I’d love to see what kind of clothes you wear. Or how the interior of your house is played out etc. Damn dude, give yourself some love and adopt some style. It doesn’t have to be either or
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is website design so awful today, generally?
- Thread starter Tozovac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mobile first is a very simple concept. It’s demand driven. And whilst I agree that there should be a desktop version (or better expressed, different versions for different externalises) too often the demand simply isn’t there. And if the demand isn’t there then why spend valuable time and resources on building something that won’t be used?
And don’t be rude, no need to compare it with a terminal illness. Surely you are better than that.
Well, it spreads like a cancer. One site starts it then it spreads everywhere. It's an apt analogy.
Still can't stand it. But it's like the now-unheard of concept of well keeping your songs on your device. Everyone is so into the 'cloud' that I have to hear their BT speakers cutting in and out at work (hardly any signal strength) and it makes me pity them. But to tell folks that I have '1,000 songs in my pocket, no internet needed!' makes them look at me like I got two heads.
I don't get the cloud either. I mean most modern smartphones have more storage than my cheap little ZTE wonder, but they never use it. Also, how they can stand listening to an app that streams music and is filled with ads every other song, it's like imagining how anyone can stand to browse the 'modern' web without AdBlock on.
Still can't stand it. But it's like the now-unheard of concept of well keeping your songs on your device. Everyone is so into the 'cloud' that I have to hear their BT speakers cutting in and out at work (hardly any signal strength) and it makes me pity them. But to tell folks that I have '1,000 songs in my pocket, no internet needed!' makes them look at me like I got two heads.
I don't get the cloud either. I mean most modern smartphones have more storage than my cheap little ZTE wonder, but they never use it. Also, how they can stand listening to an app that streams music and is filled with ads every other song, it's like imagining how anyone can stand to browse the 'modern' web without AdBlock on.
I thought music in the cloud does give the user the option of downloading songs to their device for offline listening.
The point of mobile first is not based on “demand”, its a design/development process.
you start with a page layout that works for small screens (because believe it or not @nickdalzell1 most people don’t want to pan and zoom around a desktop sized site on a device the size of a phone) and then (generally) use screen size based breakpoints to adapt the layout to suit larger screens.
It’s a very good approach to use for a lot of layout types because it’s typically easier to adapt a narrow/tall layout to use more horizontal space when available.
If someone makes a phone-optimised site but then doesn’t adapt the layout for larger screens that isn’t “mobile first”.
but also don’t confuse sites that have a significant amount of left/right space around text as being “mobile first” specifically. Just because your display might be quite wide doesn’t mean it’s useful or practical for a design to fill the full width.
Well, my initial post was in regards to the entry page for the new iPad Pro, and you asked me what I deemed to be important on it. I mentioned the tech details page later so let's stick to the entry page, which I feel/felt deserves some discussion.
You mention that that page provides a ton of highly visual information, and I don't disagree. My critique/thought that I think deserves more discussion is: If I'm looking up the new iPad Pro, I'm a bit more interested in "useful information" about the newness of the iPad Pro than be "entertained" with splashy animations that don't tell us anything specific about the new iPad Pro and mostly rehash things we already know iPads before this one can do.
I think this is a valid critique, unless a large segment of users want more to be "entertained" than "educated" on an entry page for a pretty big update on a product with some significant new tech.
If the one animation regarding new LED lighting that I described were removed, the "informational" quality of that page would plummet to near zero. But if pretty much any of the other showy animations that took "forever" to swipe past were removed, the informational quality of that page would be largely unaffected. But the entertainment quality would be shortened.
If we're speaking about the "entertainment" quality of that page, I suppose the more the better. Which follows the now-popular "more form than function" thing that must appeal to a lot of people. Heck, even cars are advertised now not so much about their specs but more about how much love they're built with by a truly caring company like Subaru...which ironically also makes military attack helicopters lol. Form over function is today's way.
Oh, it does. So long as you connect to the internet every 30 days. Then there's the possibility that your favorite songs or artists lose their agreement with the service and bye bye songs you love. I prefer to purchase them and then they're mine forever, whether I have service, or not. I can burn them to discs or copy them to cassettes so I'm prepared even in an apocalypse. Call me crazy but I prefer to own my content and rest assured that it doesn't vanish forever.
