Forum Moderators: open
In other words, do you opt for DHTML, Flash and complex graphics when a more straight forward design would serve the actual purpose of the site better?
Be honest now: Have you ever added code to a page or site simply to flex your coding skills in a "look what I can do" frame of mind and then tried to justify it by convincing yourself that everyone will be soooo impressed that they will automatically buy your products, sign-up for your mailing lists and bookmark each and everyone of your pages.
We discuss many topics in this forum, we certainly have no lack of "how to" discussions; I doubt if there is any other location on the Internet better suited to solving technical issues better than the forums here at Webmaster World.
We also do an exemplary job of discussing usability issues: I've seen others try - try, mind you, to emulate our tack and recreate our dynamics (as if!). The members here interact with such high caliber and over-all quality that many of the discussions achieve instant "classic" status.
But at the core of it all we need to ask: what are the goals we wish to achieve when we code? Do we always consider the true purpose of a project and the best way to attain it. This demands a bit of soul searching and honest introspection; leave the half-hearted justification attempts behind: do you allow your ego to take precedence over the actual goals of a project?
Presentation, design and content: what are your proirities? Honestly.
[edited by: papabaer at 5:22 pm (utc) on Aug. 6, 2002]
Then again, I believe we do what we are most familiar w/. So, if there's a flashy way (which we've done a million times) and a simpler way (which would require additional time to learn or re-learn), then I believe we rationalize using (what is to us) the easier way.
Disclaimer: I believe my aversion to flashy sites is deeply rooted in my innate, engineer-to-the-core being, and my total inability to draw (i.e. be artistic) to save my life. Therefore, in an effort to justify my own limitations, I have developed a host of logical reasons for justifying avoiding aforementioned flashy/artistic/showboat sites. There! My secret is out....
I've gotten tired of javascript rollovers. I'll use some unobtrusive javascript for other things, but rollovers = yawn.
I met with a client last weekend, who is very much NOT tech savvy. Email, Explorer and MS Works are her computing universe, and considering she runs an animal boarding kennel, there is no reason to assume her clients are any higher tech than she is.
She specifically requested rollovers on her main navigation links. She really likes navigation rollovers, because she says they help make the links more obvious on a site, rather than having to "wait for that little hand to know if it's a link or not."
I'll be using her site as an opportunity to build my first 100% CSS/text-based rollover-equipped navigation menu. :)
Not something I would have bothered with though, if she hadn't requested it as a usability enhancement.
90% of my initial design priority is related to basic SEO strategy, I could really care less about the aesthetics or usability of the site as long as it's sufficient to meet the visitor's expectations, so, in general, I'm with the minimalist school when it comes to graphics and "slickness" --it just isn't required to compete in my fields (travel and real estate). As for the presentation, it's anti-showboat. I like to overwhelm them with content but purposely leave the navigation somewhat sparse, forcing them to explore. I DO make sure that the money pages are always on the path of least resistance when it comes to navigating the site. (Whoaaa! TOO MUCH info here, I'll drop the bookmark and just go fill in that handy form.)
Reread your text and every time you come across a phrase that you really like, delete it.Disagree.
I really liked the way I used the phrase "disagree". It was succinct and conveyed my thoughts exactly. I refuse to delete it, sir!
Whoa! Simmer down now. As I said originally, I believe the quote is from Somerset Maugham (or someone like that), which means that
1. the quote is meant to be witty which in turn means that
2. it's self-referential which means in turn that
3. it's as much joke as it is rule.
That said, it's not a bad thing to have in your mind.
Tom
well, you may discover that you have created an art or a design or might as well a "purpose" out of scribbling ... but you'll be back again it creating a design out of your purpose ...
well, being a showboat is a purpose, right?
it depends from the user or visitor of your site if it is a trash or not ... another man's medicine maybe another man's poison. know ur target audience.
.. and keep it simple for bandwidth/loading sake! - what a bias. ;)
Whoa! Simmer down now.
