I like the idea of putting the login boxes on the main screen, which if
successful, should take the user to the account maintenance screen, which is
the screen he currently goes to after he logs-in.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Rasch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "e-gold Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:41 AM
Subject: [e-gold-list] Re: e-gold web site
> Thanks for taking the time to comment. Ultimately, if e-gold decides to
> redesign their site, I think they should get a group of 5-10 newbies and
> videotape them trying to use it. In the meantime, I've created an
> survey--if you want to express your preference for either e-gold.com's
> site design or the mockup (http://www.openknowledge.org/egold/), please go
> the following site and answer the survey question:
> (Obviously, the survey isn't scientific, and has a number of
> flaws--self selection bias, potential spoofing, possibly improper wording,
> etc--so take the results with a big grain of salt.)
> > Does your server have the same user load that the e-gold server does?
> Good point--I don't know the server load of my hosting company, nor
> but I doubt my hosting company has comparable volume. As I said, my test
> _not_ scientific. However, 28 seconds is almost 3 times what usability
> research suggests is an optimal maximum. The relative comparison may not
> fair, but the absolute number is valid I think.
> > Wwireless & cellular PDA users access different versions of the
> > There isn't a PDA that I know of that can display a site optimized for
> > desktop computers. The largest resolution I have seen is 320*240, while
> > most desktops have a resolution of 800*600 with some at 640*480 and some
> > at 1024*768 and higher.
> You may be correct--maybe PDA users wouldn't try to access e-gold's
> site. Perhaps it would be useful for e-gold to to set up a survey to ask
> 1. How fast is your internet access?
> 2. Which browser are you using?
> 3. What OS/hardware are you using to access e-gold?
> Has this been done before?
> > http://talk.e-gold.com
> > http://firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://use.e-gold.com
> Thanks! I didn't know these links existed. Perhaps this information
> into the FAQ.
> > > e-gold could also improve navigation by making more of the website's
> > > functionality and information available from the main page. I've done
> > > this in the mockup by including links of interest to each of e-gold's
> > > constituencies--everyone, beginners, merchants, developers.
> > IMO, that end's up cluttering the page.
> Well, one man's clutter is another man's invaluable navigational aid...:>
> While increasing the number of links in the navbars may increase the
> clutter, I think they reduce the complexity of using the website by
> possible to get to the most used parts of the websites in one or two
> without having to drill down into the website.
> As for the additional content (news, pricing info), e-gold is far from
> saturating the potential market, and a large fraction of the visitors to
> will be newbies. They're going to most want to know a) what e-gold is b)
> much it costs c) how to get it. If it doesn't significantly increase
> speed, nor decrease experienced users usability, why not reduce the effort
> users must expend by putting this information on the front page?
> Experienced e-gold users probably aren't going to look at the rest of the
> page--they're just going to look at the navbar links at the top of the
> and ignore the rest. (Or use http://use.egold.com).
> > So do I. However, e-gold actually figured out how to do it properly. I
> > have never had a problem with lagging frames on the e-gold site.
> I swear I found a page that framed an outside link. But I can't find it
> so I apologize for suggesting that e-gold's site exhibited this behavior.
> > > I would also include a discussion of market maker fees, and wire
> > and
> > > money order fees because the user will have to pay these fees to use
> > > e-gold, even if the fees aren't charged by e-gold itself.
> > All the market maker's are completely indepedent of e-gold and able to
> > change their fee structures at any time. Money orders have differing
> > depending on where they are bought.
> Wire transfer/money order fees, and MM markup significantly raise the cost
> using e-gold for small transactions. For example, to buy $20 of e-gold
> flatrategold.com, it costs $7.50 in MM markup, plus another $3.00 for the
> order. (Plus a lot of hassle relative to credit cards.) That's a 53%
> which isn't included in e-gold's comparison of the costs of using e-gold
> credit cards. (Though maybe I'm missing something again. Also, I don't
> to pick on flatrategold.com--they just happen to be the company I bought
> from--it's probably a comparable experience buying from most of the other
> market makers.)
> Of course, you could reduce the transaction cost by buying a lot of
> But e-gold's still quite new, and people are going to be wary of it. Most
> people are going to want to test the system with a small amount of money
> trusting it with a large amount of money. It would be nice if e-gold
> more information upfront about the total costs of using e-gold (not just
> e-gold's fees) before users try to fund their account.
> It's true that MM fees, and money order/wire transfer fees vary and
> wouldn't expect pricing information on these subjects to be precise. But
> seems possible to me to give a ballpark example (I did it on the mockup
> or give a range of prices. To me, at least, such information would've
> quite helpful.
> Chris Rasch
> Use e-gold? Send me two cents:
> http://2cw.org/257121&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Read the _Wall Street Performer Protocol_:
> You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: email@example.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]