-= sequoia capital =-(tlrobinson.net)
tlrobinson.net
-= sequoia capital =-
http://tlrobinson.net/misc/sequoia.html
47 comments
This is actually more informative than their current site!
And at least on par with their last site as I remember
It's a webpage from the future! All of the tags are lowercase and some of them have these "style=" attributes with some weird programming language in them!
Doesn't validate, you have a </P> tag - what is that? Everyone knows you don't close your <P> tags.
What's that extra slash after the BR and HR?
And </li>?? Since when?
Where did you learn to program HTML?
:)
What's that extra slash after the BR and HR?
And </li>?? Since when?
Where did you learn to program HTML?
:)
Sheesh, sorry. I fixed it, per your suggestions. Also, all tags and attributes are capitalized, and there's no quotes around attribute values.
A colleague of mine wrote about agencies moving to this odd, search-style site a few months back:
http://www.newmediacampaigns.com/page/big-ad-agency-websites...
It just doesn't make any sense. It's not even trendy.
http://www.newmediacampaigns.com/page/big-ad-agency-websites...
It just doesn't make any sense. It's not even trendy.
I can understand submitting this link to Digg / Reddit / 4Chan.
But why here? It's nonsense
But why here? It's nonsense
Yah, it does seem that way.
It's actually a list of companies that Sequoia Capitol has invested in. So it's sort of an in joke given the startup focus this site has.
It's actually a list of companies that Sequoia Capitol has invested in. So it's sort of an in joke given the startup focus this site has.
It was actually inspired by this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=772027
Needs more blink.
Apparently the BLINK tag doesn't actually work in some modern browsers, so I had to reimplement it in JavaScript. If you'd like to use it on your own site, here's the code:
var blinkOn = 1;
window.setInterval(function() {
var blinks = document.getElementsByTagName("blink");
for (var i = 0; i < blinks.length; i++)
blinks[i].style.visibility = blinkOn ? "visible" : "hidden";
blinkOn ^= 1;
}, 500);Just a small note - you should not explicitly set the visibility to "visible", set it to the empty string "" instead. This way you don't overwrite the default property if it was something else.
And you can skip the blinkOn variable by:
And you can skip the blinkOn variable by:
blinks[i].style.visibility = blinks[i].style.visibility == "" ? "hidden" : "";That's actually way slower because you're doing a comparison within an iteration. That's putting an if statement inside a loop while the result is the same for every iteration.
Computers are not that slow these days :)
It reduces complexity and a global, which is far more important.
And that blink loop is probably not that big - just how many blink tags do you have?
I don't use it for blink loops anyway, I use it for toggle on/off, where keeping state for each element individually is pretty important.
It reduces complexity and a global, which is far more important.
And that blink loop is probably not that big - just how many blink tags do you have?
I don't use it for blink loops anyway, I use it for toggle on/off, where keeping state for each element individually is pretty important.
You're accessing the DOM every iteration, so I'd bet that it does matter somewhat if blink is used a lot.
You can avoid polluting by make it an actual function and then setting the function.blinkOn instead.
You're right: individually swapping them this works better, but the intent is to have them all off or all on.
You can avoid polluting by make it an actual function and then setting the function.blinkOn instead.
You're right: individually swapping them this works better, but the intent is to have them all off or all on.
(function() {
var blinkIterator = function() {
var blinks = document.getElementsByTagName("blink"),
? "" : "hidden";
for (var i = 0, l = blinks.length; i < l;)
blinks[i++].style.visibility = onOff;
blinkIterator.blinkOn ^= 1;
};
blinkIterator.blinkOn = 1;
window.setInterval(blinkIterator, 750);
})();You don't need all that complexity. just use CSS:
text-decoration: blink
Works in FF 3.5
text-decoration: blink
Works in FF 3.5
Well, no. Browsers that don't support "blink" tags also don't support "text-decoration: blink".
I'd hardly call it complex either.
I'd hardly call it complex either.
Well played, sir.
And copy/pasted DHTML snowflake effects.
