Philosophy of website design

[Nik Coughlin]

Some people here sneer at anything that uses fixed widths,

Fixed width is needless, I've yet to see a fixed width design that couldn't
be translated to a fluid design using a little common sense.

flash,

There's nothing wrong with Flash provided that you use it properly, I think
you'll find that the regulars in this group's objections to Flash are
objections to the misuse of Flash rather than to Flash itself.

tables layouts, etc.

You can do *anything* with CSS that can be done with a table layout. There
are some CSS layouts that *cannot* be done with table layouts. This has
been debated and demonstrated endlessly in this group.

I've been to business sites that blow me away
with their creativity and design using all these techniques and more

The sites that blow you away with their creativity and design do so
*despite* using those techniques, not *because* *of* using them.

-- 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.

You'd soon change your tune if they held some vital information that you
needed to bookmark that couldn't be sourced elsewhere.

The graphic design industry at large has yet to catch up with semantic
markup, CSS etc. That's why most of the sites that look good have bad code.
Sites like csszengarden were created with the aim of challenging that.
There are however plenty of good designers out there who are starting to see
the light.

You can have a very nicely designed site which is also highly accessible,
fulfils good usability criteria, is fluid, uses semantic markup and CSS
instead of table layouts, works across a wide number of user-agents, etc.

Unfortunately best practise doesn't appear to be human nature, quick and
cheap dominates.

 

[Nik Coughlin]

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.

Sorry, not true. I can do anything that can be done with tables for layout
as well or better in CSS, and I can provide you with a CSS layout that you
wouldn't be able to do with tables. Up for the challenge? Give me the url
to a site of your choice using a table layout, I'll knock you up a replica
using CSS with no layout tables, then we'll try the reverse, I'll give you
an url to a CSS page of my choice and you try and reproduce it using tables
and presentational markup.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jaxtraw wrote:

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.

Fertilizer!

With CSS I have the flexibility of insetting a block of text or layout
as 1, 2,3 n columns whatever all with just changing the the stylesheet
(which means can present the same content one for PDAs and another for
browsers or print) Whereas if it is table requires a rewrite of the
content!

I will concede for *some* your statement may be true, but not because a
failure with CSS.

 

[Michael Laplante]

If your menu is in the left column's encapsulating DIV, it's trapped in
there forever unless you rewrite the HTML

Sorry, I'm no CSS expert but why can't you re-position the DIV wherever you
want tweaking the stylesheet. Isn't that what ZenGarden does (your own
example)?

DIV soup

LOL. Good name for a web design company. . .

tableless web design as some kind of acme.

I gotta agree that tables is better a times. Can anyone show me a fluid
table site that "breaks" under window or font re-sizing? Alternately, a CSS
column site that doesn't break?

M

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

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.

You don't seem to understand. This is exactly what 'the regulars' you
refer to, do. Although not a 'text file' as such, but a HTML4.01 Strict
document (mostly). A properly marked up document is nothing more than
content marked up, using the proper HTML elements. Using this meaningful
markup creates accessible documents.

The usability is more a case of careful design. Once a document is marked
up properly, with CSS you can create the design as simple or as difficult
as you please. Using CSS guarantees that all sorts of browsers (also
braille browsers, screen readers, aural browsers, the simple text browser)
can convey the content to the visitor without a problem.

Now, what you think is 'bland' is usually the product of someone who knows
what s/he is doing technically, but is not always a gifted designer. It's
a good thing that people visit those websites for their actual content and
not their looks.


BTW, having read some of your other posts in this thread: why do you take
such a stand against proper markup and CSS for looks and layout, if you,
by your own words, are not a designer and are not even willing to present
one of your own sites here? How come you're pro tables and against
tableless design? Are you afraid you might have to rethink and have to
learn a thing or to? Put some effort in it all? You started saying 'I'm
just looking for some food for thought.', but it turns out you've alrady
made up your mind.
BTW2: had you taken this discussion to alt.www.webmaster, you might have
gotten another response. You took it to a technical group (all about
html). Why this choice? Are you just trolling?

 

[dorayme]

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.

How do you manage to be quite so shamelessly superficial. You
this way with friends? Can't get your mind around the idea of
there being more the visual aesthetics to a website that might be
worth bookmarking it for. You sad, sad bastard.

 

[dorayme]

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

And, of course, you would have nothing to say that was worth
bookmarking in this unfancy site? At least no one like you would
bookmark it. Honestly, it is as if you are unconscious, not just
insensitive.

 

[Antonio Forza]

To each his own.

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

I agree, and I can't stand websites that use flash or other time
wasting foolishness. I typically use a brower that has doesn't have
the flash plug-in installed, and immediately hit the "back arrow" when
I come to a page that tells me I need to install it.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

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.

URL?

 

[Jim Moe]

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.

You confuse graphics design, layout design and implementation. Often
these are indistinguishable for many people, some of whom lurk hereabouts.
Graphics design is about how a page looks, its font, its colors, its
message.
Layout design is placing those elements in a way that works for the
medium, the WWW in this case.
Implementation how it actually happens, HTML and CSS in this case.

What you are complaining about is poor graphics and layout design. Many
of us are quite good at implementation, and poor at design.

Obviously in the late 1990s tables were popular for implementation
because it was the only way to achieve more than one column. The HTML
standard was updated (to v4) to current practice, new features added,
other features removed or deprecated.
CSS was created to address layout.
Tables were no longer necessary for layout.
The two standards combined to provide a way to separate content from its
presentation. HTML adds semantic information about the content (this is a
header, this is a list, this is a paragraph, this is a quote, this is a
definition, this is emphasized, etc.). CSS makes it pretty.
Implementing a document this way makes the content accessible to more
than those with young healthy eyes. This is a remarkable achievement.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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

Ehem, Wikipedia is by definition not solid. It is by definition a site
that can be edited at any moment by anyone. In practice it isn't really
that "democratic", but it surely is highly mutable and mostly in
unpredictable ways, and you won't even know who wrote or edited its
content. It surely gives the _impression_ of a good encyclopedia by its
appearance.

There are lots of examples of sites of solid content, so it was
unfortunate that you picked up a wrong one. To mention just one, the
English dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/ is useful to virtually
everyone, since we all need English, more or less, and we all know it
imperfectly, more or less. Too bad the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary
gives a somewhat wrong _impression_ (too much navigation, too little
space for actual content).

 

[Toby Inkster]

On the other hand some of the sites [...] are so plain that I wouldn't
bookmark them in a thousand years.

Google's pretty plain -- it's almost become their trademark -- but people
keep coming back again and again. I can't speak for you, but most people
base their decision to bookmark a site on its useful content -- not
aesthetics.

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.

A well-designed top banner can work wonders for usability (accessibility
and usability go hand in hand), orienting the user within the site (e.g.
breadcrumbs) and providing links to important pages to ease navigation
around the site (Home, Site map, Search, etc).

 

[Greg N.]

Ehem, Wikipedia is by definition not solid. It is by definition a site
that can be edited at any moment by anyone.
....

There are lots of examples of sites of solid content, so it
was unfortunate that you picked up a wrong one.

I think your interpretation of the word "solid" is wrong. The word
hardly means anything like "static" in any context. In the English
language, the adjective "solid" can also mean "well built, of good
quality" as opposed to "hollow, flimsy".

Thanks for the dictionary link. That's a good (solid) one, too. I
suggest you look up the word "solid":

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/solid

 

[Travis Newbury]

To each his own.
I visit sites solely for their content value, nothing else.

You know, one can sustain themselves with boiled meat, and a paste made
from ground grain and oil.

Or you can enjoy a nice steak some twice baked potatoes, maybe a bean
cassarole, and possibly some cheese cake for desert.

I guess it is all a personal choice.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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 raise an interesting point, but this is a false contradiction.
Blandness is certainly common, but it's generally the result of
uninspired design, not accessible design. You don't _have_ to be bland
to be accessible. Nor does good design have to be inaccessible. Even
"gee whizz" design doesn't _require_ inaccessibility.

Rather than seeing a contradiction between design goals, I see a
dichotomy amongst designers. "Usability" is still the province of the
technocrat, not the talented web designer. For reasons rooted in the
poor training of web designers more than anything, the talented graphic
people just aren't familiar with the accessibility issues - even today.

Then there are the truly unskilled at any part of the process, and
their tendency to grab for the shiniest tools and gimmicks. This is
what tends to equate "design" with inaccessible, but it isn't even good
design at that.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dav=E9mon?=]

You raise an interesting point, but this is a false contradiction.

<snip>

Agree 100%

Rather than seeing a contradiction between design goals, I see a
dichotomy amongst designers. "Usability" is still the province of the
technocrat, not the talented web designer. For reasons rooted in the
poor training of web designers more than anything, the talented graphic
people just aren't familiar with the accessibility issues - even today.

And visa-versa, the poor training of technologists tends to make them
ignore aesthetic and communication issues.

 

[David Segall]

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.?

Why should the "philosophy of web site design" differ from any other
design? The design of a newspaper, magazine, automobile or anything
else depends on the target audience. There is an expectation,
sometimes compulsion, to adhere to certain standards but the main aim
is to appeal to a target audience. As you have observed with web
sites, there is also pressure to conform to the current fashionable
look.

This site <http://www.artwhatson.com.au/> is intended to appeal to art
galleries and artists. It may be difficult to navigate but how many
galleries would they attract if it resembled the workman-like style of
<http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html>. Similarly, nobody
interested in Jukka'a content would bother with it if it looked like
artwhatson.

 

[Michael Laplante]

Are you just trolling?

Oh no, they're on to me!

BTW, having read some of your other posts in this thread: why do you take
such a stand against proper markup and CSS for looks and layout

!! I didn't. Did you read all my comments with an objective eye?

How come you're pro tables and against tableless design?

I don't think I said that either. I've made arguments pro and con for both,
if you read all my posts. In fact, I never meant for this to be a tables
versus CSS thing at all -- somebody else kinda ran with that. If you read my
original post, my comment re: tables versus simple CSS was in another
context, i.e. sophistication of presentation versus content.

Some people here seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to certain sites or
comments and I wondered why. ZenGarden -- which I think terrifically
showcases the power of CSS -- is sneered at here. I thought that was an odd
reaction for this group. Here, you have this medium that can be rich with
all sorts of audiovisual content, but some of the regulars here fall back on
the belief that only textual content is everything so design to the lowest
common denominator for accessibility.

So I started to ask myself questions: If designing for accessibility, what
purpose does layout of any sort -- whatever your layout tool of choice
tables or CSS -- serve? Is "end user rules and / or accessibility rules" a
valid concept in all settings? Is it different in a business setting
compared to a non-business setting? Is it perhaps because as technicians
some people aren't confident enough in their design aesthetic and that
influences their arguments? Is accessibility really more important than
other issues such as speed of output (where time = $ and there isn't time to
do a lot of debugging) or website visitor volume?

For me personally, as someone trying to learn more sophisticated CSS, it
also helps me to know what people's biases are in this ng. I know who I can
ignore due to philosophical differences, who I can trust for practical
versus theoretical advice, who simply fancies themselves a prima donna, etc.
I've made a little money in website design and would like to make more. To
that end, my foot is firmly in the practical camp.

it turns out you've alrady made up your mind.

About what? Tables versus CSS? In that area, I cheerfully admit I'm lazy and
take the path of least resistence. . . whichever that path may be. But you
won't see me arguing the merits of one over the other on a consistent basis.

BTW2: had you taken this discussion to alt.www.webmaster,

Didn't know about them. I'll check 'em out. . .

M

 

[Michael Laplante]

URL?

The usual suspects here will do their "sour grapes" thing but I love the
work done by this company:
http://www.krucible.com/

Some samples of their sites:
http://www.andersoncove.ca/# -- Love the imaginative menuing system used
here.
http://www.5thwallstudio.com/ -- Uses Flash intro but it works for me in
keeping with the design theme.
http://www.inspireddevices.com/ -- Simpler site, but great visuals.

I actually check in with them at regular intervals to see what new work
they've added to their portfolio.

As you see, their sites violate all sorts of the rules here. But, these
sites are designed to appeal to people of a certain socioeconomic group and
they work in that regard. If I could do this stuff, I would.

I love CSSZenGarden although that's not a business site per se. But the
stuff they do keeps me coming back again and again. Imagine, if they did
advertise on their site though.

BTW, I'm up for seeing anyone's portfolio here, if they want to share some
urls. . .

M

 

[Michael Laplante]

You confuse graphics design, layout design and implementation.
Layout design is placing those elements in a way that works for the
medium, the WWW in this case.
Implementation how it actually happens, HTML and CSS in this case.

Good explanation.

What you are complaining about is poor graphics and layout design. Many
of us are quite good at implementation, and poor at design.

Technicians versus designers thing.

Accessibility (an implementation issue) "imposes" on graphic design to some
extent. As a graphic designer, I like to see certain specific fonts, sizes,
etc. I like to see images, banners etc pinned down to achieve a certain
nuance or look. Accessibility = fluidity though which goes against that
philosophy.

So as I see it, in a business world I have to make some hard decisions about
one versus the other. To pick one obvious and easy example (to my mind):

I'm designing a site for a manufacturer of a luxury car.

I would want to design a "brochure" site. The site should have a level of
sophistication suggestive of the car itself. The colour scheme, font
choices, layout, graphics, etc should re-inforce that image. For example, I
want a rich, sturdy font that says classic -- I want a serif font, maybe
Times New Roman since I know most people will have that. I DON'T WANT my
potential six-income executive to be looking at my ad with a Balloon font,
say because he happens to be sitting at his kids computer at home.

To a large extent I would probably decide to take away from the fluidity of
the site's design so as not to compromise the message of the website.

Now, I'm designing a site for a trades college.

In this case, my message is one of inclusivity. I want everyone to feel
welcome to come to my college so my site should reflect that accessibility
in its fluidity of design.

Thanks for the "3-way" model insight. That's VERY useful. You should write
an article on that, if you haven't already.

M