The real goal is provide a website that is useful and informative to customers and ultimately improve the bottom line. Site wide changes are suprisingly expensive and there better be a damn good reason before such an endevour is attempted.
While the developers involved may get their jollies from working with the latest and greatest, it is best that these people not do strategic planning. Instead, experience should prevail and focus on only what is required to produce an end result.
'Up-to-date' is simply not enough justification to scrap thousands of proofed and debugged web pages.
If anything, I am impressed that Apple has people in charge that recognize this.
i figure steve himself is probably the biggest roadblock. i remember a time article where he was individually critiquing every individual graphic for the various sections of iTools way-back-when. plus, steve's got a LOT on his plate right now. so maybe they do have a new design all ready for him to review, and he demands final say, but he's so difficult to pin down for a few minutes of design discussion.
i say this mostly because i have experienced the same "issues" before with previous execs... and they were nowhere near the rumored demanding nature of steve and co.
Apple has never in the last 5 years or so had a web site that was valid html and/or up to the then-current standards of web design. This is not going to change now or in the near future.
They obviously are using a patchwork of content-management systems for the developer pages, the shop and static html for sections like the ipod and powerbook info sites. Some sites are derived from databases like the tech specs and tech notes. In some far regions of the developer pages, you can still find site design stemming from around 1998.
There is little chance they are going to invest heavily in a system to consolidate all those bits and pieces - let alone the manpower needed to redo their site.
It is a shame to anyone interested in x(ht)ml and CSS like me, but at least currently, Apple has no strategic interest in pushing W3C standards. We will have to wait till Apple decides to include Webfabric into iLive. Lately, they are so preoccupied with music this seems unlikely...
I'm just surprised by the lack of consistency. In some of the newest pages, like the "tiger" page, I feel the design of the top "navigation" bar is outdated compared to the rest of the page.
I'm also disapointed in Apple for not trying to keep up with the current standards. The front page would be a good place to start...
I'm also disapointed in Apple for not trying to keep up with the current standards. The front page would be a good place to start...
They can only keep up with current standards to the extent that the browsers used to view their pages do. You don't gain switchers by showing a curious Windows 98 user a fragmentary, misformatted, or unformatted page that also happens to be valid XHTML. Unfortunately, it'll be years before the old Netscape legacy is erased from the (mainstream) web. There will probably be GeoCities sites optimized for Netscape 3 until the end of time.
Furthermore, since some parts of their site do go back years, and span different departments within Apple, gathering the whole thing up under a common standard is an immense project. The fact that the site has to remain live and responsive at all times doesn't help, either. So, even if their goal is to bring the whole site up to XHTML compliance, it'll be a very long time before they actually get there. And they won't get there any faster than they can go without breaking the site (especially the front page!) for a significant percentage of visitors.
Besides all that, the next-generation web standards are still shaking out, and some of them are interesting enough that it's worth holding out until they're good and done.
They can only keep up with current standards to the extent that the browsers used to view their pages do. You don't gain switchers by showing a curious Windows 98 user a fragmentary, misformatted, or unformatted page that also happens to be valid XHTML. Unfortunately, it'll be years before the old Netscape legacy is erased from the (mainstream) web. There will probably be GeoCities sites optimized for Netscape 3 until the end of time.
Furthermore, since some parts of their site do go back years, and span different departments within Apple, gathering the whole thing up under a common standard is an immense project. The fact that the site has to remain live and responsive at all times doesn't help, either. So, even if their goal is to bring the whole site up to XHTML compliance, it'll be a very long time before they actually get there. And they won't get there any faster than they can go without breaking the site (especially the front page!) for a significant percentage of visitors.
Besides all that, the next-generation web standards are still shaking out, and some of them are interesting enough that it's worth holding out until they're good and done.
I certainly see your point, but Apple seems to doing this in other parts of their site, like the mentioned Tiger page. I really like the design in the tiger pages. Not surprisingly the seem more in tone with... er... tiger.
But my single biggest issue is with the graphic design of the main navigation bar. It just feels o.l.d. Like the pinstripes. They haven't been that way in the OS since 10.2... but maybe it's just me.
I don't know jack about web standards and the html/css/xhtml whatnot voodoo that make sit up. However, I would assume that at least some sites on Apple.com, particualrly marketing ones, portals as it were, show some idea of the where they're headed with the bigger parts of the domain. What's up with this page for instance that showed up just a week or two ago?
I'm just surprised by the lack of consistency. In some of the newest pages, like the "tiger" page, I feel the design of the top "navigation" bar is outdated compared to the rest of the page.
I'm also disapointed in Apple for not trying to keep up with the current standards. The front page would be a good place to start...
