Design vs. Coding
Smokin' Dave
First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
days searching for a certain 'look'.
My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
different areas? For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
Just a question I've always wondered about. Thanks in advance.
Smokin' Dave
---------------------------------------------------------
Hell hath no coffee, no cigarettes.....
Smokin' Dave's Taxicab Diaries
http://www.smokindave.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Webmaster
>First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
>with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
>look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
>days searching for a certain 'look'.
In an effort to distinguish the 'look', you must have the 'skills' to
present it to the browser.
For example, on my site, without the scripting, it would look pretty basic,
but with all the scripting put in, it makes it a world-class site design.
For example, you may wish to frame your site. On the main frame, you may
wish to start with a splash screen and when the page is loaded, transition
to the page from the splash.
In the other frames, you can do other things, like rotating colors or
something, totally independent of the main frame, thus making things appear
like a well-thought design.
If you would like to see an example of my design, the URL is in my sig.
>My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
>expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
>different areas?
Usually a head Webmaster (supreme being above all the other masters) is the
manager. The other webmasters are given specific areas of the site to focus
on.
If you feel you can manage the entire site yourself (like I do), then you'll
find the work to be time-consuming.
>For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
>proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
>looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
Each Webmaster would do the coding. Why put the burden on one master?
Say your boss (the head master) directs you to update three thousand links
in eight hours. If you did all the programming (scripting, effects, etc.),
you would find that work to be quite fullfilling.
If you didn't do the coding, then what are they paying you for?
>Just a question I've always wondered about. Thanks in advance.
____________________________________
Respectfully submitted, Supreme Webmaster
Website: http://www.bigfoot.com/~explore
Reply: Supreme_...@email.com
Isofarro
<smoki...@smokindave.com> wrote:
>A question for the pros here.
>
>First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
>with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
>look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
>days searching for a certain 'look'.
>
>My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
>expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
>different areas?
In the company I work for emphasis is on the coding (backend and
frontend). We are the interface between the legacy systems and the
internet audience.
If we need specialised graphics, we have a DTP department with the
skills for that - otherwise we use the huge clipart libraries dotting
around.
The layout and look can really only come from the web-designer, so
that will be part of the job description.
It is possible for the design to be done by the third party - but if
that party is not web-adept (know what works and what doesn't on the
web) then you are asking for a great deal of trouble.
The thing with corporate websites is that they normally already have a
web presence, so its more about sticking to their standards and
templates.
Iso.
--
alt.html microFAQ: http://hyweljenkins.com/support/mfaq.htm
HTML FAQ: http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/all.html
Jukka's Usenet guide: http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/usenet/
Hiding source code: http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm
Johnnie ego
design in-house. The strength of our team is flexibility - which I would
attribute to the architectural training that I, and two of my senior
colleagues, have undertaken. This gives us a nice rounded approach to
aesthetic and technology. Having said that, the introduction of a hard-core
software engineer has allowed us to progress as a company, and the
availability of a very good graphic design team (another company that we
work with from time to time) keeps us on our toes.
HTH
John
--
John Lyons
-----------------------------------
jo...@egovision.co.uk
*Web reference centre & tutorials:
http://www.egovision.com
*egovision professional Web design:
http://www.egovision.co.uk
-----------------------------------
Smokin' Dave <smoki...@smokindave.com> wrote in message
news:vgrfesghoeop1u5jo...@4ax.com...
> A question for the pros here.
>
> First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
> with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
> look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
> days searching for a certain 'look'.
>
> My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
> expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
> different areas? For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
> proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
> looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
>
Don McCahill
Supreme Webmaster wrote:
>
>
> Smokin' Dave respectfully inquired:
>
> >First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
> >with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
> >look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
> >days searching for a certain 'look'.
>
> present it to the browser.
>
> For example, on my site, without the scripting, it would look pretty
basic,
> but with all the scripting put in, it makes it a world-class site design.
>
> For example, you may wish to frame your site. On the main frame, you may
> wish to start with a splash screen and when the page is loaded,
transition
> to the page from the splash.
>
> In the other frames, you can do other things, like rotating colors or
> something, totally independent of the main frame, thus making things
appear
> like a well-thought design.
>
> If you would like to see an example of my design, the URL is in my sig.
>
> >expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
> >different areas?
>
the
> manager. The other webmasters are given specific areas of the site to
focus
> on.
