web design

Nummi

Nummi

happy (again)
Do you think a website should be as simple as possible, loading as fast as possible with as little "stuff" as possible. Or, should a site be packed with Flash, Javascript, CSS, and complex design?

I know it matters what the site is about... but, overall. Web design in general.
 
nice flashy design (flashy = show off) and fast loading-easy-surfing are not mutually exclusive as concepts.


CSS doesnt really bog down a web site's speed. In fact I prefer it because it takes redundancy out of the picture when you code in HTML.

Javascript can also load fast so that is not an issue.


THe only issues you might be faced with are java applets and flash animations/sites.

If you are going to use java or flash make sure that you optimize the heck out of them! I made the mistake of having a flash based menu system a few years back on my web site and it took 56k users a minute or so to load it! That was bad for my site :p The menu looked nice, but when it cuts into usability then forget about it :)

I had also visited sites doing snow fall java applets in the winter time (around xmas) and it took so long to load that applet (even under T1) that it wasnt even funny!

the magic word is optimization -- I would love to use flash but I have not learned how to optimize my stuff yet so I am veering away from it at the moment.

Also, you can do dual versions of the site, a flash and an HTML part for people to choose

Admiral
 
try to avoid javascript, that 'hit 3 monkeys and win a prize' crassed my mac every time it appeared before is got OS X. flash is my personal fave, especially when poeple know how to intergrate it with server-side stuff (which i unfortunately dont).

the 3 most important rules/quotes i've heard are

"people are normally on someone elses site so make yours stick in their mind"

"always optimise it for 56K"

"most people use PCs, always have one (or VPC) to test it"
 
I think one more rule that I follow is the "test in all/most major browsers"
At home I have IE, netscape, opera, lynx (yes lynx :p), omni and iCab (and VPC to test stuff there)


Also forgot to say that when you do code in javascript make sure you code well so that crashing doesnt occur, and it is the most compatible.

You dont need superflashy javascript to make a nice impression.
You need small functional things that look nice and navigate even nicer.
That is what people remember. If they have trouble with your site chances are that they wont come back -- and they will not tell others if your site stinks. IF they like yoursite though they will advertize :)
 
Hello!

I usually stay away from Flash. Many people do not have the plugin and will not take the time to download it. You may lose some potential customers (if you are ecommerce)

I sometimes cook up some JavaScript but only for small jobs and not to run a whole site (again thinking of people with old browsers who do not java enabled)

My opinion is to make a site as eye-popping as possible while keeping the load time under 30 seconds for a 24K modem user. These are my preferences and while I can not always do this for some sites this is what I shoot for.

Also, most users are not as impressed about the amount of cool graphics or eye-popping special effects that a site has as much as they are about how fast the site loads or what the site offers. Remember, a user does not have all day to check out all kinds of sites to find the thing they need. If your web site takes to long to load they will probably move on to the next hit in the search engine.

Have a great day!

Albert
 
Also, most users are not as impressed about the amount of cool graphics or eye-popping special effects that a site has as much as they are about how fast the site loads or what the site offers.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with martinatkinson on that one. Many of the marketing research that I've come accross, the new age of consumers, men ages 18-25 and women ages 16-24 won't stay focused on a website unless it's visually stimulating.

Ecommerce site have the worst battle, they must load fast, while being visually stimulating.

while keeping the load time under 30 seconds for a 24K modem user.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with these numbers as well. 30 seconds on a 24K will restrict the overall need for a website in most cases. I'm not saying it can't be done... I just shoot a bit higher. I try to have my sites load in under 30 seconds on a 56K.

I would also like to point out that Flash is being used on over 90% of the browsers out there... so again, not to single you out martinatkinson, but it's just not true to say "most people don't have the plugin."

It's fine to not build a site in Flash or use java, these are just tools of the trade. I favor Flash becuase it's a very nice vector based app that has the ability to combine both stimulating graphics while keeping loadtimes down. I usually select flash over java, because flash seems to be more crossplatform in my experience.

I'm not saying your wong martinatkinson, just that I disagree with your take on the development of a sucessful website.

I was online the other night and a jewelry store (multi-million dollard one at that) had straight HTML and icon graphics illustrations as examples of their products. The site disturbed a person with in line-of-site of my monitor enough to say "I wouldn't buy from that place, obviously they are not concerned about their image." She had the same reaction we all have when we see a bad commercial, or ad in a newspapper, obviously the company was concerned with issues other than thier image.

I don't mean to imply that had it been a Flash site, that response would have not been provoked. Rather, it's important to look at the bigger picture here, image. Really that's what you are selling in a website.

