GAP.com

15 Sep 2005 - 10:02pm
8 years ago
8 replies
743 reads
Greg Petroff
2004

Great article earlier this week on GAP's new websites in the NY times
(September 12, Bob Tedeschi). If you dont have access to times online
contetn go visit the new GAP.com website anyway. Curious to see what people
think. Pretty sure its an AJAX implementation. Very Nice.

--gp

--
Gregory Petroff
Mobile # 646 387 2841

Comments

15 Sep 2005 - 10:08pm
Dan Saffer
2003

Gap actually shut its site down to AJAX-ify it, which probably cost
them millions. NYT story about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/technology/12ecom.html

(I just went there and it was still closed!)

Dan

15 Sep 2005 - 11:05pm
Navneet Nair
2004

>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/technology/12ecom.html
>
> (I just went there and it was still closed!)

Sounds like what they are trying to achieve is what
boo.com<http://boo.com>was trying in the hey days of the dot com boom.
They, of course, went bust.
Will be interesting to see what Gap will be able to achieve. But pulling
down a site to AJAX-ify!! Isn't that overkill?

----------------------------------------------------
> Navneet Nair
> Interaction Architect
> onClipEvent: form follows function();
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Website: http://www.onclipevent.com
> Blog: http://www.onclipevent.com/enterframe/
>

16 Sep 2005 - 5:33am
Louise Ferguson
2005

The story in the British press has been not just about the GAP site being
shut down, but about all their sites
(bananarepublic.com<http://bananarepublic.com>,
gap.com <http://gap.com>, oldnavy.com <http://oldnavy.com>) being shut down
at the same time, and some not returning. In other words, how not to do it.

See for example
'Closing Gap is a costly mistake' in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/weekly/story/0,16376,1569784,00.html

Louise Ferguson

16 Sep 2005 - 10:47pm
Ryan Nichols
2005

Maybe it's just me but I can't see too much AJAX in there. When you add
something to your cart I believe we were saved a refresh, but other than
that nothing to write home about that really improved my experience. In
fact I found the interaction with the sizing to be confusing. They
attempt to put available sizes at your fingertips, but I was just plain
confused with all the 'jumping' around the boxes did. Anyone else feel
the same?

Ryan Nichols
Apples To Oranges
http://www.apples-to-oranges.com

Navneet Nair wrote:

>[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
>
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/technology/12ecom.html
>>
>>(I just went there and it was still closed!)
>>
>>
>
> Sounds like what they are trying to achieve is what
>boo.com<http://boo.com>was trying in the hey days of the dot com boom.
>They, of course, went bust.
>Will be interesting to see what Gap will be able to achieve. But pulling
>down a site to AJAX-ify!! Isn't that overkill?
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>Navneet Nair
>>Interaction Architect
>>onClipEvent: form follows function();
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Website: http://www.onclipevent.com
>>Blog: http://www.onclipevent.com/enterframe/
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
>(Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
>Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
>Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
>Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>
>
>

17 Sep 2005 - 3:09am
Donna Maurer
2003

Did you see the 'Quick Look' on each image?

I don't know how to tell what it AJAX and what isn't but this would get my guess ;)

Donna

On 16 Sep 2005 at 20:47, Ryan Nichols wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Maybe it's just me but I can't see too much AJAX in there. When you
> add something to your cart I believe we were saved a refresh, but
> other than that nothing to write home about that really improved my
> experience. In fact I found the interaction with the sizing to be
> confusing. They attempt to put available sizes at your fingertips, but
> I was just plain confused with all the 'jumping' around the boxes did.
> Anyone else feel the same?
>
> Ryan Nichols
> Apples To Oranges
> http://www.apples-to-oranges.com
>
--
Donna Maurer
Maadmob Interaction Design

e: donna at maadmob.net
work: http://maadmob.com.au/
blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/
AOL IM: maadmob

17 Sep 2005 - 7:18am
Dave Malouf
2005

> Did you see the 'Quick Look' on each image?
>
> I don't know how to tell what it AJAX and what isn't but this
> would get my guess ;)

Donna, you are right. This is the only thing that I saw that could possibly
fit the bill. I don't know what all the fuss was about, and I didn't see
anything reminiscent of boo.com at all. That site rocked compared to this.
But that's a different story.

But let's give a little lesson in detecting AJAX.
For the most part it is all about the blink, or the level of blink. No blink
or blinks so fast that it couldn't be based on a server call, then there is
possibly some AJAX to think about here. But that by itself is not really
enough. What is necessary to truly be AJAX is to think that the client had
to go back to the server for more information without having to blink the
page. So the question you have to ask is whether the "quick look"
information was downloaded with the original list of options, or was it a
get from the server into that new DHTML window. If the latter it is AJAX, if
the former it is just a good DHTML solution.

The reason I think its AJAX is that the initial list loaded pretty fast
which would indicate that they didn't also download a whole lot of
information all at once. And here is the key indicator. On Firefox, on
clicking "quick look" my tab indicated that it was going to the server by
indicating "loading" or some such thing. That is the clincher!

The next AJAX I found is when you from "quick view" click "add to bag" or
whatever the "cart" is called. It submitted it to the server without the
"blink" and then closed the DHTML windows and then opened my bag to see it.

I think the "quick view" is great and it works for me. I think though as a
designer (and I'm not the target at all, as I don't like to buy clothes
online) I feel it looks like a kitchy idea in the context of the rest of the
site. I feel let down that the rest of the site is not as well integrated
and fluid as that one area of experience. The navigation is very harsh,
where I have to click "men" a lot to get back to where I was and then
navigate forward again (if I refuse to use the back button).

But the "quick view" is nicely done. Something that would have been nice is
when you close the "quick view" they indicate what you are closing to, with
an animation on the item you just "closed". I think it would have been good
to have a similar animation on opening the "quick view"; thus, completing
the explerience.

-- dave

18 Sep 2005 - 4:02pm
Ryan Nichols
2005

Ahhh. You know what? I didn't even know that was a button. I thought
quick look was just some little roll-over effect. I rolled my mouse over
the top part, and the 'quick look' was at the bottom. I just clicked the
image at the top and was taken to a basic detail page.

Quick brainstorm...

If I missed it, I'm sure many others would too. Anyone have any ideas as
to how to improve that?

Ryan Nichols
Apples To Oranges
http://www.apples-to-oranges.com

David Heller wrote:

>[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
>
>
>>Did you see the 'Quick Look' on each image?
>>
>>I don't know how to tell what it AJAX and what isn't but this
>>would get my guess ;)
>>
>>
>
>Donna, you are right. This is the only thing that I saw that could possibly
>fit the bill. I don't know what all the fuss was about, and I didn't see
>anything reminiscent of boo.com at all. That site rocked compared to this.
>But that's a different story.
>
>But let's give a little lesson in detecting AJAX.
>For the most part it is all about the blink, or the level of blink. No blink
>or blinks so fast that it couldn't be based on a server call, then there is
>possibly some AJAX to think about here. But that by itself is not really
>enough. What is necessary to truly be AJAX is to think that the client had
>to go back to the server for more information without having to blink the
>page. So the question you have to ask is whether the "quick look"
>information was downloaded with the original list of options, or was it a
>get from the server into that new DHTML window. If the latter it is AJAX, if
>the former it is just a good DHTML solution.
>
>The reason I think its AJAX is that the initial list loaded pretty fast
>which would indicate that they didn't also download a whole lot of
>information all at once. And here is the key indicator. On Firefox, on
>clicking "quick look" my tab indicated that it was going to the server by
>indicating "loading" or some such thing. That is the clincher!
>
>The next AJAX I found is when you from "quick view" click "add to bag" or
>whatever the "cart" is called. It submitted it to the server without the
>"blink" and then closed the DHTML windows and then opened my bag to see it.
>
>I think the "quick view" is great and it works for me. I think though as a
>designer (and I'm not the target at all, as I don't like to buy clothes
>online) I feel it looks like a kitchy idea in the context of the rest of the
>site. I feel let down that the rest of the site is not as well integrated
>and fluid as that one area of experience. The navigation is very harsh,
>where I have to click "men" a lot to get back to where I was and then
>navigate forward again (if I refuse to use the back button).
>
>But the "quick view" is nicely done. Something that would have been nice is
>when you close the "quick view" they indicate what you are closing to, with
>an animation on the item you just "closed". I think it would have been good
>to have a similar animation on opening the "quick view"; thus, completing
>the explerience.
>
>-- dave
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
>(Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
>Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
>Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
>Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>
>
>

20 Sep 2005 - 1:07pm
Petteri Hiisilä
2004

Gregory Petroff kirjoitti 16.9.2005 kello 6.02:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Great article earlier this week on GAP's new websites in the NY times
> (September 12, Bob Tedeschi). If you dont have access to times online
> contetn go visit the new GAP.com website anyway. Curious to see
> what people
> think. Pretty sure its an AJAX implementation. Very Nice.

Some observations as a consumer/designer:

- Generally, I think the shop is quite well designed. I'd like to do
some shopping from a place like this, but I don't know if they ship
to Finland at a reasonable cost.

There's still room for improvement:

- Picking the right size for clothes was a little troublesome,
although it was better than most shops I've seen. My waist is growing
all the time, yes, but it would still be worth remembering what size
I picked in the last page. And the unavailable sizes should look more
unavailable.

- One thing I like in a "real" shop is that window shopping is easy.
In GAP shop I first have to know what I'm looking for, before I see
any pants or shirts. Personally, I don't shop clothes too often, and
I like to buy a lot of stuff at the same time. In the GAP shop it
takes a lot of clicks to upgrade the whole outfit.

- Real shops have dolls with clothes, and professionals have designed
the looks. Often they know better than I, which of their clothes look
better together. Fashion magazines also have models who have a good-
looking set of clothes already picked by someone who knows what to
pick, and the magazines do tell where to buy and for how much. In the
web it would be so easy to just click the picture and buy the set. Of
course this opens a whole new set of design problems, but I think it
would be worth thinking. Amazon does a good job with their "Better
together" feature.

- "You might also like... " If it may be worth buying, it is worth
showing without an extra click. Again, I think Amazon does better job
at this than GAP.

- The clothes should be shown from more angles than just one. And the
largest version of the pictures should be huge. Then it would be
easier to see the material, imagine whether the shirt would feel good
to wear etc.

Petteri

--
Petteri Hiisilä
Senior Interaction Designer
IX Design Tmi / +358505050123 / petteri.hiisila at luukku.com

"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Syndicate content Get the feed