31:14 +0000 http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/#comment-95228 I'm wondering if we're reading it wrong. It could just be a case of badly placed punctuation. Maybe he wants it to be slick and easy, and not feel as though you're using your tv to get to a web site; the way we're reading it, he says it'll be slick and easy <em>unlike</em> using a website. Just a thought. I’m wondering if we’re reading it wrong. It could just be a case of badly placed punctuation. Maybe he wants it to be slick and easy, and not feel as though you’re using your tv to get to a web site; the way we’re reading it, he says it’ll be slick and easy unlike using a website.

Just a thought.

]]> By: Tigerblade http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/comment-page-1/#comment-100170 Tigerblade Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:31:00 +0000 http://www.jeffhester.net/2008/01/03/damnation/#comment-100170 I'm wondering if we're reading it wrong. It could just be a case of badly placed punctuation. Maybe he wants it to be slick and easy, and not feel as though you're using your tv to get to a web site; the way we're reading it, he says it'll be slick and easy <em>unlike</em> using a website. Just a thought. I’m wondering if we’re reading it wrong. It could just be a case of badly placed punctuation. Maybe he wants it to be slick and easy, and not feel as though you’re using your tv to get to a web site; the way we’re reading it, he says it’ll be slick and easy unlike using a website.

Just a thought.

]]>