I am the same with movies and TV shows. I wish I had bought a few movies when they were free with Prime membership but once Prime lost the license I later discovered I couldn't even buy the films since the listing shows as 'not available in your country' or simply 'this video is not available for purchase' (such as the case with Pokémon 4-Ever and Cold Case (starring Kathryn Morris) which are unobtainable)
I do use cloud-based services (though I pay for the ad-free benefit!) but soon as it discovers a song I really love that I've never heard before (lately, I'm discovering some excellent Italo disco from the '80s I really get myself immersed into) I go on Amazon and buy the songs. That way should YouTube Music vanish as Google Play Music and various other Google apps/services inevitably do, the songs don't vanish with it.
Last edited:
I'm glad to see you're still fighting the good fight against awful modern UI/UX design.
My school recently changed to Brightspace by D2L for all course material delivery, and holy sweet mother of Murphy is it atrocious.
Oh sure, it has that modern "everything is stark white so you can't distinguish anything" look. But it's a complete mess in terms of actually trying to get to your content. It's like it only ever wants to let you see one or maybe a few things, but you don't really know where you are. You think you're in a certain topic, but you can't see everything within it. I spend more time navigating than actually getting work done.
Oh, and since everything uses bloody Javascript, you can't simply right-click to download PDFs... nope, first you open it to see the PDF in its stupid little frame, then find the unmarked drop-down menu that will allow you to download the PDF. This gets real old when you have several dozen to download and time is of the essence. Similarly, you can't open almost anything in a new tab. For example, I always opened the discussion threads in new tabs so I could keep track of ones I needed to respond to, and leave the tabs open for ones I needed more time with. But now, you can't open in new tabs ("about:blank#blocked") -- you have to go in and out of each one linearly.
Oh, and of course there's no side bars anymore to navigate when you're in the discussions or other downstream elements (you only get sidebars when you're at top-level enough). Sure, only about 50% of the width of your window is used, but why have sidebars everywhere when you can just get rid of them so people can't get to where they need to go?
How anyone uses this and says "wow this is great" is beyond me. I'd rather have some 90s HTML page with no styling that actually lets people find and do what they need quickly and easily. No doubt everyone in IT is patting themselves on the back about how they've "ditched the old" and "modernized" everything, with no consideration given to whether the "new" is an improvement.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
My school recently changed to Brightspace by D2L for all course material delivery, and holy sweet mother of Murphy is it atrocious.
Oh sure, it has that modern "everything is stark white so you can't distinguish anything" look. But it's a complete mess in terms of actually trying to get to your content. It's like it only ever wants to let you see one or maybe a few things, but you don't really know where you are. You think you're in a certain topic, but you can't see everything within it. I spend more time navigating than actually getting work done.
Oh, and since everything uses bloody Javascript, you can't simply right-click to download PDFs... nope, first you open it to see the PDF in its stupid little frame, then find the unmarked drop-down menu that will allow you to download the PDF. This gets real old when you have several dozen to download and time is of the essence. Similarly, you can't open almost anything in a new tab. For example, I always opened the discussion threads in new tabs so I could keep track of ones I needed to respond to, and leave the tabs open for ones I needed more time with. But now, you can't open in new tabs ("about:blank#blocked") -- you have to go in and out of each one linearly.
Oh, and of course there's no side bars anymore to navigate when you're in the discussions or other downstream elements (you only get sidebars when you're at top-level enough). Sure, only about 50% of the width of your window is used, but why have sidebars everywhere when you can just get rid of them so people can't get to where they need to go?
How anyone uses this and says "wow this is great" is beyond me. I'd rather have some 90s HTML page with no styling that actually lets people find and do what they need quickly and easily. No doubt everyone in IT is patting themselves on the back about how they've "ditched the old" and "modernized" everything, with no consideration given to whether the "new" is an improvement.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
It's really great isn't it.
Pennsylvania, congratulations for the biggest space-wasting but nicest shade of blue I've seen yet on a website.
Scroll scroll scroll.