Is it better to have placement in 500 spots on local TV with a poor ad? or 100 TV spots with an ad that will aquire the interest of your target audience?

Be it personal, or business, there's not ONE answer to Nummi's question. Look at Nike, one of the most recognized logos in the world and all it is a swoosh. Simplistic design is great, in fact it's my favorite style of design.

I like to control every aspect of my site, text size, color, font, placement, all of it. Browsers vary too much for me to be happy with a straight html site, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
 
Hello!

I re read my post and don't think I quite got across what I was meaning. I will try again.

First of all I do think you need to pay very close attention to the design of your site. I try to shoot for a clean design without alot of animations, flashing graphics or other stuff. I too have gone to many online companies sites that look pretty unproffessional and left right after their front page loaded. Make your site clean, tables with some nice smooth anti-aliased graphics but not to many "cool" effects that your visitors get dizzy or confused.

Secondly, about the time thing, I meant that 30 sec on a 24K modem is what I shoot for. I have only designed one site that met that requirement and all the others come very close. If you shoot for the fastest load speed you will get a fairly good load speed on average users modems.

Also, about Flash, yes, I guess alot of users do have Flash as long as they are using a more recent browser. It is not that I do not like Flash. It can do cool stuff and I use it to make animated GIFs every once in a while. I do not like the fact that if you want a catchy site you will have to sacrifice a great load time as sometimes I have had Flash sites go into 600K and up. My suggestion is to make a Flash site, compress it as much as you can and then make an HTML site for the minority of users without Flash as well as the users who do not like waiting for Flash to load.

I would have to agree with you, I too like simplisitic design. Thank you for your reply and pointing out some things to me that I had not realized.

Have a great weekend!

Albert
 
I'm only really impressed by websites that use strickly HTML (CSS and JavaScript inclusive) efficiently and effectively, in creative and unique ways for personal pages, and in organized and tactful ways for business pages.

A key idea to consider when designing or presenting something is the fact that down the line they aren't going remember the exact words you used, but they are always going to remember how you made them felt.

If you choose to test their patience, you better make it worth it, otherwise, let them come and go and, hopefully with a good design, go satisfied and feeling positive towards your goal.
 
Well I would think we are actually all on the same page (no pun intended) then.

The reason why I am so "Pro Flash" is that I think a lot of people misunderstand what it brings to the table of web design.

Load time is one thing. As Albert mentioned, sometimes Flash movies can go over 600K... which for those of us who are not getting 60K+/sec that's too long to wait for a movie to load.

But, when used correctly, Flash can be just like any other HTML tool to break up load times and, in some cases, have less load time then straignt HTML. The ability to chapter out movies and have them load as they are needed, can cut load times down to a fraction of what they would be if they were all combined into one big movie.

CloudNine is right when he said people are only going to remember what they felt, not the exact words they read. What makes each of us to feel one way or another varies. Some people will just get mad at animation period. regardless of the means in which it was produced

This debate actually reminds me of a programming group that I use to belong to in the late 1980's. We had this same debate about the games we were programming. There were some of us that argued that graphics were not important in games, becuase they took up too much space on the disk and they caused the game to play slower. Vector art was okay, becuase there needed to be some interaction and it was easier on the computer to load, but raster art was a no-no.

That was all true for the time... but I remember it beging said by one person in the group that games will never be graphic intensive, because people will always want fast pased games, and that can always be achieved with less graphics (and less code).

I remember backing down and thinking, this guy is right, no one would want slow games... so there really will never be graphic intensive computer games.

Of course, we were wrong, and his opinion could have been called narrow minded. I think the same argument could be said for websites. It's unclear what things could occur to change the development of websites, but we shouldn't close ourselves off to where it's going. Flash is by no means the end-all answer to web design... but it rasied an interesting idea in my mind. The website is not a page, it's not an online billboard or pamphlet. Those who think of it that way might find their approach to narrow minded.

As more and more people get on broadband, they'll catch up to their bandwidth. Eye appeal is very important. Flash is only one way to achieve that. I won't marry myself to it, but I like what it suggests about the future of web design.
 