>
> If you feel you can manage the entire site yourself (like I do), then
you'll
> find the work to be time-consuming.
>
> >proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
> >looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
>
>
> Say your boss (the head master) directs you to update three thousand
links
> in eight hours. If you did all the programming (scripting, effects,
etc.),
> you would find that work to be quite fullfilling.
>
> If you didn't do the coding, then what are they paying you for?
>
> Respectfully submitted, Supreme Webmaster
> Website: http://www.bigfoot.com/~explore
> Reply: Supreme_...@email.com
I just wanted to let you know that your "world class site" gives an error
in Netscape 4.06.
MyLogo not defined, line 75
Don
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
Don McCahill
Smokin' Dave wrote:
>
> A question for the pros here.
>
> with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
> look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
> days searching for a certain 'look'.
>
> expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
> proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
> looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Hell hath no coffee, no cigarettes.....
> Smokin' Dave's Taxicab Diaries
> http://www.smokindave.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------
I think anyone can make a good living on the web in one of three ways.
Either you are an expert in coding, an expert in design, or you have a good
ability with both.
Of course, the advertisements will want someone who is an ace in both, but
that happens rarely. Really good designers seldom are good coders ... left
brain/right brain thing, I think.
Don McCahill
Internet Graphic Design
Westervelt College
London, Canada
Calum I Mac Leod
<smoki...@smokindave.com> wrote:
>My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
>expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
>different areas? For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
>proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
>looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
It really depends on which corp. Many of the big names in the
non-Internet world throw money at a Web site without really knowing
what it's for. As long as you can impress them with _something_,
they'll go for it. Many such jobs end up with their existing graphic
design agency, who can come up with impressive graphics. A lack of
WWW marketing ability may go unnoticed.
A company with a clear Internet vision and purpose is likely to have
other priorities. You'll have noticed the general lack of graphic
'design' in highly successful Web sites, they're more concerned with
helping their customers to do business with them more easily.
Experience with designing _for_the_Web_ is more likely to impress such
clients, as is a knowledge of usable navigation space, etc.
Also, the bigger the Web site budget, the less need there will be for
you to be a 'Jack of all trades'. Programmers, designers, Web
marketeers, copyrighters, usability engineers and others have a place
in a large WWW project.
Calum
--
Calum I Mac Leod
BorderNet Ltd, Scotland
Web site management
neil
to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
pages with graphics, even at the highest level, for instance Ask Jeeves,
combines good solid programming, with good looking graphics. And with the
rise of flash and other vector based stuff, low bandwidth good looking sites
are becoming more and more common, perhaps this is not a good thing for the
web purists, who will always argue that graphics are only secondary to
written content,
but it's a fact today that with so much web content now geared solely to
the "clueless masses" if it looks good it must be good seems to be a
standard corporate mantra.
Personally, I think that a good site should have "an image" but equally
important is low download times, ease of navigation, and of course content.
"Content is King"
neil
===================================================
www.hunky-dorry.co.uk
ne...@hunky-dorry.co.uk
Calum I Mac Leod <ca...@bordernet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38e877a5...@news.ukgateway.net...
Calum I Mac Leod
wrote:
>I would tend to disagree with some of the points that successful sites tend
>to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
>pages with graphics, even at the highest level,
According to Media Metrix [1] the top five (by weekly visitation) are
Yahoo.com, AOL.com, Microsoft.com, Lycos.com and Netscape.com (not
including AOL proprietary or instant messenger). I wouldn't describe
these as graphically lavish. Their leaner and quicker than the sites
of many big off-Web corporates.
Top e-retailers amazon.com and ebay.com are also notable for their
lack of graphics. Personally I see most of the top sites as throwing
too much text at their home pages, but that's another topic.
I think it's time for a new analysis of the top n Web sites.
Neilsen's 1999 analysis[2] is getting old.
>for instance Ask Jeeves, combines good solid programming, with good
>looking graphics.
I haven't seen any of the programming that goes into Ask Jeeves Web
site.
If you're referring to the HTML, then I urge you to take a closer
look.
www.ask.com:
| [USEMAP] [LINK]
| [USEMAP] [INLINE] [INLINE]
|
| [USEMAP]
| [LINK]
| [INLINE]
etc. Ask.Com is probably the worst of the top ten search sites.
>And with the rise of flash and other vector based stuff, low bandwidth
>good looking sites are becoming more and more common,
I haven't noticed many of the top 100 sites relying heavily on Flash.
