@mawburn posted the following link in another thread… The Poorest Kids of Silicon Valley
Beyond the social implications, I am totally blown away by the look and feel of this “slideshow”.
And it gives me some ideas of my own.
Could someone help me understand how they created it?
Thanks!
Each click of the next/previous updates an HTML DIV with the updated content (e.g. new image, video element, elements for the bar graphs). All of it is Javascript minus some base background color and crap via CSS.
So it is primarily a JavaScript thing?
Does it require HTML5 or Flash or anything else?
You mention “crap”… Does that mean you don’t like it?
Yup. Disable Javascript; that’s the easiest way to tell if it’s using it 
.
I used crap in the context of other CSS rules. So aside from some visual stuff like colors and whatnot, this is all Javascript. The functionality is Javascript.
A lot of people don’t. As I mentioned when I linked it, I only made it about 50-75% through and gave up because I got sick of it.
I am pretty dumb when it comes to interactive client-side websites. 
My experience is more with server-side technologies like PHP.
What is you opinion of the slideshow from a technical point-of-view?
Is it respectable?
Is it technologically sound?
Does it offer good UI and UX?
At first when I was using it, I thought it might be HTML5 or Flash - neither of which I really have a clue!!
Not sure why I liked it so much. Maybe because it feels more “interactive” than just reading static text.
I also like it because it allows the possibility to add video and even more interactive/dynamic content.
That’s just me…
Why did you get sick of it? (Especially on such a gripping topic?!)
Because it’s a web page, not a PowerPoint Presentation and reading 1 sentence per page is terrible UX. It adds absolutely nothing to the content and does not enhance the experience in any logical way. The only thing it really accomplishes is wasting more of the user’s time than necessary.
Nothing personal, but that sounds like what a developer would say!
The whole purpose of the presentation - as I saw it - was to get people to PONDER things…
So taking a look at a photo and reading a couple sentences and then pausing to PONDER the social implications is very powerful.
If someone is the type that they want this in a quick paragraph so you can get on with your life then you obviously aren’t the right target audience!
It seems a little strange to me to be annoyed that things aren’t “quick” when you are reading about a topic like children starving to death in one of the richest places in the world?! (Nothing personal.)
Obviously you wouldn’t want ever thing you ever read to play like that, but for that particular subject and the fact that it was intended to be a “reflective” piece - not speed reading the news, I think it was very effective.
Apparently you’re too young to have ever seen “Life” magazine which had a similar format… 
See @mawburn’s comments. I’m more of a front-end guy in terms of coding. I design crap. Although from a UX standpoint and just as a visitor to webpages, I hate slideshows. This isn’t Powerpoint…
I can respect the code. Not the end product though. There are many who do like this though so to each their own.
There is that word again! Why do you say you design “crap”? LOL
Well, like I tried to say above, I would NOT design an entire website this way. But if you are trying to get people to ponder some deeper topic of life, I think it is an awesome way to communicate things.
I remember as a kid things like “Look Book” and “Life” magazine, and they used entire two-page spreads with just a photo and a short textual blip to communicate so much about deep topics (e.g. Vietnam War).
Like anything, I think if you have a combination of different approaches, that is the best way to communicate.
I can see having a few slideshows on your website to supplement the more normal full-length articles like you would find in something like Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, etc.
Of course for geeks, if they can’t easily thumb through it on their smart phones, then you are probably out of luck!
It’s all about the context.
With the advancements of JavaScript in last few years it is an accepted norm to expect users to have JavaScript available. Is that perhaps a good or bad thing I can’t say. However, I think Google speaks for much of the web and there is no denying their success. Not to mention with the advancements of headless browsers search providers have very few excuses to not index JavaScript intensive sites. So when users disable JavaScript that is their prerogative for better or worst but it doesn’t mean we all have to gravel at their foot accepting their elitist attitude toward modern technology. Google followed by many top players on the net sure don’t…
As far as screen readers go I’m sick of hearing about those to. There is enough technology in the world to provide a decent experience for screen readers without relying on fallbacks to disable JavaScript. The thing is it just ain’t all that important so little attention is given to it. Sad but true. The internet speaks and much of it gives it you blatant finger in the air when javaScript is disabled and all those sites are running just fine. So yeah…
People having JS off is not the issue. JS is not totally reliable, for a number of reasons, which is the real reason a fallback is needed.
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
