How do you design a website?

[Travis Newbury]

It's really pointless to raise such issues with Mr Newbury. He
admittedly only speaks for the entertainment industry, which is an
entirely different beast from the commercial/business sites the rest of
us are concerned with.

It is a completely different beast. I say so over and over. The point
I try to make, that many ignore, is that there is no one size fits all
on the web. And there shouldn't be. Let the free market control the
web. Any government control or rules will only screw it up.

I think we'd all agree that Flash is a good technology for the kind of
site that's geared towards the like of video game playing teenage boys,
but I don't necessarily agree with him that all entertainment type sites
would do better with 100% Flash. It doesn't matter to him what anybody
else's opinion is, anyway, so might as well drop the debate now.

Oh no, I do care about other people opinions. But only when they don't
have context confused. It would be like arguing how the use of a
scalpel is better than a laser when one person is talking about all
medical procedures in general, and I am talking about
microdermabrasion. Put into context both parties are correct.

 

[Travis Newbury]

If you look around a bit on the web you will find that it is hardly just
"me". Take a look at http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/ for
instance.

If you take a look at the financials for these companies, you too will
see it is not just "me".

 

[dorayme]

I guess the main point is yes, do what ever *you* wish. Design that
static site if *you* so desire, it your prerogative. Just if your
visitors are frustrated because they must maximize their browser window
to view your site without the pain of horizontal scrolling when they
really want two windows tiled or change their monitor resolution just to
read that minuscule text they will exercise *their* prerogative and not
come back!

Reminds me of an English high official's speech when challenged
about their determination to stamp out widow burning in India.
The challenge was in terms of the rights of cultural autonomy.
The official agreed and said that while they every right to
continue burning their widows, the English would exercise their
rights to round up those responsible and hang them high. Widow
burning was largely stamped out.

 

[dorayme]

If what you do improves revenue, then it is
right.

cough, splutter, splutter... damn, there goes my morning
coffee... now... where were those files I kept on how to clean
keyboards?

 

[dorayme]

We all have. When I first came across that article, I was just blown
away. What a boon to not only accessibility, but usability, too.

This needs more advertising, for sure.

It did not work on my machine, it "detected" my Flash player
(using Safari) as 7.0.14 but made no comment about this, the demo
was from a link in this website to:

http://aralbalkan.com/745

 

[dorayme]

If you take a look at the financials for these companies, you too will
see it is not just "me".

You have two points, one is that fixed sites bring in more
revenue in certain industries, the other is that in these same
industries, the fancier the more revenue.

We need to disentangle these two things. Assuming that fancy is
easier to do with fixed, the only gain in income to the
commisioning comapany is the saving on paying the website maker
to make extra provisions for those wanting some more accessible
facilities. The fancy can stay, it needs adding to further.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Reminds me of an English high official's speech when challenged
about their determination to stamp out widow burning in India.
The challenge was in terms of the rights of cultural autonomy.
The official agreed and said that while they every right to
continue burning their widows, the English would exercise their
rights to round up those responsible and hang them high. Widow
burning was largely stamped out.

What about widower burning?

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

No study needed. As these types of sites get fancier, the visitors and
revenue increase.

Broadband access certainly increases the usability of Flash sites. I
suspect that the increase in broadband mirrors to some extent your
client's increase in visitors. I don't have stats on what percentage of
people in specific countries have broadband, but it's important to your
argument. I don't have broadband and shun Flash because of it. I tend to
be near the last in adapting to new technology though :-(
I kept paying rent for an AT&T phone for five years after I didn't need
to.

leo

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"

What about widower burning?

They're burnt when they get married...

 

[Neredbojias]

What about people who don't see so well and have to enlarge your
fonts? What happens to your fixed width sites on a few size increases?

