I would like to know if members/customers of this website have a reasonable expectation of the courtesy of a response to their correspondence. I would also like to know if there will be a proper response to the issue of the navigation bar - as raised by members of this website. Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. spook

Hi Spook, We have responded several times indicating that it will remain as is. Clint

with respect, clinth, i have sent a note directly to mr. choate on this matter, too. i think it is reasonable to receive an acknowledgement. renderosity and bondware have NOT satisfactorily addressed the primary issue. to whit: the navigation bar affects negatively the performance of this website; this, in turn, has a direct impact on those who are using this website. it is BROKEN. IT DOES NOT WORK as you describe. your response on behalf of this website could be misunderstood. are you suggesting that renderosity and bondware do not find their customers credibile? do you believe that its members and customers are not capable of providing accurate information when reporting a problem. is it possible that renderosity and bondware do not care what their customers think? with a few exceptions, i believe that everyone involved in this matter has been civil. and i would like to remind you that, in that spirit, this matter was brought to your attention. this is not a philosophical attack; nor is this a "flame" against a matter of policy. PLEASE FIX IT. spook

I'm actually surprised that Bondware, using Renderosity as an advertisement for their service, would do something so lame as to make a graphical interface that not only looks like text but could be accomplished much better as text.

Not good advertisement in my opinion.

"i have sent a note directly to mr. choate on this matter, too. i think it is reasonable to receive an acknowledgement." I cant speak for Tim but I can make him aware of this post. "are you suggesting that renderosity and bondware do not find their customers credibile?" Not at all. "do you believe that its members and customers are not capable of providing accurate information when reporting a problem." No, However, there are a lot of potential variances in OS's, Browsers, security software and connections that play a roll in this. "is it possible that renderosity and bondware do not care what their customers think?" Not at all. If we didnt care we wouldnt have responded to the other posts based around this specific question. Clint

However, there are a lot of potential variances in OS's, Browsers, security software and connections that play a roll in this. Some very specific and direct solutions to this problem have been posted. The first was to make the menu an imagemap. The new image and all the coordinates and links were posted. The second was to make the menu text links again and use CSS to size the text so that it works in NS4.x (YES, CSS definitely does work in NS4.x!), which was stated as the problem that led to changing the menu, and which would also work in every other newer browser, as well. There is NO REASON for Renderosity to cling stubbornly to their design decision when it's clearly causing people continued problems and THERE ARE SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE. I'm typing in all caps for emphasis, not to shout. But, damn, when a significant number of users say that something is a problem for them, is it really good business or professional web development to say, "Too bad, you're doing something wrong, and we don't want to explore possible solutions that would help everyone and work for everyone!"? Think hard now... bonni

The technical issues of the web programming are out of my area of expertise and I trust my team of programmers to make the proper decissions on issues like this. I trust this is what they have done in this specific situation. In regards to numbers .. The amount of members complaining that there is a problem is less than .02% of our member base. Clint

So... those who are having problems are unimportant. Lovely. Very professional attitude. So what if a small number of people are having problems, we don't want to fix it. bonni

I only brough up the numbers because you mentioned them.
You said.. "when a significant number of users say that something is a problem for them"

.02% is not a "Significant" number of users.

"those who are having problems are unimportant."

Not at all. We value all of our members.

Clint Message edited on: 07/26/2004 11:51

Clint, I know this isn't your fault, and this is in no way personal. Please know that. But the fact is, there IS a problem, and whether or not the codemonkeys are able to reproduce it shouldn't really matter. Enough people have reported it, including screen caps and specific system settings and browser stats and lots of other stuff. The problem is real. The solution is not "How do we reproduce it", the solution is to use some other method of delivering the menu that will work cross-browser and cross-platform. This site is clearly not designed by designers, it's coded by programmers. Only a programmer would think, "Gee, there's a problem, I'll just screw around indefinitely with it until I can figure out why it's doing this," instead of, "Gee, there's a problem, I'll think of a different method of implementing this and not worry about why I can't reproduce it, so that the people who spend money here aren't being inconvienienced and troubled." sigh I really don't understand why this is so complicated and I definitely don't understand why it has to be determined that the images aren't being cached for many people. They're not, it's a problem, try something else. bonni

