professional versus amatuer "look"?

[RGH]

Hello All:

I am professor trying to work on some class materials for college
students criticizing Web designs.

Its seems to be that there is a real difference between a ³professional²
looking Web page and an ³amateur² looking one. But its hard to put my
finger on what exactly the differences are.

I am wondering if you professional Web designers out there would be
interested in giving me your opinions?

What are the most ³amateur² looking elements on Web pages?

What re the most common ³professional² looking elements to Web pages?

I am not interested in how to do them or anything; just how I can
recognize them.

I would love to hear back from you.

Hopefully, I will be able to use some of these responses in my course
materials or other publications.

Please feel free to email me personally or respond publicly. Either
way, I am interested in hearing your views on this!

Thanks in advance; and I apologize for the generally of the question!

Rob



Dr. Robert Glenn Howard
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(e-mail address removed)
http://rghoward.com

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Hello All:

kissy

What is the accepted way to share a message across multiple newsgroups?
http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html

 

[RGH]

in post: <

kissy

What is the accepted way to share a message across multiple newsgroups?
http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html

Uh--yeah; sorry. I did ask this in a couple other spots . . . sorry.
But the question still stands; and I apologize if this the wrong group.

RGH

 

[Karl Groves]

Hello All:

I am professor trying to work on some class materials for college
students criticizing Web designs.

Its seems to be that there is a real difference between a ³professional²
looking Web page and an ³amateur² looking one. But its hard to put my
finger on what exactly the differences are.

<snip>

When you say "professional LOOKING" you're giving off the impression that
"looks" are all that matter to a website.

The power of a site's visual appeal cannot be understated. Stanford's Web
Credibility Project (http://webcredibility.org/) has found that the #1
contributor to credibility is "design look".

However, it is VERY easy to create a visually appealing site. It is an
entirely different matter altogether for the site to look good *and* work
properly for the user.
Even before a look & feel is chosen, designing a professional site that
fulfills the company's business goals involves designing an efficient and
easy to use information architecture and navigation. Every public &
independent survey I've ever seen on web usage states that the #1 reason
people use the Web is "information". Therefore, if the site does not provide
a user-friendly presentation of its information, the site is of utterly no
use. I find that an efficient and user-friendly information architecture
is one of the primary differences between "professional" and "amateur". A
true professional understands the importance of IA while an amateur is one
who is focused only on "look and feel" issues.

-Karl

 

[Whitecrest]

I am professor trying to work on some class materials for college
students criticizing Web designs...
I am wondering if you professional Web designers out there would be
interested in giving me your opinions?
What are the most ³amateur² looking elements on Web pages?
What re the most common ³professional² looking elements to Web pages?

That is not a valid question. Perfect example. Take this site:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/

To some here, it is very amateurish because it requires Flash and
Javascript, is full of errors, and can not be seen by all. Definitely
not a professional site.

To others it has all the qualities of a professional site. It preforms
exactly the way it was designed. It achieves it goal, the artwork and
flash animation is top notch. A completely professional site.

Professional is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[RGH]

When you say "professional LOOKING" you're giving off the impression that
"looks" are all that matter to a website.

Oh, hey. No way. I am just not qualified to even talk about content and
function yet. And, I bet a lot of people judge Web sites by their
covers, ya know? That is just what I trying to get at here.

The power of a site's visual appeal cannot be understated. Stanford's Web
Credibility Project (http://webcredibility.org/) has found that the #1
contributor to credibility is "design look".

And Yes! Thanks. That is a key reference.

However, it is VERY easy to create a visually appealing site. It is an
entirely different matter altogether for the site to look good *and* work
properly for the user.

And I agree totally.

Even before a look & feel is chosen, designing a professional site that
fulfills the company's business goals involves designing an efficient and
easy to use information architecture and navigation. Every public &
independent survey I've ever seen on web usage states that the #1 reason
people use the Web is "information". Therefore, if the site does not provide
a user-friendly presentation of its information, the site is of utterly no
use. I find that an efficient and user-friendly information architecture
is one of the primary differences between "professional" and "amateur". A
true professional understands the importance of IA while an amateur is one
who is focused only on "look and feel" issues.

Actually, I am wondering if "look and feel" issues are not overcoming
the more important factors of delivery speed of content in professional
web circles these days. Ya know? Kinda an all flash and splash kinda
thing?

Rob

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Professional is in the eyes of the beholder.

and its based on so many variables like age, net experience, income,
location etc etc etc it makes your eyes pop.

 

[Whitecrest]

and its based on so many variables like age, net experience, income,
location etc etc etc it makes your eyes pop.

Absolutely.

 

[Karl Groves]

Actually, I am wondering if "look and feel" issues are not overcoming
the more important factors of delivery speed of content in professional
web circles these days. Ya know? Kinda an all flash and splash kinda
thing?

That depends on who you ask.
I work on large government websites that have tens of thousands of files and
thousands of dynamically generated pages. My outlook on what a successful
site is will differ from someone who makes sites with <100 pages.

