Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5604Re: web design

Expand Messages
  • Paul Romaine
    Apr 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      With HTML, and with websites, I've come to believe that cleaner is
      better. It's easier to maintain pages without loads of easily
      out-dated scripts and semi-useful doo-dads that add minimally to
      usability. Just look at image maps: in the mid-1990s they were the
      rage yet they usually added little to user information and frequently
      caused problems for people with low bandwidth. Then there were (are)
      those clever mouseover scripts that were (are) easy to break (often
      rendering a page unreadable), and added little to the Web experience.
      If it doesn't make life better for yourself and your visitors, it's
      not worthwhile. If it doesn't make your web authoring easier, it's
      fritterware (Jim Seymour's term in PC Magazine, ca. 1998). I don't
      necessarily do all the good practices myself, but I'm planning to.
      (Like Augustine, I say, 'I will repent, Lord, but just a little bit
      later.')

      Unrelated, but of use: The World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C)
      Guidelines on Web Page Content accessibility
      http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/ is one of the most
      important documents to come along in a long time. Ostensibly about
      making content available to people with disabilities, these
      recommendations go far beyond that. See esp the checklist.

      Anything by Jakob Neilsen is worthwhile. See esp his article (dated
      but still relevant) on making websites for people with disabilities:
      http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990613.html His website is www.useit.com

      -Paul

      --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Gerald Lange" <bieler@...> wrote:
      > There were a couple of recent notices in Microsoft Typography about
      > purposeful bad (simple) web design and how it is more effective. I'd
      > tend to agree, and apparently so would eBay, Yahoo, flickr, etc.
      >
      > Here's one of the links
      >
      > http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1729662,00.html
      >
      > The argument is that folks are searching for information, the faster
      > and easier it is to access the better. Every time I go to a "graphic
      > design" site and have to sit there and watch the thing mysteriously
      > unwind or try to guess which icon or whatever I'm supposed to click on
      > to be illuminated, basically, I'm out of there. I'm looking for
      > information; I don't care how clever the websmaster is. I can find my
      > entertainment elsewhere.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic