Author Topic: Kel Tec: who does your website? (Read 10555 times)

Balog · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2009, 02:43:30 PM »

Hey, what's wrong with DnD? >: (

White Horseradish · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2009, 03:33:37 PM »

Quote from: HForrest on March 11, 2009, 01:58:59 AM

Yes, I think the same thing whenever I visit their site. They've become a fairly prominent gun company, and you'd think they could dedicate a small amount of resources to their website and advertising-- some simple changes would do wonders for their image, and separate them from the budget/crap gun makers like Hi-Point and Phoenix. I tend to think, based on their site and the designs of the guns they've put out, that whoever is running the show at Kel-tec has a pretty poor sense of aesthetics.

Hi-point's website is worse and Phoenix doesn't have a website. Incidentally, Phoenix .22 pistols ar just fine. It's all the other calibers that suck.

Viking · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2009, 03:49:14 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on March 11, 2009, 10:13:31 AM

I do.

Grey backgrounds, animated gifs, rainbow lines...

Flaming skulls. Lots of flaming skulls.

gunsmith · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2009, 03:57:07 PM »

Quote from: White Horseradish on March 11, 2009, 03:33:37 PM

Hi-point's website is worse and Phoenix doesn't have a website. Incidentally, Phoenix .22 pistols ar just fine. It's all the other calibers that suck.

I really liked my Raven .25 made by Phoenix, reliable and accurate.
I wish I hadn't sold it a long time ago.

charby · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:15:01 PM »

Quote from: Balog on March 11, 2009, 02:43:30 PM

Hey, what's wrong with DnD? >: (

I don't think you want my answer.

Balog · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:21:26 PM »

Quote from: Charby on March 11, 2009, 04:15:01 PM

I don't think you want my answer.

Actually I am kind of curious what your objection is.

charby · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:29:27 PM »

Quote from: Balog on March 11, 2009, 04:21:26 PM

Actually I am kind of curious what your objection is.

My experiences with most proud D&D players are the biggest social retards.

Balog · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:31:10 PM »

Quote from: Charby on March 11, 2009, 04:29:27 PM

My experiences with most proud D&D players are the biggest social retards.

Yeah, it does tend to draw the nerdy. Maybe the rest of the avid players are just less vocal (as we have better social skills) so you never know.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:53:45 PM »

Quote

Hey now, not all marketers do bloat sites. And the most godawful ugly sites are the ones the engineers do. Two words. BLUE and RED.

There's things like eye tracking studies and all that most are just clueless about.

I read an article recently by a web marketing advisor. He tried an experiment. He had some banner ads that needed to be done. He had the graphics guys do some, and then had some techie types do some. The techie types came up with godawful combinations of colors, but their ads got more clicks than the well-designed ones.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #34 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:53:30 AM »

Another bad website. Last updated in 2005, but the design looks like it hasn't changed since 2000.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/nsalway/Index.html

41magsnub · « **Reply #35 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:57:49 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Tactical pants on March 12, 2009, 12:53:30 AM

Another bad website. Last updated in 2005, but the design looks like it hasn't changed since 2000.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/nsalway/Index.html

Ah yes.. the old Microsoft Word save as html feature!

41magsnub · « **Reply #36 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:00:03 AM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on March 11, 2009, 05:53:45 PM

I read an article recently by a web marketing advisor. He tried an experiment. He had some banner ads that needed to be done. He had the graphics guys do some, and then had some techie types do some. The techie types came up with godawful combinations of colors, but their ads got more clicks than the well-designed ones.

As an IT guy, banner ads scare me and I would never click on one given the odds of them wanting to do "something bad". Just saying.. Granted I run noscript among other things so it mostly would not come up but still..

Regolith · « **Reply #37 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:19:23 AM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on March 11, 2009, 05:53:45 PM

I read an article recently by a web marketing advisor. He tried an experiment. He had some banner ads that needed to be done. He had the graphics guys do some, and then had some techie types do some. The techie types came up with godawful combinations of colors, but their ads got more clicks than the well-designed ones.

Probably because they didn't sacrifice content and information for aesthetics...

The degree I'm currently working on is a fairly unique one in that it combines computer science with media/graphic arts. Which means I have to take design classes in addition to regular CS-type classes. There is a very clear disconnect between the two camps. The CS side wants the information to be presented clearly, cleanly and efficiently. The graphics arts value aesthetics far more than the message. Actually, they want the aesthetics to BE the message, even if the only way you can work that message out is if you have a degree in Fine Art, and even then you're more likely to completely miss the mark than not...

