Philosophy of website design

[Michael Laplante]

Okay, this is sure to spark debate but I'm going to ask the question. No
slagging each other -- I'm just looking for some food for thought.

The philosophy of some people here is that websites should be designed for
maximum accessibility. In pursuit of that goal, I've seen a lot of -- well
let's call them bland -- websites. You know the ones -- the one/two/three
column thing, sometimes with a top-banner, and -- if they are daring -- a
background graphic somewhere. Essentially, these sites are replicating what
simple tables do except that tables handle the strain of resized windows and
/ or fonts better.

Technicians here quote things about "accessibility," "let end user decide"
etc. If accessability were the ultimate goal though, why not just revert to
simple text files using the original basic html tags?, e.g. h1, body, p, br.
.. . that sort of thing. Essentially nothing is more "accessible" than a text
file -- perhaps with a few images inline or otherwise -- allowing the
end-user to do whatever they want with the window, text size, font
preference, colour scheme, etc.

Checking out some of the websites listed in the sigs of the regulars I see
websites of the sort I described above. Yet even the decision to use a
column-style website or a top banner is taking some of the decision out of
the hands of the end-user and compromises accessibility. Why give up real
estate to a banner or irrelevant images? What makes that decision more or
less "right" than the decision to use a fixed font size, or flash? Why use
columns since gutters waste screen real estate? Why use any colour scheme at
all since anything else might be difficult for the user to decipher?

The Internet is this rich medium, but could the "maximum accessibility"
concept reduce it to the most banal denominator?

Some people here sneer at anything that uses fixed widths, flash, tables
layouts, etc. I've been to business sites that blow me away with their
creativity and design using all these techniques and more -- I return to
them repeatedly just to admire them. Advertising and market awareness works
on the principle of repetition so these website are doing what good
advertising should do. On the other hand some of the sites designed by some
in this ng (no names) -- well, they are so plain that I wouldn't bookmark
them in a thousand years.

Also, for certain sites -- entertainment sites primarily -- the medium IS
the message so the look becomes rather more important than the text. Or do
you disagree? How about the requirements of corporate identity which might
demand the use of certain colours, fonts, logos, etc?

So what are your thoughts? At what point do YOU decide how a site should
look rather than leaving it to a user? How much do you compromise
accessibility for design considerations such as layout, graphics, etc.?

M

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Okay, this is sure to spark debate but I'm going to ask the question. No
slagging each other -- I'm just looking for some food for thought.

As a matter of Usenet philopsophy, it is best to make your point in the
Subject line if you can, or at least at the start of your message, instead of
wasting the most valuable places of a message to pointless babbling.
The analogous principle for web design should be obvious.

The philosophy of some people here is that websites should be designed
for maximum accessibility.

Does this surprise you? Some people do care about disabled people, you know.
Of course we often disagree on finer points, such as what is the maximal
accessibility achievable in a particular siatuation.

In pursuit of that goal, I've seen a lot of --
well let's call them bland -- websites.

Are you going to make a point or just babble? Whether some designs (of which
you give no actual examples) pleases you is hardly relevant.

Essentially nothing is more "accessible" than a text file

Apparently you have no idea of what you are talking about, and no point to be
made. This explains your style and approach.

So what are your thoughts?

I think you are just trolling. I notice, unsurprised, that you do not mention
your own web site, or any other web site, as an example of your philosophy
(but then again, you didn't present any philosophy, just attacks against
accessibility - and strawmen).

 

[Greg N.]

I've been to business sites that blow me away with their
creativity and design using all these techniques and more -- I return to
them repeatedly just to admire them.

To each his own.

I visit sites solely for their content value, nothing else.

Advertising and market awareness works on the principle of
repetition so these website are doing what good
advertising should do.

Repetition? I don't see how this relates to this discussion. You mean
visual pizazz? Well, if you have a customer who wants that and pays for
it, by all means take the money, make them a glitzy web site and the
hell with accessability.

I'm not saying that pizazz and glitter are the main ingredients of good
advertizing, though, but if that's what your particular client wants,
fine.

On the other hand some of the sites designed by some in this
ng (no names)-- well, they are so plain that I wouldn't
bookmark them in a thousand years.

This prompted me to go through my bookmarks. I would say, of the 500
bookmarks I have, 80% are plain and bland, but the carry the content I
need.