That's quite unfair. The design of the navigation bar *is* outdated. That's because it's basically the same code and visual design that's being used across the entire site. It hasn't been fundamentally changed for many years because basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The rest of the page below the navigation however is, for recent updates, cutting-edge web-standards based design. Each new product over the last couple of years has had better web pages introducing it and they'll keep getting better simply because it is much cheaper and easier to produce standards based web pages once you make the decision to switch and learn a new way to do things.
I wouldn't therefore be surprised at all to see the top navigation replaced soon with something that A) is standards based, looks a hell of a lot better and C) matches with whatever the Tiger UI looks like.
(note that the very front page isn't particularly standards based, but it really only consists of large images/animations and is also the part of the site most likely to be hit by all sorts of crazy browsers. Web standards don't really buy Apple anything here, nor do they provide anything to the end user.)
You want to see some ugly code, go look at MSFT webpages. They are frankly terrible, not just non-standard but stupid, buggy pieces of crap.
That's quite unfair. The design of the navigation bar *is* outdated. That's because it's basically the same code and visual design that's being used across the entire site. It hasn't been fundamentally changed for many years because basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The rest of the page below the navigation however is, for recent updates, cutting-edge web-standards based design. Each new product over the last couple of years has had better web pages introducing it and they'll keep getting better simply because it is much cheaper and easier to produce standards based web pages once you make the decision to switch and learn a new way to do things.
I wouldn't therefore be surprised at all to see the top navigation replaced soon with something that A) is standards based, looks a hell of a lot better and C) matches with whatever the Tiger UI looks like.
(note that the very front page isn't particularly standards based, but it really only consists of large images/animations and is also the part of the site most likely to be hit by all sorts of crazy browsers. Web standards don't really buy Apple anything here, nor do they provide anything to the end user.)
You want to see some ugly code, go look at MSFT webpages. They are frankly terrible, not just non-standard but stupid, buggy pieces of crap.
I don't know jack about web standards and the html/css/xhtml whatnot voodoo that make sit up. However, I would assume that at least some sites on Apple.com, particualrly marketing ones, portals as it were, show some idea of the where they're headed with the bigger parts of the domain. What's up with this page for instance that showed up just a week or two ago?
Wow... first time I see a flash minisite inside the Apple framework. Can't really decide if I like it or not...
What's up with this page for instance that showed up just a week or two ago?
I'm going to let Apple off with that egregious use of Flash because it's aimed at students and we all know that students are too stoned to actually be interested in reading actual information and just want things that wobble, glow, dissolve and pulse.
Actually, every page that links off of that abomination is pretty well done. If they'd put just a little bit more love into the non-flash version of that first webpage then they'd have passed with flying colours, even with the Flash nonsense. But instead it looks like it was churned out by some monkey with Macromedia-itis. In fact it's quite possibly autogenerated from the Flash version, if it can do such wonders these days.
I actually can't believe they went to the effort to produce the site twice, once with Flash and again with slightly-flat HTML when they could just have made the HTML do swooshy roll-overs with a bit of effort. Hmm
Depends who the end-user is - web standards are about accessibility as well as separation of content from design.
...
On another note, I've seen an iteration of some Apple pages including the navbar in tableless css/xhtml somewhere (Eric Meyer ?) but I can't find it now.
That's what I meant when I said the end user wouldn't get much benefit. A page with a one giant image and four large images isn't going to translate well no matter how many standards you use. The information content of the front page is essentially nil if you don't count the header and footer.
...
Do you mean this Apple-like tabs implementation by Doug Bowman of Stop Design?
They can only keep up with current standards to the extent that the browsers used to view their pages do. You don't gain switchers by showing a curious Windows 98 user a fragmentary, misformatted, or unformatted page that also happens to be valid XHTML. Unfortunately, it'll be years before the old Netscape legacy is erased from the (mainstream) web. There will probably be GeoCities sites optimized for Netscape 3 until the end of time.
This is all nice and dandy, but in other areas, Apple has been much more radical. Want to buy an iPod to work with that Win98? Tough luck, only 2K and XP. Most likely there are still mp3-players working with RS232 and Win95 out too, but not from Apple.
Netscape 4 and lower are used by less then 1% of all users today. Including IE 4, this amounts to maybe 1% of all visitors. Do you really believe this is a make-or-break choice? What about the curious blind person looking for some information on buying a computer - he will be at disadvantage by the current HTML tag soup Apple produces but could benefit from a clean relaunch.
At some point you have to weight one group against the other and decide which is the more important - and you have to evaluate this decision once in a while when usage stats change.
This is all nice and dandy, but in other areas, Apple has been much more radical. Want to buy an iPod to work with that Win98? Tough luck, only 2K and XP. Most likely there are still mp3-players working with RS232 and Win95 out too, but not from Apple.
Hehe, my original MP3 player (a Rio PMP 300 back in the day) connects using the printer cable and doesn't work on anything above Windows 98.
