[plug] Make The Move website launched!

[Arie Hol]

On 6 Jan 2007 at 1:28, Jonathan Young wrote:

> Arie Hol wrote:
> > On 5 Jan 2007 at 9:12, Chris Smart wrote:
> >   
> >> Dear pluggers,
> >>
> >> I am a clugger, but wanted to post to the plug list about a new 
website
> >> that I've launched, http://makethemove.net (coding by MattV in 
Albany).
> >>
> >> It is a website designed to promote Linux and open source software 
as
> >> viable alternatives to Windows and other computer systems.
> >>     
> >
> > Nice work, easy on the eye and with a good lay-out.
> >
> > My aging CRT had bit of a wrestle with the recommended resolution of
> > 1024x768.
> >
> > Hint : not every body in the world has the most modern whiz bang 
display
> > units.
> >   
> Not to be argumentative Arie, but I wholeheartedly disagree with 
keeping
> website resolutions down to include a broader audience.  For those 
people
> who wish to run old CRT screens, fine.  But expect the various 
headaches
> that go with them and expect to find some things hard to view.
> 
> I also wasn't going to bite until I read units capable of greater than
> 1024x768 described as "the most modern whiz bang display units"!  
That's
> not really accurate...
> 
> My current laptop which I've had for over a year runs every day at 
> 1680x1050 (wide-screen) and my previous laptop did similar (1400x1050
> non-wide-screen).  I purchased them in 2005 and 2002 respectively.  Now
> these are LAPTOPS running at their limit, but that's what I wanted AS A
> MINIMUM spec.  I'd expect MORE from a desktop display.  Prior to 
switching
> to laptops for day to day use, I was running desktop CRTs (17") and 
from
> 1997 onwards I was running at 1280x1024 whenever possible.  It has been
> more than 10 years since I used 1024x768 or 800x600 on a regular basis 
on
> my own PCs and I have been encouraging my clients to own hardware able 
to
> do 1024x768 (minimum) since about 2002.
> 
> Now I say all of this simply because I wouldn't want anyone developing 
a
> website to think that expecting it to require 1024x768 as a minimum is 
a
> bad thing - in fact, it's about time.
> 
> If things don't look quite right for those with old CRTs... don't 
> worry.  They'll be used to it soon enough...
> 

Ironically, we all promote Linux as suitable for "older  hardware", yet 
you are saying "tough luck" to those with "older display units".

Is that a contradiction ????


As we all know, there are many ways to present content with the use of 
web pages, as there are many ways to deliver it.

There are many things to consider with the design and layout of a web 
site. The personal preferences of the sites' creator(s) may not always 
have the desired affect on  visitors to that site.

I have no intention of criticising the work of the people who created 
this web site, but to "narrow the view" of the site, and its content and 
presentation, will undoubtedly "narrow the view" of those who visit the 
site and the opinions and decisions based on the visit to that site.

Things to consider : Usability, standards, accessibility, consistency.

Like I said before :

"Nice work, easy on the eye and with a good lay-out."

"Hint : not every body in the world has the most modern whiz bang display 
units."

In fact you will find that the majority of the world does not have "the 
most modern whiz bang display units".

And you will also find the the largest number of people who will come 
across to Linux in the next year or so, may not have "the most modern 
whiz bang display units".

So perhaps another thing to consider :

Who is the "Target Audience" for this web site ?????


Regards Arie
------------------------------------------------------------------
 For the concert of life, nobody has a program.
------------------------------------------------------------------