Best css hack / trick to recommend?

[dorayme]

I was not giving a list of what is good for you. I was giving a list
of what is good for me.

So give me a list of what you think are good and, if I don't like
them, I will tell you why.

No! I beg you both not to do this. Much better we all agree to meet and
throw tomatoes.

 

[Shaun]

It sounds like many of the comments in this thread on both sides are
based on a premise that you can't make exciting looking, artistic
content rendered in CSS and HTML. I would disagree - CSS can be a bit
unruly, but it's lighter weight than the wild flash animations and
some pretty attention grabbing things can still be done.

 

[dorayme]

It sounds like many of the comments in this thread on both sides are
based on a premise that you can't make exciting looking, artistic
content rendered in CSS and HTML.

If you look closely and don't jump to conclusions, you might revise this.

I would disagree - CSS can be a bit
unruly, but it's lighter weight than the wild flash animations and
some pretty attention grabbing things can still be done.

About this you are most certainly right.

 

[Bergamot]

Here are a list of sites I frequent almost on a daily basis I
consider them all good sites. (of course I am not including the porn
sites I visit...)
http://www.foxnews.com,

The "design" is as boring as any other CSS layout, though. So what makes
this one not suck like all the others?

http://www.firefox.com,

Can't imagine what you'd be doing there on a daily basis. Even when I
was heavily involved with mozilla testing years ago I rarely went to
their site, just to bugzilla. They always had some navigation and
stylistic issues, especially with consistency across pages. Looks like
they cleaned a lot of that up over the years. It looks nice, but that
doesn't make it a good site.

http://www.creativecow.net,

You really don't mind a dozen different scrollbars on one page? That's
an awfully clumsy way to read content and it's hard to imagine anyone
preferring it that way, but at least it's not like that on every page.
On the other pages it's just - dare I say it - columns!

Why is this not as boring as any CSS layout? It could *easily* be one.

http://www.adobe.com,

There isn't really an alternative site (is there?), so does it matter if
their design is good or bad? It is probably better than macromedia's
was, but I don't remember it that clearly.

http://www.neosounds.com
http://www.movies.com
http://www.sound-effect.com
http://www.videocopilot.net
http://www.imdb.com (registered version, it's a little different than
the free version, but not much)

See a pattern? They all deal in one way or another with what I do for
a living and hobby. Video, Flash, movies and music.

The pattern I see is in the content of these sites, not anything to do
with design. You don't say anything specific about what, in your
opinion, makes them better than other sites with similar content
(assuming there are any).

People will ignore a lot of things if the site has the content they're
after. I doubt you're that different from the rest of us on that point.

Sites I use almost on a daily basis that I think suck:
http://www.wamu.com

FYI, my credit card's site is far worse than this. Their drop-down menus
are completely unusable, totally dysfunctional with CSS or JavaScript
disabled, and there is no other way to navigate the site. I always have
to hunt and peck to find any particular thing. It's a nightmare.
wamu.com looks like perfection by comparison, though I can't see what
their online banking stuff is like. What makes it suck to you?

http://www.BN.com

What makes this worse than amazon? What makes this design so horrible
compared to adobe.com or any other site on your list? I don't get it.

yahoo.com
and google groups.

You get no argument from me about google groups, which gets worse with
each redesign and is at an all-time low AFAIC. I rarely use it any more
because it's just too painful to use. I have no use for yahoo at all.

(I would use a reader, and have in the past, but
for the last several years it has not been convenient to use a reader
so Google groups fills the void.)

But it doesn't do it *well*.

There you go, you have my lists. Do any these follow the "rules"?
Hardly, not a one of them comes close to validating,

I guess you forgot about mozilla/firefox. They validate, or at least
most pages should. It would be hypocritical if they didn't, and that
point was raised to them many years ago when they had those navigation
and stylistic issues I mentioned.

BTW, I don't really care if the code validates either. Validation is a
tool, not an end to itself. I care about usability.

but that is not
how I rate a good site. I rate a good design based on does the site
accomplish what I need in a manner I enjoy and is easy for me. If the
answer is yes, then that site get a "good" rating from me EVEN if the
code completely sucks.

You seem to be contradictory. I don't see where design has all that much
to do with your choices. You're after the content at those sites, the
design seems incidental.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You are still missing the point. It is ok, it is a tricky point to latch
on to.

No, I don't believe so.

For example, give one of those sites that are invalid, objectionable to
a number of folk here, to a gifted and sensible HTML/CSS developer and
see what he does with it (he may even allow users to access Flash
material and sounds and games and whatever) and it well might make just
as much money. You are jumping to conclusions in an unscientific way.