Having been one myself I sympathise with the people having problems but it is often difficult to change something without knowing WHY the problem existed in the first place. I run IE6 on a very slow system with a dialup connection often at 26k . The Renderosity site is usually OK response time wise. Perhaps it would be OK with Renderosity if they put up a forum topic for people to post some info. 1. what browser and what version, and settings 2. firewall, pop up blockers etc running 3. operating system This may help identify a common problem AT THE BROWSER END. regards

Perhaps, but what I think most of us can't quite understand is why 20-odd sliced graphics that look just like text links are better than text links, which i would guess render just fine on any browser - even Lynx ;) Certainly I doubt that anyone outside of Renderosity cares how the HTML (and thus the server-side coding) has been done. Also, if Renderosity thinks that the UI they have is somehow a great example for an "art" oriented site then, well :( Plus, as far as I tell the same people who have the problem with the slow loading graphics (me too and I'm on DSL) don't seem to have this problem with other sites. (I'm happy to be corrected there, as I can only really speak for myself, obviously.)

lundqvist, i don't have this problem on other websites. in my office, i am running a dell optiplex pc using windows 2000 OS, IE 6.0.2800.1106. the network is ethernet, IP, 100mbs. there are approximately 18,000 PCs at this site. i have exactly the same PC in my paris office - same network specs. paris is our european network hub. at home, i use a dell dimension 2600 with windows xp professional, using the same version browser as in the office. i also have a work-issued PC configured exactly as it is in my office. both connect to either a cable modem OR a DSL line. workplace PCs are maintained by our IT department - a single configuration for all workstations world-wide ( approximately 28,000 workstations). they are also responsible for the design and development of enterprise-wide, b-2-b, and "e-government" applications - delivered via the web. they also maintain our more than 2,200 servers. our webmaster suggests that your code is flawed. this website behaves badly on all of the PCs described. so, either my organisation - which spends several hundreds of millions of dollars per year maintaining its IT infrastructure - and its professional staff are wrong; or YOU are. you have heard from people on MAC OS and wintel PCs voice concern over the navigation bar's impact on website performance in four different threads. to be blunt, an enterprise would have to be suicidal - or stupid - NOT to make note of it. this is not personal; but this IS business. note: a sample of responses by members to a specific topic is governed by the same sampling rules that govern any other demographic exercise. based on frequency of responses, number of actively participating members, and the topic being discussed (and based on the interests of the contributors to a given thread), it is NOT accurate to conclude that .02% of your members have a problem with the navigation bar.

"In regards to numbers .. The amount of members complaining that there is a problem is less than .02% of our member base."

and the other god knows how many that just shrug and put up with it or do not take part in the forums?

ok, you claim that the users are listened to, then go on to prove the oppersite.

there is a problem. hard data has been provided.

myself, I'm an Ex computer helpdesk person, now switched to graphics. my machine, while not top of the line hardware, is running at full effiency regarding updates, settings, etc and connected to a 6mbs cable connection.

and guess what? slooooow loading on the menu.

now, I have 10 years in the IT field and to be told that I know nothing is, to put it bluntly, f***ing insulting.

Message edited on: 07/26/2004 15:35

I bet the 2% is more like %20, the other 18% not having ventured into this forum. This issue WILL NOT go away if the menu isn't fixed.

It's not so much that 0.02 % have complained about the slow menu, but rather that nobody has supported it, and everyone who mentions it, does so to complain how slow it is. But I use Netscape 4.x among others, and I can verify that Netscape will work with text links (instead of images that look like pixellated text). However, Netscape 4.x won't work with most modern style sheets AFAIK.

I have watched these threads with some amusement. I have problems with the menu (IE 6, Cable connection), but I don't really come here much anymore so it's not a huge issue for me and since it's clear R'osity doesn't care I figured why bother mentioning it. I stopped shopping in the marketplace here months ago and just when I was considering trying it again the marketplace fiasco happened. I haven't even browsed the MP since then. What I find amusing is that they changed the links because of the multitude of complaints about it not working, yet not one single person as far as I can tell has posted that the links were a problem. Compared to the number that have posted that they are a problem now. Not one person that I have seen that had a problem before the change has come forward and said yes it used to be a problem for me and now it isn't. So if the numbers of people that the old links were a problem for is so significantly larger than the number of people having problems now...where are they? Why haven't we heard from any of them either complaining before or saying how great the change is now?