DVS Home
www.dmv.pa.gov
Noticed a lot of promos on YouTube lately as well as my favorite podcast are referencing Weebly.com. I really hate sites that have this endless scrolling thing (am I old fashioned to think or assume websites should have an ending? Half the time I read reviews I sort expect the comment section near the end to really find out how people feel about x but lately it's just endless links)
But there's an app I haven't used in a while that has recently become an annoying experience. The Google Home app. Try, just try to figure out where they hid the 'change which room this light belongs in' option. There's a gear, an ellipsis, as well as a hamburger menu, and in addition, an additional gear icon titled 'settings'. GO!
The correct method is to click on the light, or group, which presents another gear icon and ellipsis icon. The gear icon inside that second list is where the room setting is. The ellipsis just shows 'about' and 'help' as options. Took me 30 minutes of tapping, scrolling, and hunting to find that out though. Now I know why I gave up using it once configured--it's that bad. I can't understand how this is an improvement; this material design thing. Sure it's new, sure it's fresh, but whatever happened to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?'
Personally, if something has to change, it should be to improve a product, or to add more new, useful features. Not turn the UI into one huge mess of endless scrolling and hunting around as if it were a game. If a product can't be improved further, just leave it alone!
Oh don't get me started on Subaru. I owned one as my first car. It was a Subaru XT6. Nice looking car until you get the bill for 9 engine/transmission computers, two timing belts (which are oddly driven by the serpentine belt, so if that goes, so does everything else!), 10 alternators (it loved to eat them), have to pay labor to remove the engine to just change the plugs, the works. hated that thing. Was glad to see it towed away in the end. To say nothing about how the interior was an ergonomic nightmare with the 'control stalks,' the oddest steering wheel design ever, those 'automatic shoulder belts', and instead of placing a '1' or 'low' on the shifter itself, just end at '2nd' and have a separate button called '1 hold' to get into low gear. To add to that, the A/C controls were on a control stalk jutting from the steering column, on the right, but the actual fan and temp controls were on the console near the shifter. They were doing this apparently in 1988.
But there's an app I haven't used in a while that has recently become an annoying experience. The Google Home app. Try, just try to figure out where they hid the 'change which room this light belongs in' option. There's a gear, an ellipsis, as well as a hamburger menu, and in addition, an additional gear icon titled 'settings'. GO!
The correct method is to click on the light, or group, which presents another gear icon and ellipsis icon. The gear icon inside that second list is where the room setting is. The ellipsis just shows 'about' and 'help' as options. Took me 30 minutes of tapping, scrolling, and hunting to find that out though. Now I know why I gave up using it once configured--it's that bad. I can't understand how this is an improvement; this material design thing. Sure it's new, sure it's fresh, but whatever happened to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?'
Personally, if something has to change, it should be to improve a product, or to add more new, useful features. Not turn the UI into one huge mess of endless scrolling and hunting around as if it were a game. If a product can't be improved further, just leave it alone!
Oh don't get me started on Subaru. I owned one as my first car. It was a Subaru XT6. Nice looking car until you get the bill for 9 engine/transmission computers, two timing belts (which are oddly driven by the serpentine belt, so if that goes, so does everything else!), 10 alternators (it loved to eat them), have to pay labor to remove the engine to just change the plugs, the works. hated that thing. Was glad to see it towed away in the end. To say nothing about how the interior was an ergonomic nightmare with the 'control stalks,' the oddest steering wheel design ever, those 'automatic shoulder belts', and instead of placing a '1' or 'low' on the shifter itself, just end at '2nd' and have a separate button called '1 hold' to get into low gear. To add to that, the A/C controls were on a control stalk jutting from the steering column, on the right, but the actual fan and temp controls were on the console near the shifter. They were doing this apparently in 1988.
Last edited:
So "mobile first" is "demand driven" is it ?
Demanded by whom ?
Users ? Designers ?
My son got the first Smartphone in the family.
Familiar websites. Zoom in and out. "Great" we thought. Internet on the move.
And then some techies decided that some sites weren't loading fast enough, so Designers started cutting them down.
The Minimalists saw their opportunity to impose their "clean and simple" - form over function - "aesthetic".
So Users had to "put up with" cut down sites and "apps".
It's all very well citing an upsurge in mobile internet use -....
....but if given the choice, where is the evidence of Users saying "we want less content and visible navigation" ?
Why is there a small industry in Samsung Phone and Tablet Users complaining that the setting "Desktop View" is not respected / delivered - and that the User has to dig down to find "UserAgent" to actually deliver Desktop view ?
