Suggestion for a new category of comments

User avatar
Jo999
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:08 pm

Suggestion for a new category of comments

Post by Jo999 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:19 pm

Hello,

as I am interested in website-design, how about creating a new comment-Category called: good website design (with a green point)

It is not only the good look, but also good handling and a good structure and concept and of course a a good design means bringing the typografic infomation into an adequate optical form.

best wishes

Jo

Guest

Security?

Post by Guest » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:01 pm

First, welcome to the forum.

While website design is a valid concern in an aesthetic arena, it does not seem to be a security issue . . . which is what WOT grades on.

I mean, there are some sites that have a horrible look but are safe, and other sites that are designed well but harbor malware and are NOT safe (and vice-versa). Consequently, the virtues of design are not an indicator of safety.

User avatar
phantazm
Posts: 2486
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

aesthetic..?

Post by phantazm » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:59 pm

In my opinion webdesign is not about aesthetics, but functionality and readability.
But apart from that I agree, design is normally not a security aspect...

Second thoughts, design doesn't belong in the 'red' end of the scale,
but it might be more relevant in the 'green' end. So, perhaps...

SeanW
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:44 am

Critiques of webpage design

Post by SeanW » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:12 am

Critiques of webpage design are well outside WOTs remit, WOT is a safety advisor. I'm afraid I disagree with the OP.

Guest

Splitting hairs maybe

Post by Guest » Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:17 am

"Aesthetics" to me IS readability, though maybe I should have said that it is only one component. "Aesthetics" is "how it looks", and "how it looks" is a factor in how "readable" it is. "Aesthetics" also deals with "art" and how appealing something looks. If a website doesn't look appealing to me, it's readabilty is impacted negatively because I'm distracted.

From a web site design page:
  1. "Web-site design can be approached from two viewpoints, the technical aspects and the emotional or aesthetic appearance of the site."
Nevertheless, we're dealing with "definitions" here (Wikipedia: "Aesthetics studies . . . ways of seeing . . . "), and definitions can be very subjective. What "aesthetics" means to me may or may not be what it means to someone else,

At the end of the day, though, we agree that web site design has nothing to do with WOT ratings.

User avatar
Jo999
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:08 pm

comment - category

Post by Jo999 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:10 pm

I understand, that WOT´s strenght is the reputation score - but what I meant is, to have another comment-category.
I see, that the main topic of WOT is security, but there is also a comment-category called "entertaining" - which is, to my opinion, not a technical inspired category from a security point of view.

A "good web site design" category would perhaps motivate, and just a "wow" would´nt be enough as a comment for a good website design.

I hope, that my posting is in correct english - I am no native speaker

User avatar
The Big Bin
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:31 pm

-

Post by The Big Bin » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:22 pm

The "Entertaining" category is just like the "Useful, Informative" categroy - it discusses the content of the site and CAN give the user some information on what's on the site.

However, things like web design really have nothing to do with what's on the site. Take Brothersoft. com for example, a site which is not trusted by the vast majority of the community. Still, I'd say it looks quite good. So would you post a green comment on a site where others have reported bad stuff, just because it looks good?

I'd also not really vote for that you see...

--
P.S. This shall not be a comment by myself on Brothersoft etc.

Guest

Not complicate the application

Post by Guest » Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm

I'm sorry but I disagree with the idea because when you use WOT, you are looking for information about security and not for the design of the site. Comments that don't match with the concept of WOT are useless because you waste your time reading that kind of information.

It's better a few information about a site but good information about security. A lot of information about everything make difficult to know the website.

Best regards.

User avatar
Kraftwerk
Posts: 4019
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:30 pm

Re:

Post by Kraftwerk » Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:57 pm

[cite]It's better a few information about a site but good information about security.[/cite] Correct.There are lots of items which could be mentionend.But security should be most important. With to much items the security could lose importance.Quality instead of quantity


Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community

User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

Entertaining

Post by c۞g » Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:33 am

Entertaining
Youtube - scorecard, currently has 4984 comments

Why?
The majority of people who visit websites have no idea or any interest as to "how" the page is marked up, what DOCTYPE it uses, whether it meets any standards test, etc. All they know is does it load? Is it useful> Is it fun (entertaining), etc.

Having a comment category for something that would require:
1] viewing the source code, as long as it's legible.
2] determining if that source code is agreeable to "you."
(old sites still exist that uses the HTML table tags for "style" - hey, they don;t have to worry about IE6 CSS hacks, they just worked, and still do.

IMO, a Comment Category for "Good site design" would be one rarely used and highly arguable.

that's my opinion.

-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests