Top do's and don't for websites

[Photomax]

Photomax,

I went to your example. It took five seconds to look at the code (click View on your browser, then Source, for those who don't know how to get the code displayed), and another couple of seconds to ask for the URL again, substituting index.php for index.html.

Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but he's driving his site with PHP script. Perfectly fine scripting language if you've learned it. It's used for the Zenphoto programme, which has a lead developer and an international development team, and that I mentioned in my earlier post. Marcus Bleasdale, one of my examples, uses Zenphoto on his site, as do many other photographers. PHP is also used to drive Wordpress.

He is using PHP to deliver his site in different languages...

[tim atherton]

Here is the site of my son's latest company, Factory Design Labs. You minimalists will hate it, but the company can't beat away customers with a stick. My son is head of web design production (his division implements design).

http://www.factorylabs.com/

I don't mind all the whiz-bangs on these sites, this one works really nicely - it's the ubiquitous euro-pop/autobahn muzak that gets me clicking rapidly to somewhere else...

[cyrus]

I feel sorry for anybody who reads your statements in this thread and concludes that using Content Management Systems and/or coding CSS/XHTML is a snap. Actually, I feel more sorry for you. When they find out the truth, they are going to put out a hit on you

Content Management system = BLOG.

And like I said, if a 13 year old can handle CSS, so can you.

[r.e.]

I think that Tim Atherton hits the nail on the head when he suggests that it is a question of taste.

I think that it is also a question, if one is so inclined and has the luxury, of experimenting with a medium that is a long way from being technologically mature.

I think that it is very healthy that there are people like Beck who are prepared to hire a designer like Hi-Res to design a web site, and a director/cinematographer like Michel Gondry to make music videos.

I decided to comment on this thread because it seemed to me that that kind of experimentation was being dissed in the name of dogmatism, in this case a dogmatism that seems based on a misreading of what important proponents of web standards, such as Jeffrey Zeldman, are actually saying.

Photomax,

I'm out and posting via a BB (yes, it can't read Flash), and I'll have another look at your example site when I get home. If it is truly based on nothing but CSS/XHTML, with no scripting language except to deliver language components, I'm impressed with a couple of the features. That said, to me, if you look at it as a viewer instead of as a programmer interested in coding and the debate over web standards, it doesn't look any different from the vast majority of competent photographic gallery sites on the web.

It is certainly not hip or entertaining. Of course (and I mean this sincerely), that doesn't matter if one's objective is a conservative site that doesn't offend people with limited patience for the web.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi all,

"HA HA HA HA HA!!! This one's so bad, it's just awesome:

http://www.dokimos.org/ajff/"

"This code is quite simple and is very light in weight. There are a lot of guys in Eastern Europe doing great work like this..."

Arachne DOS web browser

I don't care if it's flash, shockwave, java script, activeX, css/xhtml, htlm 3.0, a web site first and foremost should work. This one doesn't with IE6, oh well.

[Frank Petronio]

http://www.gojkomitrovic.com/index_en.html

that site rocks... what a talent.

As for Factory Interactive being so busy they are turning work away... why do you think they call it Flash? Flash is flash in the very sense of the word.

And style outsells substance all the time.

[cyrus]

I decided to comment on this thread because it seemed to me that that kind of experimentation was being dissed in the name of dogmatism

Its not really dogmatism - its about knowig tradeoffs and using good judgment. The point isn't that you should never use flash but to know when to use it and why. For every 1 site that does so properly, there are a thousand that don't. As for web standards, they're not necessarily opposed to flash.

[r.e.]

Cyrus's Commandment Number One:

Minimize the use of Flash:

Leaving aside Beck, this commandment was lost on a number of the examples that I gave of sites that have a strong graphic component, including the BBC, Nigel Aldridge, Sean MacKaoui and Marcus Bleasdale. Are they wrong? Does the design of these sites suck? Is it inferior to the (extremely limited) examples that you and Photomax have offered?