The sad part is that some of us have provided potential fixes, even doing the grunt work, and none have been tried, AFAIK.

SOS-DD.

actually, this evening - without any adjustments to any of the settings on my personal pc at home - the navigation is caching correctly, almost always. if there has been a tweak of the server settings or the way in which the reference tables are being refreshed, it would be nice to hear about it.

and if work has been done, i would be very happy to say "thank you."

Message edited on: 07/26/2004 22:49

I'm married to a codemonkey. I'm friends with many, many other codemonkeys. I know how they think. ;-)

I'm a designer. I know how customers think and how the front end of a website should work.

Finding out "what's wrong" is all fine and good for source code, but for web design the answer is not, "Screw around forever with your thumb up your butt while the customers complain and you wonder what's wrong." In web design the answer is, "Use a different method of delivery and keep the customers happy."

The answer here is not, "Tell customers to take a flying leap," or "Tell them we can't replicate the problem, thus implying that they're either crazy or lying." The answer is "Use something else that will work." Why is that such a difficult concept?

Fact is, I'm not having any problems since I changed my browser to Firefox (I quite recommend it; it's pretty slick). I'm just trying to make the Powers That Be understand some very, very basic and simple concepts of good customer relations and basic web design concepts (which, unfortunately, seems to be utterly lost on them).

bonni

Message edited on: 07/27/2004 03:22

However, Netscape 4.x won't work with most modern style sheets AFAIK. Yes, it does. A lot of stuff won't work, true, but you can control the size of text to the pixel with CSS in NS4.x. I've done it. I can still do it (these days I use too much CSS to do the backward compatibility thing and I use other solutions, but I certainly can do it). You can absolutely, positively set font face AND size with Cascading Style Sheets and it will be usable and readable in NS4.x and later browsers. bonni

FWIW, I'll chime in to say that I've never experienced this slowdown that people are talking about, either here at work or at home. When I first surf to Renderoscity, yes, I see the menu graphic load, takes maybe six or seven seconds. When I surf to other areas of the web site, the menu is already cached and doesn't need to reload. It really hasn't been a problem for me. I'm using the latest IE with every service pack available.

FWIW, I'll chime in to say that I've never experienced this slowdown that people are talking about, either here at work or at home.

Same here.

I acknowledge that this is irritating for those who are experiencing the problem. I hope that it gets fixed, somehow.

For myself? Count me among the 99.98% that aren't having this trouble.

spook - this is the 2nd time that you've mentioned that the navigation is caching correctly for you. Just so you know, we have made NO modifications since the day it was changed. Nor can we reproduce the issues that any of you are reporting. We've tested in Netscape 4.7x, Netscape 6.x, Netscape 7.x, IE 5.x, IE 6.x, Opera 6.x, Firefox 0.9, Safari, and Mozilla 1.7. The only time we experience caching issues is when we set the browser to download a new version upon every visit to the page. Otherwise, the response times have been quite reasonable to download the images. Anywhere from under 1 second to 18 seconds depending upon whether your connecting at 3mbps or 14.4k respectively to download the navigation. After the initial download, we have had no problems with the navigation caching in each of the browsers tested.

thank you for your reply, tutone1234. you are correct; i have reported twice that caching had begun to work for me, unexpectedly; and i have asked whether or not renderosity staff had made changes. however, i have made NO changes on my side either. last night, i almost wrote back to this thread, WITHDRAWING my last reply - because the website was once again unable to use the cached images for the navigation bar and, once again, unable to load unless interrupted and reloaded. i would note that it is in renderosity's best interest that its web pages render consistently and well. also, pardon my testiness, tutone1234. but the folks who have reported having some issue would probably like NOT to hear that "we" have tested and found nothing (hence, "you" are wrong). the folks who have raised this issue (like me) would probably prefer and expect: "we are concerned that you are experiencing this problem. and although we can not recreate your problem on our PCs here, we will do our best to address it - based on the symptoms reported." as far as i can tell, i am the only non-technical person to have commented in this thread. the others experiencing this problem are programmers and IT professionals, too.