I don't think I've seen much of an increase since Flash was 'new and
cool' - some time ago.
>perhaps this is not a good thing for the web purists, who will always
>argue that graphics are only secondary to written content,
Who are these "purists"? The people commonly known as Web/HTML
"purists" argue that the textual content of a Web page should be
accessible in the absence of graphics.
"Anti-Purists" often seem to think that graphics are not content,
which seems quite odd.
>but it's a fact today that with so much web content now geared solely to
>the "clueless masses" if it looks good it must be good seems to be a
>standard corporate mantra.
Again, there's a difference between the view of big off-Web
corporates' Web sites, and the big Web-corporates' Web sites. I can't
imagine Yahoo!, Amazon.com or Ebay falling for that line.
>Personally, I think that a good site should have "an image" but equally
>important is low download times, ease of navigation, and of course content.
>"Content is King"
I knew we'd agree on something. :-)
[1] Media Metrix Top Rankings
http://www.mediametrix.com/TopRankings/TopRankings.html
[2] Who Commits The "Top Ten Mistakes" of Web Design?
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990516.html
bitb...@home.net
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:07:51 +0100, "neil" <in...@hunky-dorry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I would tend to disagree with some of the points that successful sites
tend
> >to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
> >pages with graphics, even at the highest level,
>
> According to Media Metrix [1] the top five (by weekly visitation) are
> Yahoo.com, AOL.com, Microsoft.com, Lycos.com and Netscape.com (not
> including AOL proprietary or instant messenger). I wouldn't describe
> these as graphically lavish. Their leaner and quicker than the sites
> of many big off-Web corporates.
>
http://www.relevantknowledge.com/TopRankings/TopRankings.html
--
McWebber
No email replies read.
Weather for your website - Free
http://www.4sarasota.com/weather/
WebSlave
> For example, on my site, without the scripting, it would look pretty
basic,
> but with all the scripting put in, it makes it a world-class site
design.
I see nothing that would rate the site as 'world class', but I do see
many things that I could use as an example of bad design.
> In the other frames, you can do other things, like rotating colors or
> something, totally independent of the main frame, thus making things
appear
> like a well-thought design.
Rotating colors are generally _not_ considered a 'well-thought design'.
It's a trick that has no real purpose. Plus it's annoying.
WebSlave
-----
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daniel Vesma
one bloke who does it all.
Daniel Vesma - The Web Tree
http://www.thewebtree.com
Calum I Mac Leod
>"Calum I Mac Leod" <ca...@bordernet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:38e8cbc7...@news.ukgateway.net...
>> According to Media Metrix [1] the top five (by weekly visitation) are
>> Yahoo.com, AOL.com, Microsoft.com, Lycos.com and Netscape.com (not
>> including AOL proprietary or instant messenger). I wouldn't describe
>> these as graphically lavish. Their leaner and quicker than the sites
>> of many big off-Web corporates.
>>
>I thought the latest Media Metrix rating had Excite as #5?
>http://www.relevantknowledge.com/TopRankings/TopRankings.html
True, the Excite@Home network scores 30,191 visits according to Media
Metrix, but that includes BlueMountainArts.com. Excite.com only got
15.5 million visitors. (Only?). Lycos.com scores 27.1 million on
it's own, so is a more popular site.
Excite.com fits the lean, popular site model rather well. It almost
finished loading before I typed the URI.
Number six on the MediaMetrix site list is Go.com, which is also a
good example. It used to be hellishly slow, but now it's heavenly
fast, unlike Neil's 'increasingly graphic' WWW. :-)
WebSlave
> A question for the pros here.
>
> First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
> with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
> look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
> days searching for a certain 'look'.
I'm quite the opposite. I like to create (read: design). Coding is just
plain work for me.
> My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
> expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
> different areas? For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
> proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
> looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
I think there are as many ways as there are companies. We are a small
company (boss + 2). I do mostly HTML/CDML (FileMaker), but design a site
every now and then. Our AD does most of the graphics but some coding
too. The boss concentrates on selling and relations, but does CDML (and
HTML) as well. He started the company alone, so he has done designs too.
Generally - as others have pointed - you have to know the HTML basics to
design something doable. It's also useful to have the full resposibility
of a site, so you know the wheres and whens. We use this approach quite
a lot.
