shoe shopping
looking for a pair of shoes to travel in. my sneakers are too light, hiking boots to hot, and doc martens aren't for hiking/working. a vented light hiker would do the trick, but I also want something that is not too informal/sneaker-looking, and that doesn't have an akwardly thick sole.
tonight's shopping was marginally less painful than last spring's shoe shopping. 9 shoes, in order of favoriteness:
-
men's have better colors (gray) than the women's. vibram soles, up to 40lb loads. water resistant (gore tex), breathable, leather. not swishy. I judge way too much on looks. expensive.
women's vs. men's: I wear mostly men's shoes, but whichever fits better.
-
best value. these rank highly because of that and their ventilation. the gray is ok. mesh/well ventilated. again, m/w: whichever fits.
- merrell edge m/w
$90
merrell seems good for comfort, but they don't talk about the shoes' intended use. leather. looks kind of like a skater shoe.
- north face men's esker ridge hiking shoe
$70
bleh, standard issue light hiker. 25 lb loads.
- llbean gore tex mountain treads, low cut
$109
ugly, but possibly a more technical option than the ventilated pathfinders. "for light backpacking" etc. breathable, waterproof. vibram.
- garamont women's eclipse xcr
$56
I might go to EMS and try it on, but otherwise I'm not interested. light blue. waterproof, "mesh," etc. vibram.
- north face women's buildering hiking shoe
$75
why do they call this a hiking shoe?? possibly because it has a vibram sole? do they mean "bouldering"?
- merrell chameleon II traveler
$100
more formal than others on this list (because of the seamless leather upper). I hiked with someone in merrell chameleons and she did ok, but the soles are so goofy. kind of basketball shoe shaped, which I hate.
- ems women's mesa ventilator II
$75
bleh, too sneakerish. wouldn't like them if I saw them in person. lots of mesh, in an obnoxious way.
This is the part where I am a nerd about websites. For my own future web design reference:
I like the North Face website best, because it sums up the shoes in a clear, matter-of-fact, information rich sentance. It also has a bulleted list (why narrower than the column it's in?) of information, which I like, but some list items are pure jargon (bleh). It has good clear pictures, but no top views of the shoes. Also, the "interactive" aspect is annoying, I expect a page to stay static unless I click it. I think I like it best only because the intro text is in a wide column, and it uses the whole page.
the LL Bean site is great, has good pictures and the different colors show up quickly. The larger view windows were too small for the larger pictures. They provide reasons for each technical aspect of the shoes. Rock. I enjoy the descriptions. I would call them perfect if they had snappy intro sentences like North Face, though. That is what web-shopping should be like. The text column is too narrow, so the flow of words is choppy. The whole page is crammed together.
Merrell's website has an obnoxious scroll box, obnoxious header graphic (it moves), and obnoxiously jargon-filled descriptions and useless 'technical specifications.' Their pictures are good. They don't use the whole page (they stay "above the fold"). The navigation is hover-navigated dropdown image-based stuff, and isn't always visible. Merrell uses sensible color names.
EMS has pale, uninspiring pictures, all taken at the same vaguely disconcerting angle. It uses stupid overenthusiastic words in the descriptions. The 'specs' chart is very clear to read, and includes wicked useful info like weight, sole flex, terrain, and waterproofness. You have to click a link to see it, though (but it's a javascript toggle, which is ok, better than a page reload).
Summary: important things are information presented in a readable way and clear pictures. My favorite shoes come from my favorite sites. It'd be nice to have sock links at the bottom, especially at LL Bean, which recommends "midweight socks" with their hikers. Visually, none of the sites had any suggestion of terrain on the same page as the shoes. I tend towards judging by looks (angles and clarity of pictures are important), gathering information (readability and diction are important), and drilling straight to shoes rather than spending time on navigational pages (some of which had terrain pictures).