well, with my site prefs, this starts a new page so i'm not one the same one:D

I think the issue here is often one of demographics. and while some of you might only be interested in attracting 16-25 yo's to a site, very few real world sites want to limit themselves to that. Very few sites that limit themselves to that age group are going to survive if they have to pay the rent from purchases. Let's take our buddy awhite's septic tank site as an example. there are not many 16-25 yo's that are going to need a septic tank company. Very few people that age are homeowners yet. so what is the point in going overboard to look fancy when the real customers just want something that functions?
it would be a different situation if the site were promoting a band, selling snowboards or was even a homepage for a cool young goth or such. one of the few sites i have ever broken down and gotten out my old trustworthy browsers for is the official WB Harry Potter Site. Like awhite' site you can't get in the door without flash. And it is well worth the experience if you have never checked it out. But i am sure that WB never intended to market that site to someone my age.
on the other hand, my classic rock and roll radio station's site would fail miserably if they took that approach.
You might have noticed that amazon finally showed a profit recently. last i checked it is not a flash site.
the point is that making access to a site and letting people get your info without the 'blessing' of your genius design should be requirement for anyone who wants to communicate to any of us over the age of 25. and probably to those under as well, because a lot of parents are the ones who own the computers and set the rules as to what is done with them.
and to address the issue of creating for the future. not a bad idea. just don't get to forget to provide for the present as well. there is an old saying in sales - you live on what you sell today, not what they promise to buy tomorrow.;)
 
even with broadband connection and well planned preloaders and efficient LoadMovie commands, flash can be used to create some horrible UI... this of course is not Flash's fault, but the deisgner's.

However, people don't see it this way.... they think flash only makes convoluted overblown intros and navigation schemes... I really wish that Flash wasn't so easy to pirate... less badly designed sites would exist.
 
Great design is what I think we all are talking about. In one way or another. Ed suggests Amazon, which if you look at it, it is a professionally designed website. I don't miss the animation, becuase I don't require it to be on every website.

Design in advertising can provide value to the product. A poorly designed HTML, Java based, or Flash based website will all have the same effect... a lost customer.

I work for an ad agencey, and one of the groups of artisits in the the art department work on car ads. Let's use them for example.

With so many car ads to do the artists never have time to make them look great. They just have to have a picture of the correct car and all the correct information about the car and company. Some artists are better about the pressure of a deadline, so their ads look slightly better than the others. But overall the ads look very bad. They are often jam packed with overloads of information. Sometimes the artists have to break the fonts down to under 6pt just to fit everything on a two column ad. When the ad is all done no one can read them without some kind of magnification.

This point often confused me, why would ANYONE read that ad? Why would we produce that ad? Doesn't it look bad for our company to display that ad in the paper? Then it hit me. What function does that ad play? It's a great source of information if I know I already want to buy a car. This ad isn't going to make me want to buy a car, it's going to just allow me to see 100 cars and their prices at a glance (with magnification). I already am sold, I'm a buyer. This ad is for me!

But step back a second, why did I want to buy a car or truck in the first place? Ignoring the obvious reasons, what convinced me to buy a car or truck?

Well there's not one answer to that question. Many people first consider buying a car or truck becuase their car or truck has broken down (or is about to break down). Others are turned on by the allure of national commercials. Still others like the stylings of " 'Ol Crazy Larry" who's cutting prices down so low and act now and he'll even give you a good deal on the trade in of your kids! He's just that crazy!" Hurry before Lary goes too crazy and breaks up an old car with a hammer! (I should have put that in all CAPS, but I figured it might make some people mad).

Do people really fall for that local advertising stuff? Yes, a small amount of people actually believe that it is a ONE TIME ONLY sale. Some people fall off their chair and run to the dealership gasping for air, just so they won't miss that deal.

Do people actually believe the national commercials? Yes some people actually do believe that they can take their little Chevy S10 up the side of a virtical cliff with just a few bikes in the back all so you can just look at the sunset at your local mountain.

Cars are sold using so many kinds of tactics. let's look at their websites. It's not that complex of a study, let me break it down for you, National = image, Local = most crappy... but informative.

Sounds like our debate doesn't it?

The fact is that this really isn't a debat at all. If you read the postings (mine included :) ) You'll see that we are just talking at eachother. In fact I can honestly say I feel like I am on the defensive on this one, when, there is very little I disagree with in respect to all of your postings. Are positions have been restated over and over but just using different examples.

The real argument, is where was the sale made? Locally or nationally? In my case, I bought my car becuase of a little logo on the hood - so that would fall under national. I had to expose myself to the local sales team whome thought THEY sold me the car. In fact they didn't at all.

Image appeal sold me my car, but make no doubt about it, that O'l Crazy Larry is selling people cars too.

So to sum up...

If your company is concerned with image, you'll need an image-based website. If your company wants to be about posting information in a functional way, that wouldn't requre the tools of Flash, Java, or even CSS.

It's been a pleasure debating this with you guys. I really think I learned some points of interest regarding this subject. Sometimes I find myself stuck in one opinion and believing that everyone thinks the way I do. It's often difficult to listen and believe that others might know something too. Thanks for informing me of another side which I didn't fully consider. I'm going to step back and watch for the rest of this thread. As I said, I've overstated my opinion and have nothing more of value to contribute.

Thanks again :)
 
Should the vehicle I drive be small and fuel efficient, or should I get a less efficient but much larger SUV?

That's basically the question you were asking. You can't answer a question like that without understanding the parameters.

Good design (ANY design) is all about providing a good user experience. Sometimes that good user experience = flashy stuff. Sometimes = simple, straight to the point text.

And, of course, there is a huge spectrum in between...most project parameters fall somewhere in that spectrum.

Also, just as an aside, there seems to be some confusion between Javascript and Java in this thread. FYI, they are two very different things.
 
i agree with you %100 aluminum ! which is why it always helps to draw upon specific examples and discuss from there. this thread was basically a continuation of another in which we were discussing a specific site.
i also think there is another limitation to our discussions here. and to go back to the car analogy. cars don't make it to the market when a bunch of designers finally agree upon something. many other people become involved at that point. engineers, mechanics, marketing specialists, test marketers, etc. Thru their additional input, the original design is refined and often the designers' vision is lost in the process. but what results is something that people can really use and that appeals to a much wider range of people. It isn't always 'selling out' to compromise for the sake of success. and believe me, it rarely makes sense to fail just to maintain one's sense of what one wants something to be.
I'm guessing some award winnings site are no longer in existence. and there are plenty of those plain jane car sites that will thrive for decades to come. There is always a way to do both, but it isn't always cost effective. at that point function must outweigh beauty. but one needs someone other than just another art critic to figure out where to make the trade offs.
i'm also guessing a few of you pros could tell some stories about how your ideas clashed with a clients and how those got resolved. i would love to hear some of those examples and how successful in its field the site has since been.
 
It isn't always 'selling out' to compromise for the sake of success.
Click to expand...

I do agree with that. Though I actually embrace the term 'selling out.' All designers should.

A lot of designers (graphic, industrial, architects, etc.) often forget that they are NOT 'artists'. They are designers. You HAVE to sell out to be a designer. It's a commercial endeavor. Good design is about collaboration, accomodations, compromises, etc. All too often, at least in the graphic design world, egos get in the way of good design.

The stuff you see in design annuals? That's not necessarily good design. That's pretty design. It's a decoration vs. design issue. Too many designers fall into the bad habit of decorating.

Wall paper is nice, but the 2x4 stud wall is the more important element.

i'm also guessing a few of you pros could tell some stories about how your ideas clashed with a clients and how those got resolved.
Click to expand...

There are a few ways to get around this.

1) Focus on the project GOALS. NOT aesthetics. If you are building a web site, the visual design, while important, should come much later in the overall project.

2) Understand this is a business. You need to be able to sell your product. Selling often is more important that good design in this industry.
 
Design is the ninja art.

It's about subtlety, and when done well is only noticed when you look for it.

It's a camoflouged crossing gaurd, guiding people through a piece to information they're looking for.

Being a design student presently- I've been trying to cope with all the BS that I have to do for it. In the end- I doubt I'll be a designer after I get out of school. I'm far too much a developer and technical support kind of guy. A friend of mine (who recently graduated) explained that he never felt himself graphic designer as much as he felt he was a fine-artist whose medium was graphic design. That had really been the way I'd been feeling about it.

When it comes to traditional design, you worry about how the static piece interacts with the viewer- what draws their attention and what holds it while they consume it. Can it be referenced easily? Is there some specific feature or cleverness that will stick in the viewers mind and make the advertising more effective? These are the questions that are posed.

When it comes to web design- we need to be concerned with how the viewer interacts with the piece. Not only does it need to work statically as a visual information design, but it needs to be flexible enough to stand up to the user's poking and prodding. Too often I find people jumping right to their icon design before they've considered a proper information structure or interface. Assuming web conventions like toolbars and frames only serve to confuse the user if they aren't adherred to completely.

So- is less more? definitely. Superfluous elements will only serve to distract and detract from the user experience. If you feel a piece needs more something... if it's too minimal- look at what you're doing? are you limiting the user too much? Do they need to jump through a series of repetetive hoops to accomplish something under given circumstances? Have you run through test cases? Have you flowcharted out typical paths?

It's entirely possible to work in lots of interactive and interesting elements. Look at www.wddg.com (and ignore the loading fade-up) the site is simple, but there's stuff to play with. The interface is simple but not uninteresting. It's intuitive but not necessarily cliche.

Ack- I have to go to class. Sorry if this is a little self-serving :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top