Cyrus's Commandment Number Three:

Never Use a Splash Page

I've got news for you. If you are living in the real world, and want to communicate with people in more than one language, splash pages are pretty helpful.

For an example, look at the example that I gave for Sean MacKaoui, who is part Lebanese, part English and lives in Spain, or look at this example from Quebec: www.claudinearcand.com Her web site is new and still in development, but her splash page is not only elegant, it is pretty important to what she is trying to do with her site.

Pity that she has violated one of your Commandments.

But hey, maybe people where you live (California) only speak English, and it didn't occur to you, or any of the other people in this thread who have jumped on your anti-splash page bandwagon, that there are people who want to deliver their web content in more than one language.

A bit surprising that you aren't aware of this, since if you look at governmental or corporate sites for any country in the world that is bilingual, or you look at sites for international corporations, you will find a splash page that gives you a choice of language for delivery of your web content. I have no idea why you consider this bad web design. Myself, I'm under the impression that it facilitates communication, which is what I thought that the web is about.

[cyrus]

Cyrus's Commandment Number One:

Minimize the use of Flash:

Leaving aside Beck, this commandment was lost on a number of the examples that I gave of sites that have a strong graphic component, including the BBC, Nigel Aldridge, Sean MacKaoui and Marcus Bleasdale. Are they wrong? Does the design of these sites suck? Is it inferior to the (extremely limited) examples that you and Photomax have offered?

Notice the term "minimize". As in use it with good judgment. Specifically, my "commandment" warned that about "flash tricks" which "can either also be done with plain html/css, or are annoying & useless and so should not be done at all anyway." I didn't say never ever use any flash at all. In fact my "commandment" (which is actually a widely recommmended matter and not "mine") specifically said that flash presentation can be useful, as long as you don't overdo it and understand the associated search engine problems. Now who's being "dogmatic"?

Cyrus's Commandment Number Three:

Never Use a Splash Page

I've got news for you. If you are living in the real world, and want to communicate with people in more than one language, splash pages are pretty helpful.

Lots of well-designed sites have a series of flags on the top margin where people can select the langauge they want, and no splash page. But here, I'll make you happy and I'll change "my commandment" (which is actually a widely recommended matter)

Ahem..."And the Lord Sayeth unto Yee, Never useth a splash page, unless you're one of the very few webmasters who have a multilingual site, and there's no other better way to get people to select their appropriate language, and then be prepared to suffer the consequences of having a splash page. Haleluja! Amen!"

And actually I don't live in California and I do speak 4 langauges, thank you.

As for the site you mentioned - I don't want to pick on her but it has all the problems of a splash page and more since the language selection process is cryptic, to say the least. I had to guess what the site was all about when I clicked on it - a typical problem of using splash pages. (Turns out it wasn't even a photography site.)

And if you think government or corporate sites are necessarily a good example to follow . . . well, that's your choice.

[Rob Champagne]

I agree just about 100% with everything r.e. has said.

I would add one thing about flash. It is a simple lie that flash is slow. This lie is perpetuated through ignorance. The root of the problem has been and still is caused by clueless developers who don't understand flash and how to make it work efficiently. These clueless developers are mostly graphic designers who love what it can do but don't have a clue about how to do it efficiently. ( not exclusively graphic designers as there are also so called software developers who also use it badly).

The problem is that they embed all backgrounds and images into one flash file and compile it. It then has to load everything in one go before it starts to play. Result means it takes ages to load.

So next time you hit a website with a very slow or long wait, don't blame flash, blame the developer who is clueless.

Used properly flash is almost as fast as a normal web page. Start using the wrong kind of fades and resizing and it will slow down because it has a lot processing to do. Again this is the fault of the useless developer and not the fault of flash.

Programming flash efficiently is simply too advanced for your average graphic designer or hack web developer who's read a book or two. So they malign it saying "its slow and innefficient" which is bullshit for "It's too advanced for a jerk like me".

So now you know