Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Beatles
November 13, 2000 2:42 PM   Subscribe

The Beatles are back and now online! Check out their new site for their new compliation CD 1
P.S: The site layout was made on Mac with BBEdit 5.0
posted by riffola (14 comments total)

 
why does this site suck so bad?

while there is a lot of good content, the interface is just plain annoying (speaking mostly about the "hi-tech perspective" -- althought the "lo-tech" could use some tweaking as well).

one example: to my mind, one of the beauties of creating a site in flash or shockwave or dhtml is the ability to load new pages and information without "browser blink," you know, when your browser goes blank for a second in between html pages.

it happens between every song in the "hi-tech" side, and between just about every click in the "lo-tech" side, except of course for when it is spawning a new window.

and what's with the confusion of all the icons mulling around like dancing bees until you click on them? that makes no sense.

eot.
posted by o2b at 3:51 PM on November 13, 2000


One would think that when a high profile website, such as TheBeetles.com, uses someone else's technology they would give a little credit where it's due.
posted by FearfulFred at 4:19 PM on November 13, 2000


one of the beauties of creating a site in flash or shockwave or dhtml is the ability to load new pages and information without "browser blink," you know, when your browser goes blank for a second in between html pages.

People actually spend time worrying about things like this?

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 5:12 PM on November 13, 2000


You mean The Beatles are still alive?


posted by lagado at 6:09 PM on November 13, 2000


mars:

yes, a lot of people, namely web developers, worry about things like this. worrying about things like this led to dhtml in the first place, and flash, and xml...

it's called usability... and the beatles' site is lacking in a bunch of it. don't get me wrong, i'm not a jakob apostle, but usability is an important feature in every web site.
posted by o2b at 7:11 PM on November 13, 2000


This is the most annoying website I've seen in well over a year. What crap
posted by Outlawyr at 7:50 PM on November 13, 2000


The rotating three dimensional menu is not the 'technology' of Typospace.. you'd probably have to go back to xerox parc to find the inventor and everyone knows it's ok to steal their ideas...
posted by muta at 8:09 PM on November 13, 2000


I don't care, its great, i love it, ELECT LENNON =)
posted by Satapher at 8:39 PM on November 13, 2000


muta:

The concept of three dimensional space for navigation isn't "technology", it's just design - something that I almost expect to be stolen. What I'm refering to is the massive amount of mathematic engineering done by Thomas Noller, Chris Glaubitz, Jonathan Snyder, and Che Tamahori that allow shock enabled environments to mimic three deminsional space.

I just found it odd that they had ample space to give respect and didn't. It's like removing an author's message from the top of his GPL source - in theory just fine, but in reality, rude.
posted by FearfulFred at 9:06 PM on November 13, 2000


yes, a lot of people, namely web developers, worry about things like this. worrying about things like this led to dhtml in the first place, and flash, and xml...

I understand the importance of usability design. What I can't fathom is how a minor UI glitch like the window blink before a refresh justifies an incredibly overweight, awkward, and just plain unfriendly "solution" like flash. It's like curing hangnail by sawing off your foot.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:41 PM on November 13, 2000


Um by the layout, I meant the low tech, HTML based layout was made in BBEdit
posted by riffola at 11:37 PM on November 13, 2000


[Content-free "me too" post.]

It's like curing hangnail by sawing off your foot.

Amen, Mars.
posted by daveadams at 9:27 AM on November 14, 2000


mars/daveadams:

i agree that flash is not justified in most cases -- but they're using shockwave anyway! both of these options are extremely easy to create seamless sites with.

in the beatles' site's case each song section is its own html page creating an odd user experience. not only does your browser have to refresh a new html page but it has to load a new shockwave piece.

to my mind, better not to have the blink and new 'shockwave loading' every time you change songs.

implementing a javascript solution for many of the same problems (like refreshing the entire page each time you click a different archived image) would also be quite easy.

all i'm saying is that the usability sucks.

and as long as the topic is here, does anyone know why they used shockwave as opposed to flash?
posted by o2b at 12:49 PM on November 14, 2000


FearfulFred:

I've written similar toys for shockwave, and I know that the equations for calculating movement in 3d space and transforming points for display in 2d space take up about 10 lines of code.

All I'm saying is that anyone can write such a thing with a few days to experiment and a good reference book.

posted by muta at 8:49 PM on November 14, 2000


« Older 13 Myths About the Results of the 2000 Election....  |  A Chronovore... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments