[CLUE-Talk] PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption

[Matt Gushee]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:04:25PM -0600, Jeffery Cann wrote:
> 
> > However, if one is using the web, and one thinks that the exact
> > placement of one's company logo on the screen, and the exact font, and
> > the exact ... are required to protect your company image, then I would
> > say that one does not grok the web. 
> 
> You're beeing too technophilic.  Business people don't care about grok'ing the 
> web.  They don't even know what grok means.  All they know is the sales guy 
> can sell more of their crap if they have a consistent image -- regardless of 
> the medium.

Do they *know* that, or *think* that? I would argue the latter: that
they are mistakenly applying principles that more-or-less work for other
media to the Web, where they may not work.

And it's not 'technophilic' to argue for usability. The issue is what
makes a Web site appealing or unappealing, memorable or forgettable,
usable or not, *to the user.* And I would argue that pure technophiles
tend to fall into the same errors as marketing people, though for
different reasons: e.g. they like to develop Flash sites because Flash
is "kewl."

> You should talk with some graphics or marketing folks to see just how much 
> they do care about image.  The careers of a slew of people are spent shifting 
> things around pixel by pixel.  They care utterly and completely about where 
> their logo displays on all of their company's literature.

Of course they do. That's what they're paid to care about. And they are
probably the only ones who care that much. In fact, that right there is
probably a large part of the problem, because there are so many people
who have a vested interest in elaborate visuals.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that graphics are unimportant to branding on
the Web, only that they are less important than many executives and
marketing people think. What I think they need to understand--and these
days, the better corporate Web sites do reflect such an understanding--
is what characteristics of a Web site matter to users: for example,
things like navigation and loading speed. And I think the people here
who are saying "PDF sucks," or "Flash sucks," are saying that based on
their experience *as users*. And the fact that we understand Web
technology doesn't mean that our experience of the Web is vastly
different from that of the Unwashed Masses. Knowing HTML and Javascript
doesn't make a site any more or less navigable. A slow-loading site is
just as slow for a CEO as it is for a Web administrator or a 5th-grader.
And so on ...

It may have been true a few years ago that ordinary users would be
captivated by "cool features," like Flash introductions, that would
annoy veteran techies. But I would say that was largely due to the
novelty of the whole Web experience. Surely we're long past that stage
by now, don't you think?

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)