recent posts
tags
archive
-
►
2010
(45)
-
►
June
(21)
- 25. Market: Don't explicitly advertise usability
- 24. Market: Control your sales channels
- 23. Market: Merge buy and try in retail
- 22. Company: Establish a user-centered company cul...
- 21. Company: Upper management that gets and priori...
- 20. Company: Align the organization with user need...
- 19. Project: Don't prescribe methods for user-cent...
- 18. Project: Do not innovate the user interface
- 17. Project: Increase design freedom
- 16. Process: Select the appropriate functionality
- 15. Process: Rich communication of user research a...
- 14. Process: Inside-out approach to user research ...
- 13. Process: Early user research, simulation and e...
- 12. Process: Apply guerrilla usability techniques
- 11. Process: Think concept as well as detail
- 10. Process: Think development rather than design
- 9. Process: A development process that facilitates...
- 8. Team: Don't let designers do their thing
- 7. Team: Get and keep experienced people
- 6. Team: Feed the ‘feel for the user’ - provide pr...
- 5. Team: One roof: all disciplines - in one room -...
-
►
March
(6)
- Practical do's and don'ts of usability testing
- Philips' Andrea Ragnetti explains the how of Sense...
- Senseo: the (real) story behind a coffee revolutio...
- Do not put a salutation in an automatic signature
- First principles of interaction design, by Bruce T...
- Recession made consumers prefer basic products, cl...
-
►
January
(6)
- Dutch public transport chip-card system flawed at ...
- eBooks will not replace real books because of usab...
- UPA2010: Usability Professionals' Association annu...
- Show your love for Hartmut Esslinger and not-an-mp...
- USB plugs: why not make them really (a)symmetrical...
- Unusable software slows down Dutch police
-
►
June
(21)
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 | by: Jasper |
I was trying to speak English yesterday. Or more specifically, I was trying to communicate a URL to an English-speaking colleague and now I am sure: calling the World Wide Web the World Wide Web was a fundamental mistake. Or to be more specifically: including 'WWW' in URLs must have been an idea from someone who communicated more via written text than via speech. Abbreviating World Wide Web into WWW does not make it any faster to pronounce at all, and secondly saying doubleyoudoubleyoudoubleyou takes more concentration than saying World Wide Web. And finally it makes you (are at least me - a Dutchman trying to speak English) feel silly. So in terms of usability the abbreviation WWW falls short with regard to its efficiency (time investment and required effort) and satisfaction.
[Movie: the history of the Internet, via infosthetics]
6 reactions:
Check this:
http://no-www.org/
I suppose that's why (or at least I think) most native english speakers says triple-double-u instead. :-)
That said, as I'm not a native eglish speaker, I a just avoid the WWW predicated and I pass just to the dns.domain :-)
I've never said "triple double-you".
Usually these days, we just drop the prefix. It often isn't needed, and people have largely learned to add it if they need to. (Alas, I've seen some cases where the "www." prefix is rejected. You get a 404 page if you have it.)
If I need to pronounce it, I say "dub dub dub".
I'm not really a big fan of 3W, to be honest. like Jim mentioned, I usually drop the prefix. But that's partly due to the fact that the prefix is so hard to pronounce. dubdubdub sounds like an interesting solution ;-)
Just me
but it seems like this is a moot point
most on the time when i give a website to someone i just say (website).com and to be so blunt i dont find it to be that difficult anyways.
To me the fact that you don't say WWW when mentioning a website to someone is an indication that the abbreviation is not very easy to pronounce and/or unnecessary.
Post a Comment