Definitely a good summary and rundown. Since this thread started a while ago, I have launched my new website. One of the issues that came up was viewing on laptop monitors. So while larger desktop displays are still common, small laptop screens are often in usage, even in corporate environments. That 1024 by 768 is still a good target, but the browser chrome and other window dressing take away from that area; meaning that and even smaller footprint is left for content.
My own goals were to get a fast loading, fast navigating, easy to update website for my work. I still need to add more content, and obviously add in some text about myself and how I work as a creative partner. Judging from some feedback I got creatives at large corporations, it seems like everything is working so far . . . though whether this generates more work is still unanswered.
Those doing art biased websites, or wanting to generate print sales, rather than doing commercial work, probably have very different goals. That I think is a key difference with what some here have posted. However, just a simple overview of whether a website meets ones goals might be a good indicator.
Whether art biased, or commercial, we want to stand out as individuals through our websites. So while I agree that standards are the launching point, I think there is room to go beyond that. The caveat is whether one can pull it off. Traditional advertising is still going to drive more traffic, or meaningful page views, than biasing towards search engine optimization and rolling those dice. I have found several larger and well known companies actually writing code to avoid search engine robots, though maybe that is an example of choosing your target audience.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
Don't rely on third party plug-ins and don't make your site(s) browser-specific.
Bookmarks