Comments
Originally posted by dfiler
Does it display incorrectly in any browser?
Not really. But it's dated.
Both design wise and in technical terms (At least it sends me a message that They arn't really interested in being up-to-date).
The real goal is provide a website that is useful and informative to customers and ultimately improve the bottom line. Site wide changes are suprisingly expensive and there better be a damn good reason before such an endevour is attempted.
While the developers involved may get their jollies from working with the latest and greatest, it is best that these people not do strategic planning. Instead, experience should prevail and focus on only what is required to produce an end result.
'Up-to-date' is simply not enough justification to scrap thousands of proofed and debugged web pages.
If anything, I am impressed that Apple has people in charge that recognize this.
i say this mostly because i have experienced the same "issues" before with previous execs... and they were nowhere near the rumored demanding nature of steve and co.
They obviously are using a patchwork of content-management systems for the developer pages, the shop and static html for sections like the ipod and powerbook info sites. Some sites are derived from databases like the tech specs and tech notes. In some far regions of the developer pages, you can still find site design stemming from around 1998.
There is little chance they are going to invest heavily in a system to consolidate all those bits and pieces - let alone the manpower needed to redo their site.
It is a shame to anyone interested in x(ht)ml and CSS like me, but at least currently, Apple has no strategic interest in pushing W3C standards. We will have to wait till Apple decides to include Webfabric into iLive. Lately, they are so preoccupied with music this seems unlikely...
I'm also disapointed in Apple for not trying to keep up with the current standards. The front page would be a good place to start...
Originally posted by Kickaha
Okay, so who knows what HTML editing app this is? From a new Apple Developer Page:
<META NAME=generator CONTENT="Hammerhead 3.0">
Hammerhead? Tried googling for such as a web editor, found bupkus. Anyone?
The only thing Apple related for "Hammerhead" I've found is a codename used for the 17" PowerBook. http://www.apple-codenames.com/portable/
hmm
Originally posted by New
I'm also disapointed in Apple for not trying to keep up with the current standards. The front page would be a good place to start...
They can only keep up with current standards to the extent that the browsers used to view their pages do. You don't gain switchers by showing a curious Windows 98 user a fragmentary, misformatted, or unformatted page that also happens to be valid XHTML. Unfortunately, it'll be years before the old Netscape legacy is erased from the (mainstream) web. There will probably be GeoCities sites optimized for Netscape 3 until the end of time.
Furthermore, since some parts of their site do go back years, and span different departments within Apple, gathering the whole thing up under a common standard is an immense project. The fact that the site has to remain live and responsive at all times doesn't help, either. So, even if their goal is to bring the whole site up to XHTML compliance, it'll be a very long time before they actually get there. And they won't get there any faster than they can go without breaking the site (especially the front page!) for a significant percentage of visitors.
Besides all that, the next-generation web standards are still shaking out, and some of them are interesting enough that it's worth holding out until they're good and done.
I've always found apples web site to be clean and easily navigable. I can see why don't change it.
Originally posted by Amorph
They can only keep up with current standards to the extent that the browsers used to view their pages do. You don't gain switchers by showing a curious Windows 98 user a fragmentary, misformatted, or unformatted page that also happens to be valid XHTML. Unfortunately, it'll be years before the old Netscape legacy is erased from the (mainstream) web. There will probably be GeoCities sites optimized for Netscape 3 until the end of time.
Furthermore, since some parts of their site do go back years, and span different departments within Apple, gathering the whole thing up under a common standard is an immense project. The fact that the site has to remain live and responsive at all times doesn't help, either. So, even if their goal is to bring the whole site up to XHTML compliance, it'll be a very long time before they actually get there. And they won't get there any faster than they can go without breaking the site (especially the front page!) for a significant percentage of visitors.
Besides all that, the next-generation web standards are still shaking out, and some of them are interesting enough that it's worth holding out until they're good and done.
I certainly see your point, but Apple seems to doing this in other parts of their site, like the mentioned Tiger page. I really like the design in the tiger pages. Not surprisingly the seem more in tone with... er... tiger.
But my single biggest issue is with the graphic design of the main navigation bar. It just feels o.l.d. Like the pinstripes. They haven't been that way in the OS since 10.2... but maybe it's just me.
Originally posted by New
I'm just surprised by the lack of consistency. In some of the newest pages, like the "tiger" page, I feel the design of the top "navigation" bar is outdated compared to the rest of the page.
I'm also disapointed in Apple for not trying to keep up with the current standards. The front page would be a good place to start...
That's quite unfair. The design of the navigation bar *is* outdated. That's because it's basically the same code and visual design that's being used across the entire site. It hasn't been fundamentally changed for many years because basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The rest of the page below the navigation however is, for recent updates, cutting-edge web-standards based design. Each new product over the last couple of years has had better web pages introducing it and they'll keep getting better simply because it is much cheaper and easier to produce standards based web pages once you make the decision to switch and learn a new way to do things.