Of course Desktop View won't help with a cut down "mobile only" website !
Now for a "Survey" result from a blog promoting mobile web-design.
"85% of adults think that a company’s website when viewed on a mobile device should be as good or better than its desktop website."
Surely that means that those surveyed believe that a desktop site is usually "better" than a mobile site - does it not ?In the current era of larger Smartphones - and RAM - why are so many web-designers stuck in the (recent) past ?
No?
If I asked 100 people "should a pizza have a tomato based sauce and cheese on it", I'd imagine more than 85% will answer yes. But **** it, let's say 15 of them are just weird and say no.
So "85% of those surveyed think that a pizza should have tomato based sauce and cheese on it".
This does not mean that pizzas don't already have those things.
That pizza analogy seems wrong - but I'm struggling to pin it down.
Are you suggesting that a mobile site is equivalent to a basic pizza with just tomato and cheese ?
....and that the "or better" would be another topping.
So are you suggesting that a Desktop site is equivalent to not having either tomato and cheese ?
'Cos in my mind a Desktop Pizza already has multiple toppings on the cheese and tomato base....
...and "85% think that a mobile pizza should have at least as many toppings, if not more".
No ?
No.
The pizza is unrelated to a website. Even unrelated to a website about pizzas.
Just because 85% of people say X should be as good or better than Y, doesn't mean X isn't already as good or better than Y.
So, are you seriously saying that " a mobile site is better than a desktop site" ?
If so, please define "better". Thanks.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that those 85% think that a mobile site is already as good or better than its desktop equivalent ?
Please, seriously, re-read what I've written.
I'm not arguing a mobile or desktop site is better or worse. I'm saying that the quoted statistic, says nothing about what the people who answered the survey, think of current websites - it just identifies how they value 'mobile' vs 'desktop' websites.
Please, seriously, re-read what I've written.
Sorry, do I detect evasion ?
It doesn't matter what those surveyed think of current websites. They may be both equally crap.
But it does say (re-ordered);
"85% want a mobile site to be ....as good or better than its desktop website"
So please tell me in what way a mobile site can ever be "better" than its desktop equivalent.
Thank you.
Evade what, exactly?
this is what you originally asked:
And I responded that there is no intrinsic relationship between how they think it should be and how it is now.
Now you’re saying this:
it could simply be more useful, desirable or suitable… that’s pretty unrelated to how responsive design works or the problems it solves, though.
"Evade" my substantive Question by going on a spurious detour (interpretation) around that 85% quote.
My original Q, response to a claim that "mobile first is demand driven" was;
So "mobile first" is "demand driven" is it ?
Demanded by whom ?
Users ? Designers ?
And answer came back none !
Back to that "85%" ...
So are you saying that a mobile site "could be",
"more useful" ..... How more "useful" than a full service, more content, visible nav. Desktop site ?
"desirable" ....... How ? - ditto - (Is this about form over function ?)
"suitable" ...... If you mean mobile is lighter on RAM, so less system load, then I'm not quite sure how that means that a mobile site is "better" unless you are admitting that a mobile site has to be "reduced" because mobile devices still can't cope with a Desktop site (which is now questionable with better chips and larger screens).
"Suitable" seems a swervy definition of "better".
Can I think of a comparison ?
Let's try Pac-a-mac.
For a financial impaired person - or someone with limited carrying options, a Pac-a-mac might be cheap and/or convenient.
One might "make do" with it.
But one suspects that most people would consider "better" a proper, full length, wrap-across raincoat (or something more substantial).
It seems that we are nowhere nearer understanding "why website design is so awful today" ...
...others than Designers continuing to tell Users; "we know what's good for you".
Here's my issue with mobile sites. For one, they're functionless when I need function on the go. Many vital features are missing. I had to force Amazon.com to load the full site as the mobile version couldn't do what I wanted to in a familar way.