From my end of things, the information space will make or break the site
because there's *soooooooo much* content that has to be negotiated. Someone
with a site that has 50 pages won't notice the problem as immediately as I
would, despite the importance being as high.

My mantra is: "If they cannot find it, then it does not exist. If they
cannot use it, then it is broken". Nothing else really matters[1].

-Karl

[1] Unless the site's just plain ugly & hard to look at.

 

[RGH]

Ah! Yes. This is a great example in that it seems ("looks")
professional, but doesn't function as such. That is a good distinction.
Of course, part of why I am interested in this is because students need
to be more aware of that difference. I am seen VERY professional Web
sites with with really really bad reasoning on them. Of course, that is
not the design itself at fault. But, again, I am interested in what you
all think "looks" professional. I guess, at the bottom of it, if
somebody pay somebody else to build a Web site, you could argue its
"professional" in that sense.

But yes--to say "it achieves its goal" means that somebody has stated
"it should do this" and then it does that. Of course, that might be
"seem unprofessional."

So, if that were the case, I am paying somebody to build a site that
"looks unprofessional"--what would it look like? What is "bad" flash
animation, for example? How would the graphics look? How would they be
placed on the pages?

Rob

 

[RGH]

in post: <

and its based on so many variables like age, net experience, income,
location etc etc etc it makes your eyes pop.

Well yeah--but geez! I still wanna try to have some sense. I mean--that
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/ site "looks" professional. I bet
somebody paid somebody to build it. Right? It may just be bad, though.
That seems like just another issue. A professionally bad site is just
like a bad teacher or bad football player or whatever--paid to be bad . .

Rob

 

[RGH]

Thanks. Yes. That really helps.

There is def. a difference between "ugly" and "ugly + hard to use." But
I can see what you mean: on a web site for a new movie you can have a
lot of flash just because it is so information weak. But on Lexis/Nexis
.. . . well; there isn't much "flash" at all there.

That is a great point.

Thanks for the help.

Rob

Actually, I am wondering if "look and feel" issues are not overcoming
the more important factors of delivery speed of content in professional
web circles these days. Ya know? Kinda an all flash and splash kinda
thing?

That depends on who you ask.
I work on large government websites that have tens of thousands of files and
thousands of dynamically generated pages. My outlook on what a successful
site is will differ from someone who makes sites with <100 pages.

From my end of things, the information space will make or break the site
because there's *soooooooo much* content that has to be negotiated. Someone
with a site that has 50 pages won't notice the problem as immediately as I
would, despite the importance being as high.

My mantra is: "If they cannot find it, then it does not exist. If they
cannot use it, then it is broken". Nothing else really matters[1].

-Karl

[1] Unless the site's just plain ugly & hard to look at.

 

[Neal]

What are the most ³amateur² looking elements on Web pages?

What re the most common ³professional² looking elements to Web pages?

Clearly, amateur things to do - which are still done on a lot of pro's
pages, sadly - include flashing text, images which are not properly
resolved for optimum downloading, inattention to color choices, failure to
adequately design for all browsers instead of only IE6, banners that look
like ads (studies have suggested that folks tend to ingnore anything which
appears to be an ad, whether it is or not), failure to have visual
elements line up evenly, font sizes which cannot scale (or worse, images
as paragraphs, and text buttons without appropriate ALT text), and so on.

What do I think makes a site appear more professional? Limited color
palette which looks good. Use of some curves instead of just boxy visual
elements. Scalable font sizes. As few images used as possible, and those
that are used are extreely effective.

I for one think that many people's idea of what a webpage should look like
is largely influenced by the misuse of table markup. Some might say that a
purely CSS layout cannot look "professional" to those people because it's
the distinctive table layout look that is the professional look. However,
I think these people are assuming that to look professional means to
conform to what everyone else is doing, while a smart professional will
develop a different look from competing sites.

After all, a distinctive look is a large part of branding, and branding
means comfort and familiarity with your core users. Which, if quality
content and an accessible and usable architecture is presented with this
layout, inevitably translates to profit.

 

[Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen]

Hello All:

I am professor trying to work on some class materials for college
students criticizing Web designs.

Its seems to be that there is a real difference between a
³professional² looking Web page and an ³amateur² looking one. But
its hard to put my finger on what exactly the differences are.

I am wondering if you professional Web designers out there would be
interested in giving me your opinions?

I am an amatuer, but I am stil interested...

What are the most ³amateur² looking elements on Web pages?

Javascript, Java applet or Flash navigation without an HTML alternative.
Frames when they are not necessary (as in most cases).
Animated gifs.
Images that carry information that has no alt-text.
No email address, or only Javascript encrypted email address.
Images of text instead of text.
Running or blinking text.
Too much italic text or strange fonts.
Outdated material.
Heavy graphics without purpose or warning.
Spelling or grammatical errors.
Dead links.
..tk
No site search engine if there are many pages, or a Google "search the web"
box.
Javascript clock.
Ad banners.
Award pages!
Heavy backgronds or not enough contrast background/text.
Page gets distorted when text is resized.