I wouldn't therefore be surprised at all to see the top navigation replaced soon with something that A) is standards based,
(note that the very front page isn't particularly standards based, but it really only consists of large images/animations and is also the part of the site most likely to be hit by all sorts of crazy browsers. Web standards don't really buy Apple anything here, nor do they provide anything to the end user.)
You want to see some ugly code, go look at MSFT webpages. They are frankly terrible, not just non-standard but stupid, buggy pieces of crap.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
That's quite unfair. The design of the navigation bar *is* outdated. That's because it's basically the same code and visual design that's being used across the entire site. It hasn't been fundamentally changed for many years because basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The rest of the page below the navigation however is, for recent updates, cutting-edge web-standards based design. Each new product over the last couple of years has had better web pages introducing it and they'll keep getting better simply because it is much cheaper and easier to produce standards based web pages once you make the decision to switch and learn a new way to do things.
I wouldn't therefore be surprised at all to see the top navigation replaced soon with something that A) is standards based,
(note that the very front page isn't particularly standards based, but it really only consists of large images/animations and is also the part of the site most likely to be hit by all sorts of crazy browsers. Web standards don't really buy Apple anything here, nor do they provide anything to the end user.)
You want to see some ugly code, go look at MSFT webpages. They are frankly terrible, not just non-standard but stupid, buggy pieces of crap.
I agree with everything you say!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I don't know jack about web standards and the html/css/xhtml whatnot voodoo that make sit up. However, I would assume that at least some sites on Apple.com, particualrly marketing ones, portals as it were, show some idea of the where they're headed with the bigger parts of the domain. What's up with this page for instance that showed up just a week or two ago?
Wow... first time I see a flash minisite inside the Apple framework. Can't really decide if I like it or not...
Originally posted by BuonRotto
What's up with this page for instance that showed up just a week or two ago?
I'm going to let Apple off with that egregious use of Flash because it's aimed at students and we all know that students are too stoned to actually be interested in reading actual information and just want things that wobble, glow, dissolve and pulse.
Actually, every page that links off of that abomination is pretty well done. If they'd put just a little bit more love into the non-flash version of that first webpage then they'd have passed with flying colours, even with the Flash nonsense. But instead it looks like it was churned out by some monkey with Macromedia-itis. In fact it's quite possibly autogenerated from the Flash version, if it can do such wonders these days.
I actually can't believe they went to the effort to produce the site twice, once with Flash and again with slightly-flat HTML when they could just have made the HTML do swooshy roll-overs with a bit of effort. Hmm
Originally posted by segovius
Depends who the end-user is - web standards are about accessibility as well as separation of content from design.
...
On another note, I've seen an iteration of some Apple pages including the navbar in tableless css/xhtml somewhere (Eric Meyer ?) but I can't find it now.
That's what I meant when I said the end user wouldn't get much benefit. A page with a one giant image and four large images isn't going to translate well no matter how many standards you use. The information content of the front page is essentially nil if you don't count the header and footer.
...
Do you mean this Apple-like tabs implementation by Doug Bowman of Stop Design?
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slidingdoors/
So instead of complaining about the darkness, who's going to light a candle?
Any ideas on what Apple could replace the tabbed interface with?
Originally posted by Amorph
They can only keep up with current standards to the extent that the browsers used to view their pages do. You don't gain switchers by showing a curious Windows 98 user a fragmentary, misformatted, or unformatted page that also happens to be valid XHTML. Unfortunately, it'll be years before the old Netscape legacy is erased from the (mainstream) web. There will probably be GeoCities sites optimized for Netscape 3 until the end of time.
This is all nice and dandy, but in other areas, Apple has been much more radical. Want to buy an iPod to work with that Win98? Tough luck, only 2K and XP. Most likely there are still mp3-players working with RS232 and Win95 out too, but not from Apple.
Netscape 4 and lower are used by less then 1% of all users today. Including IE 4, this amounts to maybe 1% of all visitors. Do you really believe this is a make-or-break choice? What about the curious blind person looking for some information on buying a computer - he will be at disadvantage by the current HTML tag soup Apple produces but could benefit from a clean relaunch.
At some point you have to weight one group against the other and decide which is the more important - and you have to evaluate this decision once in a while when usage stats change.
Originally posted by Smircle
This is all nice and dandy, but in other areas, Apple has been much more radical. Want to buy an iPod to work with that Win98? Tough luck, only 2K and XP. Most likely there are still mp3-players working with RS232 and Win95 out too, but not from Apple.
Hehe, my original MP3 player (a Rio PMP 300 back in the day) connects using the printer cable and doesn't work on anything above Windows 98.
Andrew