Ya know, I've heard that many times. And I am definitely an anti-fixed-
width/pro-fluid website fan. However, the though occurs to me it isn't
really a valid argument. What about people who see poorly and want to read
a book? Sure, they can buy a large-text version (if and when it's
available, which is hardly always) or acquired an aural edition, but
neither of these comes packaged with the normal, everyday version.

While I agree that fixed-width sites should be avoided (both meanings),
sight impairment has less to do with it than site impairment.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Ya know, I've heard that many times. And I am definitely an anti-fixed-
width/pro-fluid website fan. However, the though occurs to me it isn't
really a valid argument. What about people who see poorly and want to read
a book? Sure, they can buy a large-text version (if and when it's
available, which is hardly always) or acquired an aural edition, but
neither of these comes packaged with the normal, everyday version.

Why would you want to debilitate web pages when they can remove the
problem? I now have to remove my glasses and hold a book very close
to my eyes in order to read it (and I still read several books per
week). It's not comfortable, and I only do it in bed. Why would you
want to make web pages as difficult to read when the concept makes
them flexible and legible to anyone?

 

[Travis Newbury]

cough, splutter, splutter... damn, there goes my morning
coffee... now... where were those files I kept on how to clean
keyboards?

So are you implying that a company should do things that decrease
revenue?

 

[Travis Newbury]

You have two points, one is that fixed sites bring in more
revenue in certain industries, the other is that in these same
industries, the fancier the more revenue.

We need to disentangle these two things. Assuming that fancy is
easier to do with fixed, the only gain in income to the
commisioning comapany is the saving on paying the website maker
to make extra provisions for those wanting some more accessible
facilities. The fancy can stay, it needs adding to further.

If I am showing a movie trailer on my site it is encoded for a specific
width based on speed. What benefit is it to have the page be any width?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Broadband access certainly increases the usability of Flash sites.

It increases the usability of poorly designed Flash. Well designed
Flash need not be a huge file.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If I am showing a movie trailer on my site it is encoded for a specific
width based on speed. What benefit is it to have the page be any width?

The movie doe not have to scale, although it is helpful when at
1600x1200 resolutions, but the page certainly should!

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

To further the education of mankind, Ed Seedhouse <[email protected]>
vouchsafed:

Ya know, I've heard that many times. And I am definitely an anti-fixed-
width/pro-fluid website fan. However, the though occurs to me it isn't
really a valid argument. What about people who see poorly and want to read
a book? Sure, they can buy a large-text version (if and when it's
available, which is hardly always) or acquired an aural edition, but
neither of these comes packaged with the normal, everyday version.

Which is a disadvantage of books and an advantage to the web. When web
has so many other disadvantages compared to books, we should be sure to
make use of it's advantages, such as the ability to scale automatically
to viewport size.

While I agree that fixed-width sites should be avoided (both meanings),
sight impairment has less to do with it than site impairment.

Believe me, there's a lot of people with site impairment and there will
be many more in the next decade or two as the baby-boomers age. Baby
boomers have a lot of money so why drive them away from your site?

 

[Travis Newbury]

The movie doe not have to scale, although it is helpful when at
1600x1200 resolutions, but the page certainly should!

Why? What is the point? What would the page gain?

 

[dorayme]

So are you implying that a company should do things that decrease
revenue?

Now you leap the other way... but I am prepared this fine early
Sydney morning, my coffee is bolted to the desk, a silicon straw
is being used.

Sometimes, that is exactly what a company should do, what the
hell is the matter with you Travis? Think tobacco companies.

 

[dorayme]

Why? What is the point? What would the page gain?

It depends on the page and what is being offered. If it just a
movie, perhaps nothing. If the movie is in a sea of other
information, then much is to be gained.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It depends on the page and what is being offered. If it just a
movie, perhaps nothing. If the movie is in a sea of other
information, then much is to be gained.

More than likely is is some sort of "player" with controls for the
movie, Probably branded for the film or the studio, you know the kind
of site. We have all snuck in to one of these sites a time or too....
;-)