To design one has to have the 'eye' for it. I can't be compared to our
AD, but I (too) make decent looking sites. It's up to the customer's
willingness to put money on the design.
WebSlave
B.P.
>
> I would tend to disagree with some of the points that successful sites tend
> to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
> combines good solid programming, with good looking graphics. And with the
> rise of flash and other vector based stuff, low bandwidth good looking sites
> web purists, who will always argue that graphics are only secondary to
> written content,
Jeeves is a charactar badly in need of more interactivity. Would you
hire a butler who never addressed you properly, or never moved. Jeeves
needs to be animated and sound enabled for higher bandwidth applications
BTW, ask jeeves if he is gay and see what he says.
> but it's a fact today that with so much web content now geared solely to
> the "clueless masses" if it looks good it must be good seems to be a
> standard corporate mantra.
Who are the clueless masses. Who is more clueless, the people who want
to use available technology and push the limits (hence driving
technology forward), or the "purists" who are letting technology pass
them by due to an infatuation witha personal biased ideology.
Some had a really nice quote in his tag line (I forgot who)
The ARK was built by amatuers,
The TITANIC was built by experts.
Sometimes people can be blinded by their self gratuitious expertise and
fail to see the bigger picture.
Remember at one point, the "purists" were "clueless newbies" at one
point and on the "cutting edge" at another point.
A "true puristt" would not touch anything other than machine code and
ascii text
> Personally, I think that a good site should have "an image" but equally
> important is low download times, ease of navigation, and of course content.
> "Content is King"
Agreed
B.P.
REBUS
Development manager of a national ISP):
No. You should not be expected by any sane web development Corp to do both
"design" and "coding." That being said, in an enlightened group, you'll be
expected to understand the issues surrounding the two extremes...handing of
the "baton" is a recipe for disaster...and I can show you millions of
examples.
That being said, if you really are competent in both design and coding,
you're in a good position to be of great value to a large development
organization...but be emphatic about what you love to do and stick with it.
"Supreme Webmaster" <Supreme_...@The.Phantom.Menace> wrote in message
news:sefu08r...@corp.supernews.com...
: Smokin' Dave respectfully inquired:
:
: >First off, I'm more interested in the coding end of websites than I am
: >with design. Although I feel that I'm pretty decent with designing the
: >look of a site, I always enjoy coding more than I do spending hours or
: >days searching for a certain 'look'.
:
: In an effort to distinguish the 'look', you must have the 'skills' to
: present it to the browser.
:
: For example, on my site, without the scripting, it would look pretty
basic,
: but with all the scripting put in, it makes it a world-class site design.
:
: For example, you may wish to frame your site. On the main frame, you may
: wish to start with a splash screen and when the page is loaded, transition
: to the page from the splash.
:
: In the other frames, you can do other things, like rotating colors or
: something, totally independent of the main frame, thus making things
appear
: like a well-thought design.
:
: If you would like to see an example of my design, the URL is in my sig.
:
: >My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
: >expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
: >different areas?
:
: Usually a head Webmaster (supreme being above all the other masters) is
the
: manager. The other webmasters are given specific areas of the site to
focus
: on.
:
: If you feel you can manage the entire site yourself (like I do), then
you'll
: find the work to be time-consuming.
:
: >For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
: >proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
: >looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
:
: Each Webmaster would do the coding. Why put the burden on one master?
:
: Say your boss (the head master) directs you to update three thousand links
: in eight hours. If you did all the programming (scripting, effects, etc.),
: you would find that work to be quite fullfilling.
:
: If you didn't do the coding, then what are they paying you for?
:
: >Just a question I've always wondered about. Thanks in advance.
: ____________________________________
:
:
REBUS
"B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38E93208...@bother.me...
: neil wrote:
: >
: > I would tend to disagree with some of the points that successful sites
tend
: > to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
: > pages with graphics, even at the highest level, for instance Ask Jeeves,
: > combines good solid programming, with good looking graphics. And with
the
: > rise of flash and other vector based stuff, low bandwidth good looking
sites
: > are becoming more and more common, perhaps this is not a good thing for
the
: > web purists, who will always argue that graphics are only secondary to
: > written content,
:
: Jeeves is a charactar badly in need of more interactivity. Would you
: hire a butler who never addressed you properly, or never moved. Jeeves
: needs to be animated and sound enabled for higher bandwidth applications
You know, I was just about to chime in to support the "graphics can be
useful" brigade, then I see your post. Jessz, that's exactly what "purists"
and "average users" rail against the most. Would I ask my butler "what is
the capitol of Zimbioa?" What would movement really add?