"02% is not a "Significant" number of users"

Just out of curiosity what was the percentage of users who supposedly used such an old and obsolete version of NS and complained about it which caused the change in the first place?
I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be changed for the sake of some people and causing new problems for many others when it could be easily fixed to work for everyone.
It goes against all logic to change a site to make it work for users of older browsers when all the user has to do is get a free updated version of their browser to make it work properly for them. Does this mean that every single website on the net who is trying to stay on the leading edge should all go backwards to make things work for people who don't want to upgrade their browser?

Message edited on: 07/27/2004 15:09

I use my computer to look at posts and galleries here, but also to read CNN, Sky news, BBC news, among other things, so I prefer my browser to check for new content when I visit sites. As far as I'm aware, many others do the same thing. A series of text links doesn't cause any problems. But I'm among the 0.02% (or whatever percent) who don't like the new nav graphics, even though I have IE6. Hmmm.

OK, I'll add to the percentage by saying that the navigation bar doesn't work properly for me either. At home I'm on cable and at work I'm on a T1, and both places, the navigation bar loads like it has to get to china and back for each little piece of the puzzle that makes up the navbar. It does NOT work (and neither does the ebots right now, so chances are, noone will see this reply sigh)

@ Midnightposer: I was going to ask the same question, but lacked the balls for fear of flames! lol!

Well it's a positive that this problem will not change as the powers-that-be will NOT change it, so I'm gonna get outta here and just have to tuff it out.

I noticed the page somewhat slow but on a slow dialup it was all I would expect. I have now upgraded to Mozilla Firefox and its a lot faster than IE6.0

That's strange Markschum...I use Mozilla & it's even slower than IE :O...so I use IE when coming here.

FWIW, I never complained about the nav bar slowing my page loads because frankly, I figured RR didn't really care. Perhaps there are others who think the same way. But since statistics are being thrown around, I'd like to formally record my dissatisfaction over the nav bar. I used to view the galleries every day, but have dropped to once or twice a week because I'm always waiting for that silly nav bar to finish loading before the actual artwork does. It drives me crazy. Viewing the galleries just isn't a pleasure anymore.

I figured RR didn't really care. Perhaps there are others who think the same way. I certainly think that. Their attitude toward the people who are having problems with this has been really horrid. "You're doing something wrong," "You should change your settings," "We like it this way and we're not changing it," etc. Lovely way to treat paying customers, isn't it? bonni

Message edited on: 07/30/2004 10:47

Yeah, that's how mine is set. The strange thing is, sometimes it caches, sometimes it doesn't...in the same session. For example, I can open an image in the gallery and it will cache. I go to open another one and this time the nav bar reloads. It appears random, although I haven't studied it to see if there's a pattern. More often than not though, I seem to be waiting for that bar to fill in all the way.

quote:" That's strange Markschum...I use Mozilla & it's even slower than IE :O...so I use IE when coming here." I am running win98 on a slow machine on a slow dialup link. IE6 was very slow on the first visit, thereafter seemed to local cache all the frippary. Since loading and using Mozilla FireFox browser everything on Renderosity loads really quickly. There are other sites much much worse for response times because of the animated stuff and constantly switching pictures. My IE6 browser also barfed at cascading style sheets and many java applets. I supose since I do not actually spend much money here I really dont care if it is slow or not. There seems to be times when I interperate the site is overloaded because I get intermittant session errors, but again, hey, FREE . I do agree you should get an answer but on this topic they seem to have given one. I am still waiting from a message I sent one of the Moderators concerning the web hosting debacle. Where the thread was locked and then deleted - I asked for clarification of the conflict of interest if Renderosity TOS was applied to a hosted web site. No reply to date. But again - hey - free - chill dudes !

... hardly free for those who pay for some of the extra services which are provided by this website.... and as someone who shops here regularly (and has spent a few thousand dollars in this marketplace), i - and others like me - should not only receive an answer; the people responsible for servicing this website should FIX the problem as reported.... so, hardly "free." n.b. i would also like to point out that this persistence is because i would STILL like to use this website. and in insisting on these corrections to your code, i am trying to impress on you how much i would like to remain a member and a customer. it is often forgotten that critique is a function of loyalty and not of betrayal.