|
Design |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Text |
Design
Some web designers still refuse to let users access their sites with anything except IE or Netscape. Through experience, I've found these web sites (such as CVS) aren't worth the trouble. So when a web site demands IE, I don't even bother to look at it. And yes, I have both IE and Netscape (so I can check my site in both of these browsers). However, I use Opera because it's as fast as IE without the security problems.
Another IE dictate is evident in the “e-mail newsletter”. I assume these the newsletters are put together using Outlook because any links in the “newsletter” cause IE to be brought up, even though that is not the default browser on my computer. On my computer, Opera loads first because it is my default browser, IE loads on top of it, and then I have to answer two questions before I get to see the site. Very autocratic, oh leader of the tech world.
The page display within the screen size is another problem. It's caused by the web designer using pixels for all columns of tables and frames instead of screen percentages. On pages that are read line by line instead of section by section, it's painful and anger-producing. It also affects the way those pages print, so if you run into a page that cuts off the right side when it's displayed on the screen, use landscape to print it or Edit, Select, All, Copy; paste it into WordPad, and then print it.
The last problem with display is speed. If the target audience for a site is medium to large corporations (as mine is), then the page designer can go nuts with the graphics and the Flash if they want to. If they have a truckload of gratuitous (but pretty) graphics they want to unload, they can dump them anywhere in the page. If they have some snazzy animation and sound files they want to use, why not? The designer can use all the neat tricks available, but so what, as long and the designer is happily designing away, and you don't care whether it takes 20 minutes to load for the poor soul with a modem. The reason I don't go nuts on my site is that I'm a writer, not a designer, so the information on my site is my primary concern, as well as my selling point. On the opposite end of the spectrum: advertising agencies. They are displaying their services to sell these services. So an excess of showy technique over substance is not a bad thing.
There are some gratuitous graphics on my theory page, but they have a purpose. They break up the blocks of grey (text) with some color, and shorten the text lines so the reader doesn't black out from the effort of trying to follow along from one line to the next. They also, hopefully, lighten the load of all those dense researched facts. People fall asleep reading dense researched facts. People fall asleep reading learned tomes and listening to German opera. At lease I do. So, I try to be considerate of the reader.
The other side of the coin: if the target market is the average individual consumer, fast loading is mandatory. No gratuitous graphics. Although more and more people are getting high speed internet connections, the average consumer still has a modem. The biggest problem in graphics versus speed is the online store. People want to see the merchandise. The best answer is fast-loading thumbnails in combination with user-selected enlargement. First, let the user decide upfront whether they want small thumbnails or 3" x 3" slow-loading pictures. And then let the thumbnail user decide whether or not to enlarge any particular graphic.
Links
Most pages with dead links are pages from small companies or individuals. They link to pages outside the site and are designed for the benefit of readers who are looking for information. However, most company sites are trying to sell the company's products, so they don't link to anything outside their own site. I would think that they would check internal links every time they make a change to the site. But nooo... They change page names and locations within their own sites without changing the pages that link to the old page name/location. I realize this is a big job for some companies like Microsoft, which seems to have at least 30 people working full-time just changing page names and locations. But, large companies have the bucks to test any change thoroughly, so do it!Colors
Still lots and lots of web sites with a black background and dark blue text. That's why my screen has nose prints. That and the orange background and yellow text. If I really need the information from one of these sites (that is unreadable people!) I save the page, bring it up in my HTML editor, and change the background and/or text colors so I can read it.This readability problem is not rocket science. It's 70% common sense and 30% research. Some wonderful souls have set up web sites: ex: acceptable and unacceptable color combinations and this one and this one using results from studies. And there are web sites with the Netscape color model, and others that give the exact red, green, and blue hexadecimal components of any color.
Web site developers need to look at the site in a browser and ask themselves: Can I read it? Easily? If they have problems reading the text, then almost everyone else will have a problem, too.
Text
The final problem is text. I hate the 8 pt. text that some sites use. What is wrong with these people? Are they all extremely far-sighted? Or are they trying to cram all the necessary text into one page? I don't know. And yes, I do realize that it's really easy in Opera to resize the text on a displayed page, but why should 70% - 80% of the people accessing a particular site have to resize the text when the designer can save them all this extra work? I hate to have to resize my page just because elves designed it.Sans serif renders in pixels just as well as serif does. When we all get 2400 x 1800 pixel, 20" plasma screens, made by Apple (have you see their plasma screens? Wow!), then serif will be better; no question. But for now, unless you're reading big blocks of text, sans serif is fine. The only way I know, currently, to successfully use a special font is through a cascading style sheet with the whole font included in the style sheet. Otherwise, the individual user's system is going to decide what the display font is. I design in Times Roman, every user has Times Roman on his/her system, so the page renders in Times Roman. However, if I were to design in Bauhaus, the user's system might render it in Courier. So, dear designer, the only font request is to make it large enough to be readable, but not so large that 6 lines of contiguous text occupy the entire page, and be careful what font you use.