How do you design a website?

[Bergamot]

Making sure that the design can actually be viewed by any and all is our
task. Designers do not write html, nor do they write css, all that is the
developers task.

That may be true, however, leaving the developer out of it until it's
time to start coding can be a problem. Somebody has to rein the designer
in when they start putting unrealistic things into it.

 

[mbstevens]

But where I work, taking all that into consideration is the task of the
developer. A designer creates a picture of what the site *should* look
like, to present to a customer in order to show him what the final result
will look like.

Making sure that the design can actually be viewed by any and all is our
task. Designers do not write html, nor do they write css, all that is the
developers task.

And how exactly does this long explanation contradict my statement:
"They had people who knew the most about web design implementing the
designs of people who knew the least." Those kind of web design houses
turn out nothing but dreck.

The entire process starts as a picture, but the end result is far from a
picture, allthough[sic] it looks like the original picture.

I explained why it cannot do for many visitors.

 

[the red dot]

I'm afraid I have to disagree on this one - please read on to see why.


You are correct in stating that a web page is something entirely
different from a picture, given the variety of screens, browsers,
settings and even the devices itself that connect to the internet.

But where I work, taking all that into consideration is the task of the
developer. A designer creates a picture of what the site *should* look
like, to present to a customer in order to show him what the final result
will look like.

what car company would allow people who know nothing about cars or how they
are built/work design a car?

 

[Andy Dingley]

The designers at work don't only use it for the graphics, they actually
create a snapshot of what (for example) the homepage would look like.
Altering that snapshot to create a website that can be shown on the net
in all browsers and on all devices is the task of the developer.

I'm serious about that "fingers" thing

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

news:[email protected]:

Not really - of course it is all about the content, it should be the main
reason for people to visit my site.

And yet you never mentioned it. Not that this makes you particularly
unusual, in fact it's a trend I think I'm seeing a lot of.

Perhaps I frased it a bit strange, but what I wanted to ask was how to do the
design once you know what your content is, and how your website will look.

You seem to be making more unjustified assumptions. Generally I try to
code my html well *before* I know what my website will look like. What
my web site will look like is largely irrelevant to the html coding part
of things.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

news[email protected]:

The entire process starts as a picture, but the end result is far from a
picture, allthough it looks like the original picture.

Completely backwards design process, in my really not so humble opinion.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Ed Seedhouse wrote: ..

I prefer fixed width sites

Hardly the point. What do people who have to use your sites prerfer?

Ahhh, you are implying that it is obsolete.

Yes indeed.

 

[David Segall]

what car company would allow people who know nothing about cars or how they
are built/work design a car?

The best ones. Bertoni was originally a sculptor. Great designs come
from a fusion of creative and engineering talent and those are almost
never found in the one person.

 

[freemont]

what car company would allow people who know nothing about cars or how they
are built/work design a car?

Ford?

 

[Dylan Parry]

[...] and this has been forced by commercial reality rather
than academic desires.

That's the crux of the issue. In reality nothing is perfect. We can't
expect the client to give us real content on time. Sure we can request
it till we're blue in the face, but sometimes it just doesn't come until
the last minute. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have.

An imperfect design process, for an imperfect world.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

 

[the red dot]

The best ones. Bertoni was originally a sculptor. Great designs come
from a fusion of creative and engineering talent and those are almost
never found in the one person.

but then again most of us are homer simpson not bertoni.

 

[Neredbojias]

The designers at work don't only use it for the graphics, they actually
create a snapshot of what (for example) the homepage would look like.
Altering that snapshot to create a website that can be shown on the net
in all browsers and on all devices is the task of the developer.

I see, the designers, uh, "design" the page and the developers impliment
it/make it work with html markup, styling, script, etc. However, we're
probably talking about visual design here and a web page is usually more
than a strictly visual medium. Are the designers all related to the
owner or do they just have the gift of gab?

True - I still prefer doing the layout in some sort of trial-and-error
process based on the content I'm looking to present. I was merely
wondering what benefit other tools might offer.

At the very beginning, I even shun away from writing html, and I try to
do the layout on a piece of paper - title goes there, news items there,
main content here, etc... But it's hard to try and look through your
visitors eyes sometimes


If you're thinking of 'ich' as the German for 'I' then you are almost
correct. Both 'ikke' and 'ik' mean 'I' in Dutch.

Well, I was actually thinking of Ichthyosauria at the time but then I had
a fish sandwich and started dreaming of mermaids.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Hardly the point. What do people who have to use your sites prerfer?

Ahh, your opinion is obviously more what people need.

Yes indeed.

The key word is "you"

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Ahh, your opinion is obviously more what people need.


The key word is "you"

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!

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Ahh, your opinion is obviously more what people need.

My opinion is based on some facts. Fixed width sites are generally
brittle and harder to use. Are you writing a web site just for
yourself, or for the folks with web browsers that you want to visit it?

Of course content is vastly more important than mere layout. I go back
to sites that truly suck design-wise because they have content I really
want. But given that you have content that people want to use why would
you go out of your way to design your site in a way that makes it harder
to use than it needs to be? Fixed width designs do just that. There
are even worse offences out there, but fixed width is one of them.

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?

The key word is "you"

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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!