Ever heard of a software package called "Bob"? Do you know why its no longer
around....its the stupid "avatar" concept crap...
People want software to think in more human like form, not to "immitate
human" form.
: BTW, ask jeeves if he is gay and see what he says.
So, are you saying the technology sucks? (I would.) Maybe instead of a
dancing butler, they should spend their money on actually making it work.
:
: > but it's a fact today that with so much web content now geared solely
to
: > the "clueless masses" if it looks good it must be good seems to be a
: > standard corporate mantra.
:
: Who are the clueless masses. Who is more clueless, the people who want
: to use available technology and push the limits (hence driving
: technology forward), or the "purists" who are letting technology pass
: them by due to an infatuation witha personal biased ideology.
I ave no idea of what that last statement says...what most "real" users want
is effect...that may mean highly graphically content, and it might mean a
page that shows the information they need in 0.1 seconds. in text
Your argument, if you could all it that, is the mirror opposite of the
fictitional "purist" and as false.
Technology pushed because its available impresses only the technology
purists.
: Some had a really nice quote in his tag line (I forgot who)
:
: The ARK was built by amatuers,
: The TITANIC was built by experts.
Whatever that's supposed to mean... (i.e., most "purists" are strictly
amatuars, while the "technologists" are supposed professionals.)
:
: Sometimes people can be blinded by their self gratuitious expertise and
: fail to see the bigger picture.
Sounds like a "technologist"
:
: Remember at one point, the "purists" were "clueless newbies" at one
: point and on the "cutting edge" at another point.
:
: A "true puristt" would not touch anything other than machine code and
: ascii text
Again, whatever.
What I was going to add before I got into a rant is, there is another reason
why highly popular sites streamline their pages. That is, its to preserve
their own sanity and bandwidth. If Yahoo adds 5 K to their home page, all of
a sudden they are pushing another 15 GBs of data...
B.P.
REBUS wrote:
>
> "B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38E93208...@bother.me...
> : neil wrote:
> : >
> : > I would tend to disagree with some of the points that successful sites
> tend
> : > to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
> : > pages with graphics, even at the highest level, for instance Ask Jeeves,
> : > combines good solid programming, with good looking graphics. And with
> the
> : > rise of flash and other vector based stuff, low bandwidth good looking
> sites
> : > are becoming more and more common, perhaps this is not a good thing for
> the
> : > web purists, who will always argue that graphics are only secondary to
> : > written content,
> :
> : Jeeves is a charactar badly in need of more interactivity. Would you
> : hire a butler who never addressed you properly, or never moved. Jeeves
> : needs to be animated and sound enabled for higher bandwidth applications
>
> You know, I was just about to chime in to support the "graphics can be
> useful" brigade, then I see your post. Jessz, that's exactly what "purists"
> and "average users" rail against the most. Would I ask my butler "what is
> the capitol of Zimbioa?" What would movement really add?
>
IMHO Ask Jeeves was about the stupidest concept I have ever seen on the
web. Movement does not have to be excessive, facial expressions can
changed to match the relevancy of results ... ie... Jeeves smiles when
he knows you answer and frowns when he doesn't. The concept is nothing
more than a meta serch engine, yet he is being promoted as a personal
servant and artificial intelligence.
What exactly is a "purist" except for a self classified group of people
who refuse to embrace newer technologies. From all I have seen and
heard of the "purists" they are the "Amish" of web design. I don't see
a lot of demand for "no-frills" web design. But then again according to
predictions by the "purists" there will be a revolution where Lynx users
take over the web.
> Ever heard of a software package called "Bob"? Do you know why its no longer
> around....its the stupid "avatar" concept crap...
>
Did the word 3d, avatar, virtual reality or VRML come out of my
keyboard, no they did not.
Ever hear of a games called Doom, Quake, Unreal this is what your
average user is using his computer for.
> People want software to think in more human like form, not to "immitate
> human" form.
>
> : BTW, ask jeeves if he is gay and see what he says.
>
> So, are you saying the technology sucks? (I would.) Maybe instead of a
> dancing butler, they should spend their money on actually making it work.