Very frustrating, sometimes, particularly when I design something that falls in line with some of the things we had been studying in user interface design (a CS class, though it delves into design a bit) and the media arts professor wants me to change it so that it is more aesthetically pleasing (to him anyway), but the interface becomes less easy to use...

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #38 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:25:46 AM »

Quote from: 41magsnub on March 12, 2009, 12:57:49 AM

Ah yes.. the old Microsoft Word save as html feature!

Normally, I don't demand a translation of every bit of geek-speak around here. But since you were responding to my post, I hope you won't mind letting me in on the joke.

Regolith · « **Reply #39 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:35:43 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Tactical pants on March 12, 2009, 01:25:46 AM

Normally, I don't demand a translation of every bit of geek-speak around here. But since you were responding to my post, I hope you won't mind letting me in on the joke.

Microsoft word can save pages you make as HTML so they can be uploaded. Generally, pages made in this way suck pretty hard core, as the code is poorly done (since it's done by a machine) and the design usually sucks too (because generally, most people who use Word for HTML have the design sensibilities of a 4 year old on crack, not to mention that word has very limited formatting capabilities as compared to HTML and CSS).

roo_ster · « **Reply #40 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:52:33 AM »

I never used MS Word fr that, but I have used OOffice to produce several formats from the same source document:
ooffice format
MSoffice format
html
.pdf

CNYCacher · « **Reply #41 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:12:15 AM »

One of my recent sites:

http://www.skjournal.com

41magsnub · « **Reply #42 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:21:55 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Tactical pants on March 12, 2009, 01:25:46 AM

Normally, I don't demand a translation of every bit of geek-speak around here. But since you were responding to my post, I hope you won't mind letting me in on the joke.

I opened up the source on the web page and could tell it was a word document they saved as html.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #43 on:** March 12, 2009, 01:20:57 PM »

Quote from: CNYCacher on March 12, 2009, 11:12:15 AM

One of my recent sites:

http://www.skjournal.com

OK, what's with the strobe light there at the top of the page?

CNYCacher · « **Reply #44 on:** March 12, 2009, 02:10:36 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Tactical pants on March 12, 2009, 01:20:57 PM

OK, what's with the strobe light there at the top of the page?

What OS/Browser combination are you running?

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #45 on:** March 12, 2009, 03:58:11 PM »

Quote from: 41magsnub on March 12, 2009, 01:00:03 AM

As an IT guy, banner ads scare me and I would never click on one given the odds of them wanting to do "something bad". Just saying.. Granted I run noscript among other things so it mostly would not come up but still..

You're not the only one, and I'm a non-techie. I can barely keep a home network up for cryin'ou'loud.
A few of the cute girl webcams/chats/whatevers are awful tempting, though.....there was one on photobucket yesterday, the girl was so gorgeous I wanted to click it....but...I....resisted....

bk425 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 13, 2009, 12:59:07 PM »

Quote from: mtnbkr on March 11, 2009, 11:23:15 AM

The website is crude, but it loads quickly and is easy to navigate. I prefer it to Ruger's.

Eye candy and lots of flash, java, etc don't impress me. I want information.

Chris

Hear hear, function rules over form.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #47 on:** March 13, 2009, 01:30:25 PM »

Quote from: CNYCacher on March 12, 2009, 02:10:36 PM

What OS/Browser combination are you running?

It only does that on this computer I sometimes use at work. Appears to be Windows XP, and IE6, Service Pack 2.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #48 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:37:47 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Tactical pants on March 13, 2009, 01:30:25 PM

It only does that on this computer I sometimes use at work. Appears to be Windows XP, and IE6, Service Pack 2.

Replicated. . . yuk! Thanks for the tip.

5000 visitors a day and it's been up for 3 months. First complaint comes from Fistful after one view. . .

Fistful is demonstrably 3 * 30 * 5000 = 450,000 times more complainy than the average web user.

Not that I don't appreciate the feedback :)

AZAndy · « **Reply #49 on:** March 13, 2009, 08:51:35 PM »

I was hoping for one of those mailboxes with the lid that opens and closes. Oh, and a "sign our guest register" thing. Man, those were totally awesome. The good old days...

News:

Author Topic: Kel Tec: who does your website? (Read 10555 times)