I try to make my pages accessible, and I think that pages should be
meningful even when images and Javascript are disabled. That's why they look
as they do... But have I gone too far, or not far enough?

What re the most common ³professional² looking elements to Web pages?

Clear navigation, bread crumbs, search engine?

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Well yeah--but geez! I still wanna try to have some sense.

you're asking people who in some cases have over a decade of experience
to compress their knowledge /and instinct/ into a few easily digested
sound bites. it doesn't work that way.

 

[Whitecrest]

Well yeah--but geez! I still wanna try to have some sense. I mean--that
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/ site "looks" professional. I bet
somebody paid somebody to build it.

I would guess they pain in the neighborhood of $20K plus for the
artwork, design and coding.

 

[The Doormouse]

you're asking people who in some cases have over a decade of experience
to compress their knowledge /and instinct/ into a few easily digested
sound bites. it doesn't work that way.

"... but isn't Graphic Design just Art? ... because everyone knows that
art is easy ... I only have $25, won't you help me? ..."

Maybe professional web design is like professional movie making - didn't
Jean Claude Van damme once say that he liked movies with action from
start to finish, with talking between the fight scenes?

All professional web sites could be Flash with little bits of HTML to
hold the whole <strikeout>ugly mess</strikeout> thing together ...

LOL! This is so fun, but I better not do this all day ...

The Doormouse

 

[nice.guy.nige]

Absolutely.

Whoa!!! We can't have you two guys agreeing with each other! Stop it now!
;-)

Cheers,
Nige

--
Nigel Moss.

Email address is not valid. (e-mail address removed). Take the dog out!
http://www.nigenet.org.uk | Boycott E$$O!! http://www.stopesso.com
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!

 

[Whitecrest]

Whoa!!! We can't have you two guys agreeing with each other! Stop it now!
;-)

We agree all the time. Mostly about the lack of enough Internet porn
though.

 

[novice]

We agree all the time. Mostly about the lack of enough Internet porn
though.

Though the lack of Internet porn concerns me greatly as well? ....

While perusing this thread, I couldn't help but notice that nobody's
mentioned what in my opinion is the most horrendous of all amateur gaffes;

The dreaded, imbeded, MIDI.

Yup. Nothing I like better than waiting for some perverted version of
"Stairway to Heaven" to load.

Not that I have a whole lot of room to talk, mind you. I'm a RANK ameteur.
My entire site is built with FrontPage Express!

Yeah, yeah. I hear all you purists moaning, but it works for me. Sure my
markup's for crap, but who cares? It's nothing but a dopey personal site
with mostly original content, and it renders just fine in the latest
versions of Netscape and I.E. from 800x600 to 1024x768. There's no
advertisement's, no java, no javascript, no animated banners, no Flash, nor
any of that other "fancy" stuff. The whole thing's built on a (link-back)
CSS template that won't break no matter what you do with the text-size,
unless you make it HUGE, or VERY small. I think it looks, and works, OK.

No complaints from the friends or family anyway. Everybody seems to be able
to see everything just fine, and that's all that matters to me.

No one I know cares about Opera and/or the like. For that matter? They
wouldn't even know what it is, as it applies to a computer. If I say, Opera
at the dinner table? My cousin's are gonna ask about the aria, not the
browser. And I guess that's my point.

I love this group for picking up tips, but sometimes I hate it, for its'
pompousity.

Granted. Most of us lurkers will never know as much the regs here have
forgotten. That's a given. But what you 'regulars' seem to forget from
time-to-time is that us lurkers don't usually care. ALL we care about is
"it", and how we can make "it" work, and whether or not "it" renders. We're
not in the business. The W3C (or whatever the hell it's called.) doesn't
mean diddly-squat to us.

Sometimes folks like me just want some dopey little tips, for our dopey
little websites. And that's why I lurk.

And don't think I'm ungrateful for the knowledge I've amassed from this
group over the years. I certainly am. You've *all* taught me a lot. Like
the thing about the MIDI I opened this post with, and the things about java
and javascript etc. that I've alluded to in this post. I'd just ask you
know-betters to keep this in mind;

Some (I'll say MOST) who lurk here don't create web pages for a living. Nor
do they care whether or not their pages 'validate'. Further? It should be
fairly evident by the content of the post, as to who those people are.

I mean, this alt.html, right? It's not, alt.html.professional, and it's
not, alt.html.amateur.

Do either of those groups exist on other servers? Because I don't see them
on Giganews.

IF not? Perhaps they should?

Anyway? Here's my dopey FP-E site if you care to look.

In fairness, I couldn't exclude my URL after complaining. But I SWEAR. IF
you click it, it's what I said it is. Nothing more, and nothing less.

www.crampy.com