I was joking as well. Note to self: must use more of these things in future ;) ;) ;)
In most cases, we are not our target audiences.
Excellent point. Too many time I know I get caught up in what works for me. Many times this won't be what works for the masses. Over the past year or so I have become more and more aware of how uneducated/unsophisticated/uninformed the world is when it comes to many things including what a website should be and how it should function. I think in many cases we give our users too much credit. We need to look at our design and useability from the standpoint of the average or below average web user. Generally speaking if you are reading on this forum you know much much more about the web than the average person and we need to realize that not everybody out there spends 8-10 hours a day on the internet.
I generally start off thinking about how the content should be organized. Then I think about how best to present that content. I aim for a website that has the following characteristics (in no particular order):
1. It should present the important information it is supposed to convey simply and clearly.
2. It should be easy to navigate.
3. It should not be cluttered with extraneous stuff.
4. Visual presentation should be clear, professional but not showy.
5. It should be as light on bandwidth as possible.
6. It should be appropriate to the audience.
How much weight I give to each of these characteristics depends on the site I am creating. If I am presenting scientific papers, visual presentation has to be very simple because the chances are pages will be printed out or accessed on text-only terminals; but probably much more care will need to be taken to make absolutely certain the content is search-engine optimized, particularly with regards to an on-site search engine.
A movie site, though, is all about visual presentation; it's important for the site to make people go "wow, I have to see that film".
Most sites, I think, fall somewhere between these two extremes.
As far as experimentation goes, a personal website is a case of "anything goes" -- if not the whole site, then a section dedicated to experimental gadgets you can try out on people.
I did the slider menu on my Numerology site just to hear the oohs and ahhs from my friends and non techy half of the family. "You did that!, oh wow!".
hehehehe :)
No clients just my own 3 sites (soon to be four, an antique and collectables) that I love to play with, especially my first two loves, Astrology and Numerology.
Ann
Too true. Several people I have contact with have seem to have no understanding of this. They have worked in the industry for years and know it inside out so they feel they are best placed to tell the user what they need. WRONG.
You need to consult, ask, test etc with the actual users of the site to give them what they want not what your gaffer thinks they should have. After all they are the ones going to use the site are they not.
Not enough emphasis is put on user demands/needs/wants in my experience. I try to get this point across all the time. Not alway sucessful though.
Cheers
Me: many a 'minimalist' site which is still a total displeasure to useToadhall:Because it was an enhancement, a self-conscious attempt at style, not a result of the "necessity" rule.
I've got to totally disagree. useit.com* is such an example, "a self-conscious attempt at style"? how well it follows the necessity rule i'll leave for you to decide.
I think the whole site's experience could be significantly improved by working on the style alone (not to improve it's chances of an award but to improve, amongst other things, the visual hierarchy and use of color).
There's a little more to this game than following the"abc-diy guide (with free magic formula) to building websites".
*I was avoiding naming and shaming (I'm as guilty as the next man) but I figure Jakob's probably used to it by now.
We may all have ideas about what works and what does not in terms of design and functionality, but if you are working for a client, it has been my experience that on occasion, the client specifically asks for all the things you do not recommend or like.
Have you ever come up with a beautiful efficient and stylish outline design for approval and then had the client insist on fly out menus? Or Flash intros? Or graphics too large for the balance of the page? Or 'things that DO stuff'? For some clients 'Showboating' is exactly the reason they want a site.
Of course it can be soul destroying, not least because you (and your abilities) are associated with your output, but, at the end of the day, if the client is paying the bills, who would say "I am not prepared to do that" and walk away? Not many I think.
I'm in awe of any designer who can do simple and make it beautiful and striking. I think that's the ultimate accomplishment. I'm no design genius, so I work making them simple and cute. That's easier.
For example, I have written a random customer comments box that appears on the homepage. Written in JavaScript it started out as a teach-myself-JavaScript lesson that included random numbers.