Second, there was already a way to 'force' a site to mobile. Simply appending the URL with a "wap.site.com" or a "m.site.com" would produce the mobile site. It was clearly a choice, and every 'For Dummies' book written (specifically for those new to tech) would mention this many times and clearly explained how it worked. Unfortunately, since smart people are deemed irrelevant and folks can't be bothered to actually learn about what they own anymore, we all have to suffer this 'mobile first' concept and live with sites on full-desktop computers as well as tablet-sized smartphones these days that are less functional than they should be. You can of course, tell the browser to 'force desktop view' but in many so-called "responsive" designs today, that feature is either broken or ignored completely. Thankfully, I can override it since I'm a geek and also use the old convention of using "m.site.com" if I want the mobile site, which isn't often, I assure you.
Problem is today, even 'responsive' design ain't enough. Look at Facebook today. It looks like a mobile site because it is a mobile site. The desktop site has ceased to exist on modern browsers. The only way you can get it back (and who knows how long that will last) is by using Internet Explorer 9 or below, which pulls in the older 'mobile' site which is far superior to the modern one clearly designed for touchscreens, not laptops. So now, it seems site designers have determined laptops and those who use them are as irrelevant as grandparents using flip phones. I'm sorry but alienating your user base is business suicide. These kinds of customer hostile actions are being tolerated when 20 or so years ago it'd put a business under. The questions we should be asking ourselves are why we tolerate businesses telling their customers what they need instead of the customers demanding the businesses supply their demand?
Second, there was already a way to 'force' a site to mobile. Simply appending the URL with a "wap.site.com" or a "m.site.com" would produce the mobile site. It was clearly a choice, and every 'For Dummies' book written (specifically for those new to tech) would mention this many times and clearly explained how it worked. Unfortunately, since smart people are deemed irrelevant and folks can't be bothered to actually learn about what they own anymore, we all have to suffer this 'mobile first' concept and live with sites on full-desktop computers as well as tablet-sized smartphones these days that are less functional than they should be. You can of course, tell the browser to 'force desktop view' but in many so-called "responsive" designs today, that feature is either broken or ignored completely. Thankfully, I can override it since I'm a geek and also use the old convention of using "m.site.com" if I want the mobile site, which isn't often, I assure you.
Problem is today, even 'responsive' design ain't enough. Look at Facebook today. It looks like a mobile site because it is a mobile site. The desktop site has ceased to exist on modern browsers. The only way you can get it back (and who knows how long that will last) is by using Internet Explorer 9 or below, which pulls in the older 'mobile' site which is far superior to the modern one clearly designed for touchscreens, not laptops. So now, it seems site designers have determined laptops and those who use them are as irrelevant as grandparents using flip phones. I'm sorry but alienating your user base is business suicide. These kinds of customer hostile actions are being tolerated when 20 or so years ago it'd put a business under. The questions we should be asking ourselves are why we tolerate businesses telling their customers what they need instead of the customers demanding the businesses supply their demand?
Demand as in most visitors use a mobile device, or a viewport that is below a certain size, etc.
If most visitors to your shop arrive by bicycle, then why have a huge car park for cars but no bicycle stands?
The 85% doesn't mean anything as Stephen has already highlighted several times. And if the whole site is responsive then the 85% already got the same functionality on mobile as they have on the desktop. That is great isn't it
If business was let by customers saying what they need we wouldn't have 'half' (figure of speech) the technology we have today. Most have no vision or clue as to what is possible. But funnily enough successful business is informed by what they customers use, and mobile devices far outnumber desktops. Good luck taken pictures of your food and sharing them on Facebook whilst in the restaurant and using your laptop
Ah, that question.
I thought you answered it yourself:
I didn't mention any specifics. I gave you three examples of how it might be better. I have to admit I did cheat a bit. Those are just some explanatory definitions from the dictionary for the entry "better".
Better for one person might mean quicker to load. It might mean easier to access the things they want. It could conceivably mean almost anything.
That's what I was trying to point out to you: better doesn't mean any one specific thing, and certainly not in the context of a website.
That isn't an inherent attribute of responsive design or "mobile first" design. The whole point of responsive design is that you have the same content and functionality for all visitors - but the layout of the page responds to the size of the viewport. That's it. That's what responsive design is. That's all it is.
If foogle.com hides critical functionality on smaller view ports that ins't a sign that responsive design is bad. It's a sign that foogle.com management/developers don't have any clue how people use their website.
I'm glad you're familiar with this type of 'mobile site'. It's going to become quite relevant in a moment.
