snipped all to heck:
> Rainmaker wrote:
>I agree wholeheartedly. Pictures of the hotel and rooms have a
>purpose at that site -- they add value. How about going to a
>site that describes Perl and seeing a picture of that hotel room?
> It's meaningless and detracts from the purpose of the site,
>especially because it loads slowly.
>
>>Peter J. Schoenster wrote:
>>More pictures please.
>
>Rainmaker again:
>Only if they serve a purpose.
>
>G
I must agree with Rainmaker. Yes, relevant pictures can be very helpful.
I was just looking at the Wine Spectator site, and they included pics of
some of the labels of thier recommended wines; I'll recognize them more
quickly in the store, and it might save me time. I don't, however, want to
see photos of the exterior of various wineries. Like many (most?)
individuals, I search the web for information. Again like many, I suffer
with a reasonably slow connection. Graphics, when they are not absolutely
on topic, are a waste of my time. And before you suggest that I turn off
graphics, I _do_ find that most sites that I typically use do have at least
some useful graphic content. I thought this thread tied nicely with
Kathy's submission of the editorial on overdesigned web sites. Peter (and
others) are right, there are really nice pictures on the site in question.
But I didn't see that they were key to the overall design of the site.
Doug
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