Where you are wrong is you do not work in or understand in the
entertainment industry (ok that us an assumption, I don't know where
you work, but from your responses I can only assume it is not the
entertainment industry)

I do work in the entertainment industry. (Name drop time now) If you
visit Disney, Cartoon Network, TBS, Snoopdogg, Aerosmith, The Cars,
Run DMC, ABS, CBS, NBC, FOX News, Marriott International, SONY, and 3
of the college bowl sites, you will see my work. I do NOT do their
websites, but I do, do their Flash video. (Not the company I work for
does it, I personally do it freelance.)

I can tell you with out a doubt, all of them are moving to fixed width,
Flash based websites. I can also tell you without a doubt they have
all looked at other alternatives and have come to the conclusion that
for the content they are providing, this is the correct way to go. If
you disagree please visit any (US) entertainment website (or any US
website directed at children) to see that what I am saying is true.

This is the direction they are going, because this is the direction
that makes them the most money. They fully understand that some people
can not see or use their sites or video, but without a doubt, they are
increasing revenue with this direction.

Now, I do NOT disagree with you. Over and over (search google) I have
stressed that this is NOT for everyone! This is for the entertainment
industry. I can only assume other vertical markets can benefit from
the same. But EVERYONE can not! For instance Google can not.
Virtually any mom and pop website can not. But there are many sites
that can. The web is NOT a one size fits all kind of thing. Each site
has to decide for themselves what works best for their site. Then THEY
have to decide what to do. Saying Fixed size is obsolete is a joke.
It may well be for the types of websites YOU work on, but it is not for
everyone.

There are NO absolutes on the web. Each website has to do what ever is
best for their particular site. What everyone else is done is
completely irrelevant. If what you do improves revenue, then it is
right.

Man, did that turn into a rant or what..... Peace out...

 

[Travis Newbury]

My opinion is based on some facts.

As are mine...

Fixed width sites are generally
brittle and harder to use. Are you writing a web site just for
yourself, or for the folks with web browsers that you want to visit it?

I am not writing web sites at all. I write pieces of websites.

Of course content is vastly more important than mere layout.

The problem you seem to miss is content can NOT always be separated
from layout.

I go back
to sites that truly suck design-wise because they have content I really
want.

As do I...

But given that you have content that people want to use why would
you go out of your way to design your site in a way that makes it harder
to use than it needs to be?

Because for the majority (obviously not you personally) of the visitors
they LIKE it presented in that manner. YOU are not the only visitor.
Sometimes what you like, is NOT what the majority of the visitors like.
(And visa-versa sometimes what I like is not what the majority of the
visitors like)

Fixed width designs do just that. There
are even worse offences out there, but fixed width is one of them.

Or not. It completely depends on each particular site. One size does
NOT fit all on the web.

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?

They can't see them. Oh well, sucks to be those people. But if the
layout of the site brings in more money, then it is the right way to
go. A website is a means of REVENUE for a company. If fixed width (or
anything else) brings in more money, then it is correct for that
particular site. A company that is willing to lose money so a
particular group of people can see their website will go out of
business. You HAVE to do what is BEST for your company. There is NO
absolutes. It is case by case . Thinking otherwise will give me more
customers. (So please think otherwise...)

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.

Take a look at the direction virtually ALL entertainment website and
children's websites are moving. It will validate that the web is NOT
one size fits all.

Do you understand that I do not disagree with you? I just thing it is
case by case, and you can not say "fixed width is bad" Sometimes it
is, sometimes not. For the sites I work on, it is not.

 

[the red dot]

As are mine...


I am not writing web sites at all. I write pieces of websites.


The problem you seem to miss is content can NOT always be separated
from layout.


As do I...


Because for the majority (obviously not you personally) of the visitors
they LIKE it presented in that manner. YOU are not the only visitor.
Sometimes what you like, is NOT what the majority of the visitors like.
(And visa-versa sometimes what I like is not what the majority of the
visitors like)



Or not. It completely depends on each particular site. One size does
NOT fit all on the web.


They can't see them. Oh well, sucks to be those people. But if the
layout of the site brings in more money, then it is the right way to
go.

i was under the impression that there are now laws on accessibility re folk
with disabilities ie unable to see, btw can a screenreader read a flash
site? - from my understanding any site that cannot be read by a screen
reader is breaking the law.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I can tell you with out a doubt, all of them are moving to fixed width,
Flash based websites. I can also tell you without a doubt they have
all looked at other alternatives and have come to the conclusion that
for the content they are providing, this is the correct way to go. If
you disagree please visit any (US) entertainment website (or any US
website directed at children) to see that what I am saying is true.

I have seen well done and arty flash sites that do scale! Take a little
creativity and skill but the same can be said of a pure HTML page. There
are many horrible, frustrating, nearly unusable commercial site out
there obviously "designed" by the board of directors that haven't a clue
how to use the Web. The Toyota site is one that spring to mind that I
have seen recently. And there was this on that someone posts here a
while ago about the aquarium in Atlanta I think?

 

[Bergamot]

I do work in the entertainment industry.
I can tell you with out a doubt, all of them are moving to fixed width,
Flash based websites.

Goody for them (yawn). I spend virtually none of my online time at sites
like that, so it's no matter to me.

However, I might be inclined to visit them more often if they employed
something like this:
http://reefscape.net/?p=4

Adobe should make that standard for *all* Flash that has any text in it
whatsoever, IMO.