At this point I have to assume you don't actually understand a number of the technologies and concepts at play here. I will attempt to explain the various things at play.
One piece of background information that's very important here: Every time your browser sends a request for a page, part of that request is a string identifying itself in the User Agent header (the browser is referred to in technical documents as a "User Agent" or sometimes UA for short). It was once very common to deliver quite different responses to browsers based on the type of device the User Agent indicated they were coming from. This practice is referred to as "User Agent sniffing". These days, with the advent of things like CSS media queries allowing for Responsive Design it's much less necessary, and much less common.
Responsive Design
If you view a responsive page in a browser, there is no inherent device detection going on, the page is delivered to your browser the same, and the size of the viewport, the orientation, the PPI of the screen etc determine some aspects of how the page will be laid out. Is the navigation bar behind a menu to save space? Is the layout more vertical so you don't need to scroll in two directions, etc. The content delivered is the same, it's just presented differently, with the goal of making it easier to use on a smaller screen. This doesn't mean the developer can't also be doing UA sniffing, but that's unrelated to responsive design, and pretty much the antithesis the the goals of Responsive Design.
The old-style 'm.<site>' 'mobile pages' are literally a different resource being served to you. In most cases it'll be much lighter in weight, have reduced functionality and here's the important factor: you're generally delivered to it by an automatic redirect based on the User Agent string your browser sends, and you will often not have any choice about that.
There is also a third kind of "mobile" page which I'd imagine is what Amazon is using based on your anecdote. It's called User Agent sniffing.
This is where instead of sending a response that instructs the browser to redirect to a m.foo.com site when it identifies a mobile device, the server just sends back a mobile-specific response to those devices. It's the same underlying concept as the UA based redirect, but it means the user always sees the site as "foo.com" regardless of their device type.
So here's where it gets interesting: "Request Desktop Site" is a feature mobile browsers added, specifically to counter the second and third types of 'mobile' pages described above. All it does, is change the Browsers' User Agent string for the next (or possibly the rest of the session) request(s) to that site, so that it identifies as a desktop device.
This is why using "Request desktop site" on a responsive design site has zero impact: the user agent doesn't factor in to how the site is presented, so changing it doesn't make any difference.
Now if you want to say that you hate mobile-specific sites that offer less functionality, I'll get right on board with that. It's stupid in 2021. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the reduced functionality is the result of responsive design, or the "mobile first" approach. Sites like that are exactly the problem that responsive design and mobile first design aim to solve.
Why do people even do this?! I am sure folks couldn't give two craps about what I eat, and believe me, the feeling is mutual!Good luck taken pictures of your food and sharing them on Facebook whilst in the restaurant and using your laptop
Also, with phone screens getting larger to where they break a small tablet, why are mobile sites still a thing? Personally I would rather be able to load every site in desktop view on my 6.5" display. But hey, I'm just one person. I hate mobile sites with extreme passion. I often use the app instead of the site if I want a true 'mobile' view. That's another convention that's being ignored by the dumb masses these days.
as for free market economics, the law is supply and demand. Apparently the Gen Z types forget how it's supposed to work, as now we exist merely to satisfy companies, not the other way around. That's why no company has backturned a horrible design change from customer feedback other than act arrogant saying "get used to it you Curmudgeon!". iOS 7 was a great example of that! Why even offer a feedback option if you're just gonna ignore it?
If there's a couple things I hate most it's 1) willful ignorance/stupidity and 2) companies who assume (incorrectly) they know what's best for their customers.
If a customer has to 'adapt' or 'get used to' a design change they never asked for in the first place then your design has failed, plain and simple. I might be able to 'get used to' or 'adapt' to a pork farm or sewer treatment plant being located next to my home, but that doesn't make it OK, either.
How about stop looking at statistics and get into the real world for once. First, mobile sites should have remained a choice, so customers who wanted them could take advantage of them, and those who don't can have their version. You make more people happy.
But no, designers made it FORCEFUL and without a way back, and people simply 'adapted'. They didn't agree or like it, but without an alternative, they begrudingly tolerated it. However, don't confuse mere tolerance or complacency as a 'success' or 'the customer wanted this'.
Last edited:
Nice rant, but that is all it is. Too many look back with rose tinted glasses. The internet really wasn’t a great experience to use. It improved considerably and will continue to do so.