>
That was a joke, and you should really ask him and see what he says. As
far as animation, I did not say extreme, I said:
> : Jeeves is a charactar badly in need of more interactivity. Would you
> : hire a butler who never addressed you properly, or never moved. Jeeves
> : needs to be animated and sound enabled for higher bandwidth applications
For a charactar who is being branded as Jeeves currently is, Jeeves
really needs to be a bit more than a cheesy piece of clip art.
> :
> : > but it's a fact today that with so much web content now geared solely
> to
> : > the "clueless masses" if it looks good it must be good seems to be a
> : > standard corporate mantra.
> :
> : Who are the clueless masses. Who is more clueless, the people who want
> : to use available technology and push the limits (hence driving
> : technology forward), or the "purists" who are letting technology pass
> : them by due to an infatuation witha personal biased ideology.
>
> I ave no idea of what that last statement says...what most "real" users want
> is effect...that may mean highly graphically content, and it might mean a
> page that shows the information they need in 0.1 seconds. in text
>
So who are the "clueless masses." What is a "real" user. Is someone
who uses their computer to write e-mail to grandma in idaho any less of
a "real" user than a programmer staying up till 5am drinking coffee and
smoking cigarettes trying to optimize his/her code.
> Your argument, if you could all it that, is the mirror opposite of the
> fictitional "purist" and as false.
>
> Technology pushed because its available impresses only the technology
> purists.
>
Technology is driven by demand for it. The demand comes from the so
called "clueless masses." Have you noticed we aren't making trips to
the moon anymore. Why? Because there is no DEMAND to push the
technology further. If there was demand for trips to the moon, then
funding would be targeted toward developing space travel, and taken away
from other less popular areas.
> : Some had a really nice quote in his tag line (I forgot who)
> :
> : The ARK was built by amatuers,
> : The TITANIC was built by experts.
>
> Whatever that's supposed to mean... (i.e., most "purists" are strictly
> amatuars, while the "technologists" are supposed professionals.)
It seems that the "purists" are the ones who are on the opposite side of
an discussion. If you are now labeling the "purists" as amatuers , then
we could make a strong point as to the "purists" as being "clueless
newbies"
> :
> : Sometimes people can be blinded by their self gratuitious expertise and
> : fail to see the bigger picture.
> Sounds like a "technologist"
> :
> : Remember at one point, the "purists" were "clueless newbies" at one
> : point and on the "cutting edge" at another point.
> :
> : A "true puristt" would not touch anything other than machine code and
> : ascii text
>
> Again, whatever.
>
What do you mean whatever. A "purist" would want to get as close to the
medium as possible and not have his work compromized by interpreted
languages which may soil the pure code.
B.P.
Isofarro
>Some had a really nice quote in his tag line (I forgot who)
>
>The ARK was built by amatuers,
>The TITANIC was built by experts.
That is one poignant thought of the day!
Smokin' Dave
>
>IMHO Ask Jeeves was about the stupidest concept I have ever seen on the
>web. Movement does not have to be excessive, facial expressions can
>changed to match the relevancy of results ... ie... Jeeves smiles when
>he knows you answer and frowns when he doesn't. The concept is nothing
>more than a meta serch engine, yet he is being promoted as a personal
>servant and artificial intelligence.
>
Little do you know that you probably just sent a hundred viewers over
to "Ask Jeeves", if at least to just see what the hoopla is all about.
I, for one, have seen it, but never checked it out. I will now. <g>
Smokin' Dave
posted:
>Here's my opinion (for what its worth, I've spent 3 years as a Web
>Development manager of a national ISP):
>
>No. You should not be expected by any sane web development Corp to do both
>"design" and "coding." That being said, in an enlightened group, you'll be
>expected to understand the issues surrounding the two extremes...handing of
>the "baton" is a recipe for disaster...and I can show you millions of
>examples.
>
>That being said, if you really are competent in both design and coding,
>you're in a good position to be of great value to a large development
>organization...but be emphatic about what you love to do and stick with it.
>
Thanks for your input, Rebus. And thanks to all the other readers who
answered my questions. As usual, you've all been a big help!
ecs5298
<smoki...@smokindave.com> wrote:
>>
>
>Little do you know that you probably just sent a hundred viewers over
>to "Ask Jeeves", if at least to just see what the hoopla is all about.
>I, for one, have seen it, but never checked it out. I will now. <g>
>
I, for one couldn't resist! It was a pretty funny response!
