60 captures

08 May 1999 - 21 Feb 2024

Feb	MAR	Apr
	14
2005	2006	2007

success

fail

About this capture

COLLECTED BY

Collection: Accelovation Crawl

Web crawl snapshots generously donated from Accelovation. This data is currently not publicly accessible.

From the site: Accelovation is pioneering the delivery of Insight Discovery™ software solutions that help companies move from innovation idea to product reality faster and with more success.

Our solutions are used by leading firms in the Fortune 500 and beyond – companies from a diverse set of industries ranging from consumer packaged goods to high tech, foods to chemicals, and others. We help them mine the online world for market and technical insights to help speed the process of innovation.

TIMESTAMPS

useit.com Alertbox Mar. 1999 URL as UI Compound names

Compound Domain Names

David Mediavilla Ezquibela asks:

What is your recommendation for domain names from compound names? This is: what is better: jakobnielsen.com, jakob-nielsen.com, jakob_nielsen.com (no!), jakob.nielsen.com, jnielsen.com? I think the first.

Jakob's reply: The underscore is an illegal character in domain names (but works elsewhere in URLs), so that's an easy choice to reject. Creating compounds by using dots (e.g., jakob.nielsen.com) only works for a company that owns the primary domain (in this case nielsen.com which is taken by the Nielsen ratings). And if you have the primary domain, then why make a longer and more complex subdomain for your website? I recommend using the standard "www." as the prefix for websites for many reasons:

• people know what it means
• some browsers will automatically add "www." if the user doesn't type it
• having an address start with "www." is a nice indication that you are talking about a website and not something else (it used to be the case that this goal required the use of a full URL, complete with "http://", but these days only very meticulous people bother doing so)

Thus, the three reasonable candidates are:

1. run the words together: jakobnielsen.com
2. use an abbreviation: jnielsen.com
3. use a hyphen: jakob-nielsen.com

Current mainstream practice on the Web seems to prefer the first choice: simply run the words together to form a new "Internet word" for the domain name. In usability the fact that most other people do something is reason enough to follow along since the most common practice is what users expect and thus find easiest to use.

Abbreviations work as an alternative for three or more words or when the result of running two words together would be very long and/or difficult to spell. My main recommendation is to run the words together if you are dealing with two reasonably short and easy-to-spell words.

Hyphens should be avoided because people often forget them, because they can be mistaken for underscores, and because they are rare (and thus a usability problem).

Lose the Useless www

Why make it unnecessarily hard for the user? If a homepage is called useit.com why not let that be the URL? Why should the user be forced to type in http://www.useit.com or www.useit.com when the name of the site actually is useit.com? Hell, some sites don't even respond to their own name.

It seems straight forward, but a lot of developers are so much in love with the useless www-prefix that they cook up illogical and hard to remember addresses like http://www.tour.tv2.dk

www is a relic, and it's almost never useful. Let's go for shorter, easier to remember and more useful URLs.

Jakob's reply: I completely agree that it is overkill to add a "www." in front of a server name like tour.tv2.dk. Even so, I recommend making it optional for users to type the www since many will do so out of habit.

I do not yet recommend removing the www from the standard name of a main website. I believe that the prefix serves as a signal to users that the name refers to a website and that it flows automatically from the fingers of many users. Maybe in a year or two the situation will be different.

Even today, it is nice to support the use of a prefix-less domain name as an alternative way of reaching a website: it just shouldn't be the main way that is printed in advertisements and on business cards. As a matter of fact, I probably have to move my own site to another ISP soon because of this very issue since my current host doesn't support alternate names for the same server.