No the point you are missing is there IS NO SCIENTIFIC WAY to figure
out what turns someone on and what turns them off. And as accessible
(scientifically measured), and validating (scientifically measured) ,
and awesomely perfect code (scientifically measured) you use, It
ultimately the way you present it that will keep a customer coming
back, or drive them away. And THAT can not be measured scientifically
because it is an individual's opinion.

However, because stereotypes are generally correct, if you know your
audience, you can head the presentation of your content in the right
direction.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It sounds like many of the comments in this thread on both sides are
based on a premise that you can't make exciting looking, artistic
content rendered in CSS and HTML.

No, you can not duplicate in HTML andCSS what someone can do when they
use other technologies. HTML and CSS are not programming languages,
and for the most part static.

 I would disagree

You are disagreeing with a premise that you had wrong.

 

[Travis Newbury]

About this you are most certainly right.

Well, your wrong about the size, but that is irrelevant. Here's an
analogy "My row boat goes faster in the water than your corvette.
Your Corvette is faster is we are on land." I would not use Flash (or
other technologies) to produce a static site that supplies nothing but
text/image based information. So the comparison is meaningless.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No! I beg you both not to do this. Much better we all agree to meet and
throw tomatoes.

Oh your just afraid I will get some converts...

 

[Travis Newbury]

You seem to be contradictory. I don't see where design has all that much
to do with your choices. You're after the content at those sites, the
design seems incidental.

Well first, the list was a list of sites I thought were "good" Not
what YOU thought were "good". I am sure I would have similar comments
if you gave me your list of "good" sites.

There are plenty of other sites that offer the exact same content as
the sites I like. But I prefer the way these sites present that
content. Design is part of presentation. and as much as a lot of you
hate to admit it presentation matters.

 

[dorayme]

No, I don't believe so.


No the point you are missing is there IS NO SCIENTIFIC WAY to figure
out what turns someone on and what turns them off.

No, this is not quite correct or relevant.

You are saying some website makers who make monetary successful sites do
know what your audience want. And I say, how can you be be sure the site
could not be made with valid code and good practices? And you point to
the bucks rolling in. And I say, that is only evidence that what they
did makes the bucks come in, it is not evidence that there is not
another way that makes the bucks come in just as well and more.

So you are missing my point. I am not thinking you foolish to miss it,
as I say, it is a bit of a tricky point to see and all I can do is keep
explaining it. You are programmed by evolution to miss points like this
because folk who stop to think of such points wasted too much time and
died out. You, you see, are the fruit of an efficient evolution that has
built you to be unscientific in the interest of practicality.

 

[Travis Newbury]

No, this is not quite correct or relevant.
You are saying some website makers who make monetary successful sites do
know what your audience want.

That is not what I am saying at all.

I believe presentation matters. You (and others), want "one web for
all". I think that is an unrealistic goal. You will never please
everyone that might come to your site. We are different people with
different likes and dislikes. If you don't like my page, then don't
go there. You can find the same content somewhere elsepresented in a
manner you like. That does not make the way I present it wrong. Only
different.

And for proof of how do you "know?" Watch your bottom line and listen
to your visitors. They will let you know when you have it right, and
when you have it wrong.

 

[Bergamot]

Well first, the list was a list of sites I thought were "good" Not
what YOU thought were "good".

Yes, I understood that. What I don't really understand is what makes
them good (to you) as opposed to other sites with the same content,
assuming there are any. And I can't figure out what makes the design of
something like wamu.com suck (to you), but not creativecow.net or adobe.com.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yes, I understood that. What I don't really understand is what makes
them good (to you) as opposed to other sites with the same content,
assuming there are any. And I can't figure out what makes the design of
something like wamu.com suck (to you), but not creativecow.net or adobe.com.

Why does someone like the color Blue? The sites offer the content I
want, in a format that is easy to use and looks good on my screen. No
other reason. I could get all the content from other sites, but I
find no need to. I use to get most of my news from MSNBC.com But
then they changed their site, I didn't like it and went somewhere
else. The content was the same, the presentation changed. Now I
prefer Foxnews. (yes there is a different "slant" to the content, but
it is all essentially the same)

And that is kind of my point. One man's beautiful is another man's
ugly. Given the same content, presentation can make or break a site.
Sometimes fancy wins, sometimes plain wins, sometimes something in
between wins. It is different for each site. I just do not believe
it is in the best interest of many sites (not all) to attempt to reach
everyone in the world. Google, yes, try to reach everyone. Creative
cow? You would probably never go there if I did not put up the link.

I am not (nor have I ever) advocating that every site be fancy with
flash or javascript, but I am saying that there is a viable place for
sites like that on the web. People want them, and they enjoy them.
Even if you don't.

 

[Chaddy2222]

That is not what I am saying at all.