Further, I have written my own search routine (in Perl) for products, including ranking likelyhood, product cross-referencing and compatibility information for customers to decide on the best product. Again it started out as a teach-myself lesson. Also ended up with automatic currency conversion when I wondered how spiders worked (how does Perl read in external files?). When I discovered the way of reading in external http:// references, I knew that my merchant had live currency statistics on their site that could be used. So I now have live currency conversion.
You need to be restrictive. Does it increase a customers (or visitors) experience at your site?
One site I visited had little bees that followed the mouse pointer wherever you went on the page. The back button was quickly pressed when I found these damned bees were getting between my mouse and any link I clicked, and they were fast bees!
I think one should be careful about absolute rules. While they might suit computer programming, they don't suit other endevours - like writing. An individual "voice" is important and often occurs when the writer breaks established rules.
I don't think whoever said that meant it as an absolute rule. It's just like most other rules; it's a guideline....something to keep in mind when your writing.
And remember, amateurs made the ark, professionals made the titanic.
...but didn't politics sink the titanic?
;)
And remember, amateurs made the ark, professionals made the titanic.
True, but the amateurs had a sponsor at their side. And as with every project, internet or other, with the right sponsor you can do what you want and never have any trouble.
Have you ever come up with a beautiful efficient and stylish outline design for approval and then had the client insist on fly out menus? Or Flash intros? Or graphics too large for the balance of the page? Or 'things that DO stuff'? For some clients 'Showboating' is exactly the reason they want a site.
Try to imagine if Leonardo Davinci thought the Mona Lisa needed a "bit more" of her famous smile... See what I mean?
Moral 1: The best works of art are not the ones that are perfectly executed.
Moral 2: Commercially-oriented websites are not supposed to be works of art.
Moral 4: The customer is always right???
Moral 4: The customer is always right???
Definitely wrong. If you feel your customer wants you to do something which is not good for his site (e.g. a flash intro with no real purpose other than looking fancy), tell him. If he still wants it, tell him again and explain why it sucks. If he doesn't get or agree with you arguments, make sure you have some written proof he absolutely wanted that. Then when he comes back after a year or so and demands to know why this flash intro scares his customers away, you have something to show him.
Actually, the Mona Lisa is not one of DaVinci's best paintings. All the proportions are out: the head is too big, the hands are too small, and the landscape doesn't fit properly...
The point is not about art, but about subtleties. I used the Mona Lisa to illustrate a point since the "famous smile" is one of the most widely recognized features in the history of art.
Why? Because DaVinci knew when to stop: the famous smile is an understated expressive element that packs more impact than any enhancements could provide. Did Leonardo have the skill to paint full, lustrous lips, add increasingly complex hues and highlights? Of course he did! But he didn't... and there in lies the lesson.
Subtlety is an artistic discipline.
Forget for the moment the client who insists on having myriad gee-gaws, doo-dads and thing-a-ma-jigs added to his webpage; if he (or she) does not listen to your advice and insists on these "enhancements," do 'em and deposit the check.
I'm talking about your own design philosophies... the things you add to a site or page because, well, because you can!
Granted, there is a time and place for everything: including "showboat, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" sites, but... for purposeful design work where delivery of information, search engine indexing and broad scale accessibility are the primary goals, do you still find yourself adding "enhancements" that in reality, add little to nothing to the value of the page?
Can I, or most any of the members here at Webmaster World, create incredibly complex coded pages? Of course... but I've personally, come to appreciate the Mona Lisa's smile.
Did Leonardo have the skill to paint full, lustrous lips, add increasingly complex hues and highlights? Of course he did! But he didn't
Actually, nobody knows. The Louvre have consistently refused permission for anyone to study the original, let alone restore it, and it is covered in layer upon layer of dirt, dust, grease and grime. It's so dirty, nobody has the faintest idea what colours were used, and in all possibility the Mona Lisa's lips are, in fact, bright red.
Yeah, I'm being picky and difficult here :) but I was, back then, making a point of my own only tangentially connected with yours.
does the Mona Lisa have an alt text though?