I used to have sites in my bookmarks that I referenced quite often -
until they changed to a colorful, "innovative", graphic, flashy, and
slowly-loading design. Whenever this happens, I look for alternatives.

Can we see a few of you web sites? I'd love to know whether they're
worth a bookmark of mine.

Also, for certain sites -- entertainment sites primarily -- the medium IS
the message so the look becomes rather more important than the text.

Entertainment? Lets see, what "entertainment" sites do I use? Movie
reviews, music reviews, music downloads, photo albums, travel reports.
In all cases, the content is what counts.

I think "the medium IS the message" is only true for sites that have
*no* message. I can do without them.

 

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Michael Laplante"

The Internet is this rich medium, but could the "maximum
accessibility" concept reduce it to the most banal denominator?

Taken to extremes, yes. The idea is to compromise intelligently.

Some people here sneer at anything that uses fixed widths, flash,
tables layouts, etc. I've been to business sites that blow me away
with their creativity and design using all these techniques and more
-- I return to them repeatedly just to admire them. Advertising and
market awareness works on the principle of repetition so these website
are doing what good advertising should do. On the other hand some of
the sites designed by some in this ng (no names) -- well, they are so
plain that I wouldn't bookmark them in a thousand years.

Other people would.

Also, for certain sites -- entertainment sites primarily -- the medium
IS the message so the look becomes rather more important than the
text. Or do you disagree? How about the requirements of corporate
identity which might demand the use of certain colours, fonts, logos,
etc?

So what are your thoughts?

Well, I think of girls once every 7 seconds...

At what point do YOU decide how a site
should look rather than leaving it to a user?

Oh, I see. Well, the answer to that is at all points. I am the
pagemaker, therefore I am the decision-maker. Of course my decisions are
influenced by other considerations, and I strongly believe in standards-
uniformity and validator-valid markup. I also give great weight to the
opinions of those in this newsgroup who have convinced me they know what
they are talking about (although that is a judgment-call on my part,
too.) When it comes to brass tacks, a page _must_ please the author
first and foremost. It _should_ please the user, naturally, but stating
that user-wants have priority over author-wants is balderdash.

How much do you
compromise accessibility for design considerations such as layout,
graphics, etc.?

It probably depends most on the nature of the page. If I have a page
entitled "Hirsute Hula Hags of Honolulu" which is primarily composed of
hedonistic graphics, I'm not going to be particularly concerned how it
renders in an aural browser. On the other hand, if I create a page
called "The Frustration of CSS in the Western, Eastern, and Third
Worlds," I may be wise to follow accessibility guidelines more closely.
Ultimately, though, it is the author's page, and while he should use good
sense in its construction, he is "The Man" (-or she is "The Woo-Man",
whichever the case may be.)

 

[Michael Laplante]

"Michael Laplante" <[email protected]> wrote:

I think you are just trolling. I notice, unsurprised, that you do not
mention
your own web site, or any other web site, as an example of your philosophy
(but then again, you didn't present any philosophy, just attacks against
accessibility - and strawmen).

I'm not a designer so my websites (only 2) follow the simple one-column
format. I couldn't do "fancy" even if I wanted to.

Thx.

M

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

if they are daring -- a background graphic somewhere. Essentially,
these sites are replicating what simple tables do except that tables
handle the strain of resized windows and / or fonts better.

If you think that, then you've only been looking at sites where the
author does not know how to use CSS properly.

http://wired.com/ -- no tables .. well, maybe one
http://espn.com -- no tables .. lots of other crap but no tables

 

[Jaxtraw]

If you think that, then you've only been looking at sites where the
author does not know how to use CSS properly.

http://wired.com/ -- no tables .. well, maybe one

Interesting that the wired site clips in a browser less than 800px across-
at least it does in mine (Opera 8 and Firefox). Likewise, I was amused to
note earlier that the supposed acme of CSS, the css zen garden

http://www.csszengarden.com/

similarly fails in a less than 800px browser window, thus failing at one of
the supposed big triumphs of CSS over tables- "tables are a fixed width and
fail on smaller screens whereas CSS is fluid and degrades gracefully".
Reducing the width of the window on Zen Garden's main page, which one would
think they'd want to be a showcase, causes the menu to disappear and then
the japanesey graphic slides across and obliterates first the tagline and
then the first line of text. Others of their examples don't even work
properly with text resizing in Firefox- the old classic of CSS positioning
causing overprinting.

The lesson seems to be that every attempt to make CSS do interesting layout
is fraught with problems, even by people who "know how to use CSS properly"-
CSS layout is, quite frankly, a complete failure. It singularly fails to be
better than tables.

Ian

 

[mbstevens]

Why give up real
estate to a banner or irrelevant images?

A web page, unlike a magazine page, is quickly expandable by links to
other pages. It is easy, however, to crowd a web page with too much
stuff. Irrelevance should of course be avoided, but you're throwing
in a misrepresentation of the best simple pages, which avoid
irrelevance. This makes me think that Jukka is right --
that you may well be trolling.

The Internet is this rich medium, but could the "maximum accessibility"
concept reduce it to the most banal denominator?

Web pages are about access to information and media -- media as rich as
you want -- from plain text to moving pictures. Don't confuse the
means of access with the thing to be accessed.

Also, for certain sites -- entertainment sites primarily -- the medium IS
the message so the look becomes rather more important than the text.

The 'look' you find important can be accessed, as downloads and links to
rich media, from an accessible and quick page.

One more often see sites where the 'look' gets in its own way,
making the page slow to load, inaccessible, or just irritating.
The visitor needs to be given the choice whether to download
rich media, and some explanation about the pit she is
falling into before following the link.

The philosophy of some people here is that websites should be

designed > for maximum accessibility.............

Technicians here quote things about "accessibility,"
"let end user decide" etc.

This is a practical matter, not a technical one.
It is a mistake to believe that technicians are incapable of
appreciating the humanities.

 

[JDS]

So what are your thoughts? At what point do YOU decide how a site should
look rather than leaving it to a user? How much do you compromise
accessibility for design considerations such as layout, graphics, etc.?

I really think that the core target audience in mind for any particular
site should dictate style, layout, and design. You should try as much as
possible to provide acceptable "accesibility" for all sites, but a site
targeted to the Knitters of North Ontario, which group you know only has
five members, and of which only two have a computer, and of those two,
neither is disabled in any way, (i.e. an extremely limited and well
known audience) differs greatly in its design needs from a site targeting
18-24 y.o. males in the general population to sell them XtremE Ice Dipperz
cereal, (i.e. a limited target audience, but relatively unknown in its
actual composition) or the site that is hoping to provide general
information on how to get your taxes done (i.e. a large, general audience).

The audience should dictate the design *needs*, not the design.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

A web page, unlike a magazine page, is quickly expandable by links to
other pages. It is easy, however, to crowd a web page with too much
stuff.

W3 has very long pages as well, so I do not think that it is really
important how long a page is....
you can have very long pages with internal links
and external links which connect this page to other pages of the same
website and even to pages of other websites..

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

W3 has very long pages as well, so I do not think that it is really
important how long a page is....
you can have very long pages with internal links
and external links which connect this page to other pages of the same
website and even to pages of other websites..

But, especially, if a page is very long, a list of the contents which are on
that page can be helpful.

 

[JDS]

It singularly fails to be
better than tables.

What? All of what you said is a load of bullshit. Sorry. Not being
defensive, just stating it like it is.

CSS is better for tables, but not necessarily for the reasons you stated.
One can create horrid, bad, unfluid designs using CSS, yes, but CSS is
still better than using tables. And the reason has nothing to do with the
designs themselves. It has to do with the fundamental difference between
what tables were intended to be used for and what CSS was intended to be
used for.

 

[Greg N.]

The lesson seems to be that every attempt to make CSS do interesting layout
is fraught with problems, even by people who "know how to use CSS properly"

I don't think zengarden contributors are prime experts on "how to use
CSS properly". They're mostly grapics designers. As you observed, most
of their examples, while looking very nice superficially, lack in areas
like font selection, font contrast, font size. Most notably, pretty
much all examples are non-liquid, which is almost always a poor design
choice.

zengarden has only one purpose: to demonstrate how css alone (as
opposed to html < 4.01 ) can be used to control the appearance of a web
site, with respect to colors, fonts, pix, and placement.

It is _not_, however, a tutorial on good web design, just like a
collection of Chili recipes is not an essay on good nutrition.

 

[Jaxtraw]

What? All of what you said is a load of bullshit. Sorry. Not being
defensive, just stating it like it is.

CSS is better for tables, but not necessarily for the reasons you
stated. One can create horrid, bad, unfluid designs using CSS, yes,
but CSS is still better than using tables. And the reason has
nothing to do with the designs themselves. It has to do with the
fundamental difference between what tables were intended to be used
for and what CSS was intended to be used for.

Really? That's it? A technology can only be used for what it was originally
intended to be used for?

Okay. Better shut down the web then. The internet wasn't originally intended
to be used for that.

CSS is great as a styling rules system. As a layout system, it doesn't work.
But then, CSS was never originally intended for layout anyway, was it?

Ian

 

[Michael Laplante]

Michael Laplante wrote:

I visit sites solely for their content value, nothing else.

How do you define content?

Repetition? I don't see how this relates to this discussion.

How does a site's FUNCTION affects its presentation?

I used to have sites in my bookmarks that I referenced quite often - until
they changed to a colorful, "innovative", graphic, flashy, and
slowly-loading design. Whenever this happens, I look for alternatives.

This brings up an interesting point. Firefox -- maybe others too, I don't
know -- has plug-ins to enable / disable things such as Flash, etc. If the
idea is that the "end-user rules" would / should designers include these
features and then allow the end user to turn them on / off as desired?

Can we see a few of you web sites? I'd love to know whether they're worth
a bookmark of mine.

Probably not. I'm not a designer.

M

 

[Michael Laplante]

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message
Well presented. Thx. . .

M

 

[Jaxtraw]

I don't think zengarden contributors are prime experts on "how to use
CSS properly". They're mostly grapics designers. As you observed,
most of their examples, while looking very nice superficially, lack
in areas like font selection, font contrast, font size. Most
notably, pretty much all examples are non-liquid, which is almost
always a poor design choice.

zengarden has only one purpose: to demonstrate how css alone (as
opposed to html < 4.01 ) can be used to control the appearance of a
web site, with respect to colors, fonts, pix, and placement.

It is _not_, however, a tutorial on good web design, just like a
collection of Chili recipes is not an essay on good nutrition.

I agree- but I think it illustrates how easy it is to get into hot water.
It's particularly disappointing that their main page- not a contributed
design- is neither fluid, nor works well below 800px. It's effectively a
table-like design and shows no advantages whatsoever of CSS.

My point is simple- CSS is, as its name describes, a rules system for
applying styles to documents- to change the style of text basically, and by
extension images, in a document which flows from top to bottom. It's not
suited to layout, and the extensions to make it a layout language are
inadequate, complex, difficult to use and as such poorly conceived. Tables
weren't intended originally for laying out webpages- I agree with that. But
what CSS offers isn't up to the job either.

Most significantly, it has *no means whatsoever* to change the document flow
without hoiking elements out of it altogether by floating, and even then no
means to change the relationship of elements. It cannot manipulate the DOM.
If your menu is in the left column's encapsulating DIV, it's trapped in
there forever unless you rewrite the HTML, so the claim that you can restyle
a site just by modifying the CSS is simply false. As it is, the document
structure is hard coded into the HTML, resulting in DIV soup that's just as
bad as Tables.

My point- we need something better. Until we get it, I see no reason to
evangelise tableless web design as some kind of acme.

Ian

 

[Michael Laplante]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Likewise, I was amused to
note earlier that the supposed acme of CSS, the css zen garden

http://www.csszengarden.com/

similarly fails in a less than 800px browser window, thus failing at one
of
the supposed big triumphs of CSS over tables

But is that a failure I wonder? Some sites to me are about information over
aesthetic whereas others -- such as Zen Garden -- are about looks over
textual content to convey an emotion rather than information. This site is
designed to show the "art of CSS" and not the science. In that regard, I
think it succeeds.

M

 

[mbstevens]

W3 has very long pages as well,

I said crowded, not long. Do try to be more accurate.

 

[Greg N.]

How do you define content?

Sorry, I can't be bothered to attempt a definition, you have to make do
with examples.

An example of solid content is http://wikipedia.org

In contrast, there is absolutely no worthwile content at extremely cool
sites like http://www.pepsicola.com/