I believe presentation matters. You (and others), want "one web for
all". I think that is an unrealistic goal. You will never please
everyone that might come to your site. We are different people with
different likes and dislikes. If you don't like my page, then don't
go there. You can find the same content somewhere elsepresented in a
manner you like. That does not make the way I present it wrong. Only
different.

And for proof of how do you "know?" Watch your bottom line and listen
to your visitors. They will let you know when you have it right, and
when you have it wrong.

While I do not disagree with this.
You do need to at least try and make your content accessible to as
many people as possable. Otherwise you could well get in a lot of
trouble with the law.
http://contenu.nu/socog.html

 

[Harlan Messinger]

I have found very few site that are CSS based that are not rather
boring. They all seem to follow the same (simple) pattern. 2 column,
and a header and a footer, 3 column, header and footer, oh yippie, the
center column expands and contracts... You get the idea.

I would just once like to see a CSS based website that even came close
to this one: http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/ (please feel free to
supply me with examples, and let me know why they are as good or
better.)

This site has excitement, fun, games, visuals,sound, and best of all,
it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. That is, get excitement
about the movie up for boys 12-25.


I follow the mantra of Robert Montgomery the CEO of CareerBuilder.com
He says "If you can provide a reliable, quality service to 80 percent
of your visitors, you will be one of the top websites in your field."
Since no one can realistically get 100% satisfaction of your visitors,
shooting to give the 80% what they want is the way to go if you want
to be successful. This 80/20 rule is used in ton of other applications
too.

That is such specious reasoning! You don't get to pick which people make
up your 20%. "Well, 20% will be dissatisfied, so let my use of Flash be
the thing that dissatisfies my dissatisfied 20%" is not the way it
works. There will be some overlap between the people who are
dissatisfied because you relied on Flash and the people who are
dissatisfied for reasons unrelated to your use of Flash, but all other
things being equal, most of the people dissatisfied solely because of
your use of Flash will be *in addition* to the other dissatisfied people.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yeah, and the earth is flat..

Well the girls on your site are...

and the Pope is divine

No The Pope is Benedict XVI. Divine was a tranvestite actor in Pink
flamingos.

and the Inquisition was
morally cleaning

I tend to believe the Mel Brooks "History of the world" version as
being most accurate

and non-Aryans are inferior
Duh

and the check's in the mail...

And I won't cum in your mouth....

I.E. popularity doesn't make anything "right".

Nor does it make anything wrong.

(I have been waiting for you to chime in on this thrread. What took
so long?)

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Yes, the very opposite of the idea of information being an interesting
thing in itself and the presentation being a way to keep that from being
lost.

I doubt if I could even get this idea across to Travis. Not at least at
any deeper level than "Oh I understand sometimes someone just wants to
know a bus timetable..."

For example, if a designer can present informative content in a pleasant
and suitable website environment (meaning the navigation system, the
background, suitable easy to read text...), then that is a fine thing.
Anything that does a job well, when it can be done badly in a million
ways, is a treasure of inestimable value.

Here's an example of a web designer who was determined to go the flashy
route instead of just giving the desired information in an easy-to-read
manner--and then provided the straightforward, common-sense approach as
an alternative, but not without condescending to the user first ("If you
are still having trouble, just click *here*, poor child."):

http://www.jrswdc.com/specials.asp

As though the person who wants to know what's going on at this bar each
night is going to swoon in a fit of aesthetic ecstasy because the
information is shown in a pop-up window--especially unlikely when his
browser blocks the pop-up, as mine did.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Some website ARE made to entertain people. You can not duplicate the
Marvel site using HTML and CSS. That is my point.

Is that your point? I'm sorry, has anybody here every implied otherwise,
that there isn't a place on the web for entertainment sites, for which
HTML and CSS are inadequate? If that's what you've inferred, then I
believe you've misunderstood everyone else's point.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Here's an example of a web designer who was determined to go the flashy
route instead of just giving the desired information in an easy-to-read
manner--and then provided the straightforward, common-sense approach as
an alternative, but not without condescending to the user first ("If you
are still having trouble, just click *here*, poor child."):

No disagreement from me.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You don't get to pick which people make
up your 20%. "Well, 20% will be dissatisfied, so let my use of Flash be
the thing that dissatisfies my dissatisfied 20%" is not the way it
works. There will be some overlap between the people who are
dissatisfied because you relied on Flash and the people who are
dissatisfied for reasons unrelated to your use of Flash, but all other
things being equal, most of the people dissatisfied solely because of
your use of Flash will be *in addition* to the other dissatisfied people.

And there will be those that like the site BECAUSE of the Flash, and
some that like it for other reasons (in addition to the Flash). Its a
revolving door.