Updated Do's and Don'ts for Websites

[cyrus]

Back in 2007 I contributed a list of 10 do's and don'ts for websites (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=28526&highlight=CSS) which was the subject of some discussion.

So, in 2011, how have things changed? I'd be interested in hearing from people and how / if they have had to make any adjustments to their sites in the meantime.

For example the use of cellphones and tablets is now ubiquitous. Google Chrome and other browers are out. There's the whole new Facebook and Twitter etc phenomenon.

[Scott Knowles]

Gee, now that you ask. Just my opinion and experience.

1. Limit the number of images in galleries to a reasonable number to reduce load time and bandwidth and provide mulitiple galleries if you have more of the same type. I use 12.

1a. I also don't use or recommend thumbnails, except when they're a part of a application-created gallery. You can often simply resize the original with coding and reduce the load of redundant images, save space on your host, and time creating them.

2. The old Web-quality images doesn't work anymore with tablets and their higher resolution and quality, but it's still a decent standard to follow.

3. Don't worry about browser compatibility. Design and code for W3C and leave the rest to the user. Else you'll be forever writing code to accommodate all the flavors of IE and other browsers, something you can't control. I would check anything on a variety of browsers, or use one which can replicate others (eg. OmniWeb).

3a. Use CSS wherever possible to reduce the problems of user controls and improve continuity across the Website. And it's easier to manage and update Web pages and make global changes.

4. Only be a one-stop shopping Website if it's what you want and works. No one likes a Website of Lots O' Links which aren't relevant but just show.

5. For blocks of texts, the basic idea hasn't changed, write as journalist for a newspaper. There's a lot of good reasons they work for writers and readers.

I'm done for now. Good luck.

[James Hilton]

One that a professional web designer told me - don't assume every user will automatically scroll down if it is not obvious there is something at the bottom of the page. Not everyone has a mouse with a scroll wheel which makes it easy and quite a few people have things cluttering up the top of the browser pushing things down, e.g. antivirus bars etc.

In other words don’t have a empty large space about 600-700 px from the top of the page and then more content a way below it as users viewing at XGA or WXGA or SXGA etc resolutions may not realise there is content below when they first see the page.

Compared to 2007 I no longer use html tables and am about to stop using flash. It is now CSS all the way.

[Frank Petronio]

Be creative with your content, not your website design. Don't reinvent the wheel, use something off the shelf and easy to update.

[Mike Anderson]

If you're starting from scratch I'd go with html5, avoid flash, and review useit.com to gain an understanding of tested usability issues. Even if you don't adhere to ultimate usability (hardly anyone does), at least have an understanding of the issues.

Read Don't Make Me Think (http://www.amazon.com/Think-Common-Sense-Approach-Usability/dp/0789723107) by Steve Krug.

And obviously make it work well on mobile devices.

...Mike

[Preston]

I would be careful regarding using HTML5 and CSS3. The constructs are not yet cast into stone at this juncture, and could very well undergo changes. Additonally, some browsers parse the CSS and THML5 tags differently, or ignore them.

I also agree with Frank. Content is king, and make your site easy to update. There are some very nice templates out there, but if you do decide to reinvent the wheel, keep it simple and clean.

--P

[Jamie123]

I'd add that just because you're using HTML5 doesn't mean you should go to town with it and make your site more annoying than most Flash sites.

Also, I think it somewhat depends on what your target market is. As far as design and navigation is concerned there seems to be a difference in do's and don't's between being and art photographer and a commercial photographer. I see a lot of artist's websites that are just bare bones HTML whereas commercial photographers usually prefer a fancier approach.

[Mike Anderson]

I would be careful regarding using HTML5 and CSS3. The constructs are not yet cast into stone at this juncture, and could very well undergo changes. Additonally, some browsers parse the CSS and THML5 tags differently, or ignore them....

There is a subset of html5 that works right now (even on IE6), and that's being used by google.com, wikipedia.com, apple.com, etc. So if you start with that subset I think it will be the easiest path to upgrade to the newer html5 features as they become standardized and commonly supported.

Whereas if you start now with XHTML or HTML 4.01, when fuller implementations of html5 become ubiquitous it will be harder to transition to take advantage of them. XHTML and ancient versions of HTML (http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html) will probably be supported forever, but to invest in them will be foregoing the state-of-the-art features that other websites will have.

That's my thinking anyway.

...Mike

[Mike Anderson]

I'd add that just because you're using HTML5 doesn't mean you should go to town with it and make your site more annoying than most Flash sites.
...

I agree. I just think if you're starting from scratch now, using the subset of html5 that is now commonly supported will put you in place for the easiest transition to the most likely ubiquitous web of the future.

...Mike

[Mike Anderson]

I wonder what the age demographics are for people looking at fine art photography websites.

The reason I bring that up is that if it's largely over 40 years, then increasing the default font size might be a good idea.

...Mike