Needs more of this site: http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://www.brucelawson.co.u...
Where the marquee at??
Wow, I really miss the days of black text on a gray background. * sniff
Expect it to make a glorious comeback because of OLEDs: http://static.arstechnica.com/amoled.jpg
source: http://arst.ch/60n
source: http://arst.ch/60n
[deleted]
Fantastic. Their new site is ridiculous "look how trendy we are".
I actually think their site is pretty cool / innovative.
Seriously?! If search engines had AI, I can see it being cool/innovative. With the current state of search technology, it's a usability disaster.
Problem #1 - language. Is their portfolio page called "portfolio"? Or "companies we've invested in?" Is their contact page called "contact"? Or "Get in touch?" Do they have a blog? Searching for "blog" seems to indicate that they don't-- unless it's called something other than "blog". Search is hard and they are making their users play "guess the right search query" when a scan/browse action would be easier and less error prone.
Problem #2 - scan-ability. So say I AM interest in learning more about their portfolio. Roughly what types of companies do they back (what's the search query to answer that question?)? What have they backed most recently (again, what search query?)? Who works there (a search for partners suggests "Energy (partners)")? Scanning is a huge part of web behavior.
Problem #3 - discoverability. What about what I'm NOT searching for? They have some GREAT content around how to pitch VCs, what ideas are VC-worthy, etc. With a content-free page, there is a 0% chance of me learning about stuff that I didn't know I was looking for.
Problem #4 - SPELLING. Take a look at their partner page (if you can find it). Are there any names there that you might have trouble spelling/searching for if you heard it at a dinner party last night?
We don't have to guess with usability. What they SHOULD have done is write down 5 tasks that people might do at their site and had a few friends run a few informal tests.
I'm willing to turn in my UX designer badge if my guess is wrong and this UI increases task performance speed and reduces errors.
Hrm, as I consider it-- I guess your comment doesn't dispute all that. It probably can be cool, innovative, AND a usability disaster.
Problem #1 - language. Is their portfolio page called "portfolio"? Or "companies we've invested in?" Is their contact page called "contact"? Or "Get in touch?" Do they have a blog? Searching for "blog" seems to indicate that they don't-- unless it's called something other than "blog". Search is hard and they are making their users play "guess the right search query" when a scan/browse action would be easier and less error prone.
Problem #2 - scan-ability. So say I AM interest in learning more about their portfolio. Roughly what types of companies do they back (what's the search query to answer that question?)? What have they backed most recently (again, what search query?)? Who works there (a search for partners suggests "Energy (partners)")? Scanning is a huge part of web behavior.
Problem #3 - discoverability. What about what I'm NOT searching for? They have some GREAT content around how to pitch VCs, what ideas are VC-worthy, etc. With a content-free page, there is a 0% chance of me learning about stuff that I didn't know I was looking for.
Problem #4 - SPELLING. Take a look at their partner page (if you can find it). Are there any names there that you might have trouble spelling/searching for if you heard it at a dinner party last night?
We don't have to guess with usability. What they SHOULD have done is write down 5 tasks that people might do at their site and had a few friends run a few informal tests.
I'm willing to turn in my UX designer badge if my guess is wrong and this UI increases task performance speed and reduces errors.
Hrm, as I consider it-- I guess your comment doesn't dispute all that. It probably can be cool, innovative, AND a usability disaster.
The top text blinks.... Plus 1000 points
OMG so hilarious!
Budd Ugly is a classic of web design parody, except that my buddy (a hypertext legend) thought it was a real site!
Budd Ugly is a classic of web design parody, except that my buddy (a hypertext legend) thought it was a real site!
Wow, trendy stuff. I'm going to have to start using that window.status trick they're using.
Many more of those companies should have gotten the "Cool" animated gif...
Awesome, but is there a reason 'capital' is misspelled 'capitol'?
needs a bright green background to emphasize the tree connection.
What, and lose Netscape 1.0 support?
Also missing the punch-the-monkey banner.