--
Medic37's EMS Website
http://www.medic37.net
J Kirby Inwood
any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean you should do
it.
The web is a graveyard of web sites cluttered with useless graphics, sound
effects, flash and splash screens that are only there because someone has no
understanding of design.
kirby
"neil" <in...@hunky-dorry.co.uk> hypothesizes:
>> I would tend to disagree with some of the points that successful sites tend
>> to lack graphic design, I think now there is a trend towards sprucing up
>> pages with graphics, even at the highest level, for instance Ask Jeeves,
>> combines good solid programming, with good looking graphics. And with the
>> rise of flash and other vector based stuff, low bandwidth good looking sites
>> are becoming more and more common, perhaps this is not a good thing for the
>> web purists, who will always argue that graphics are only secondary to
>> written content,
>> but it's a fact today that with so much web content now geared solely to
>> the "clueless masses" if it looks good it must be good seems to be a
>> standard corporate mantra.
>> Personally, I think that a good site should have "an image" but equally
>> important is low download times, ease of navigation, and of course content.
>> "Content is King"
>>
>> neil
>> ===================================================
>> www.hunky-dorry.co.uk
>> ne...@hunky-dorry.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> Calum I Mac Leod <ca...@bordernet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:38e877a5...@news.ukgateway.net...
>> > On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 20:12:51 -0500, Smokin' Dave
>> > <smoki...@smokindave.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >My question: In a corporate atmosphere, is everybody expected to be an
>> > >expert in design _and_ coding, or are there different personnel for
>> > >different areas? For instance, a designer creates the graphics and a
>> > >proposed look for the site, then passes the baton to the next guy, who
>> > >looks at what he has to work with and does all of the coding.
>> >
>> > It really depends on which corp. Many of the big names in the
>> > non-Internet world throw money at a Web site without really knowing
>> > what it's for. As long as you can impress them with _something_,
>> > they'll go for it. Many such jobs end up with their existing graphic
>> > design agency, who can come up with impressive graphics. A lack of
>> > WWW marketing ability may go unnoticed.
>> >
>> > A company with a clear Internet vision and purpose is likely to have
>> > other priorities. You'll have noticed the general lack of graphic
>> > 'design' in highly successful Web sites, they're more concerned with
>> > helping their customers to do business with them more easily.
>> > Experience with designing _for_the_Web_ is more likely to impress such
>> > clients, as is a knowledge of usable navigation space, etc.
>> >
>> > Also, the bigger the Web site budget, the less need there will be for
>> > you to be a 'Jack of all trades'. Programmers, designers, Web
>> > marketeers, copyrighters, usability engineers and others have a place
>> > in a large WWW project.
>> >
>> > Calum
>> > --
>> > Calum I Mac Leod
>> > BorderNet Ltd, Scotland
>> > Web site management
>>
_________________________________________________________________________
If you place your site on the web and no one sees it, is it really there?
J Kirby Inwood
Kirwood Inc., Advertising and Creative Services
http://www.kirwood.com
All Creative Services from Concept to Completion
ads, brochures, copy writing, design, web site design & repair, marketing and promotion
Vox:(416) 923-1028 kir...@kirwood.com Fax: (416) 923-8458
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Jim Ley
>REBUS wrote:
>>
>> "B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38E93208...@bother.me...
>> : neil wrote:
>> : Jeeves is a charactar badly in need of more interactivity. Would you
>> : hire a butler who never addressed you properly, or never moved. Jeeves
>> : needs to be animated and sound enabled for higher bandwidth applications
>>
>> You know, I was just about to chime in to support the "graphics can be
>> useful" brigade, then I see your post. Jessz, that's exactly what "purists"
>> and "average users" rail against the most. Would I ask my butler "what is
>> the capitol of Zimbioa?" What would movement really add?
>>
>
>IMHO Ask Jeeves was about the stupidest concept I have ever seen on the
>web. Movement does not have to be excessive, facial expressions can
>changed to match the relevancy of results ... ie... Jeeves smiles when
>he knows you answer and frowns when he doesn't. The concept is nothing
>more than a meta serch engine, yet he is being promoted as a personal
>servant and artificial intelligence.
While not agreeing to most of what BP says here, I do agree that when
you market Jeeves so heavily as a character, give him an identity and
everything you should be reflecting that in the site for integration
in your marketing, not to dazzle users - Google has more identity in
it's brilliant clean simple pages that Jeeves does, yet carries a lot
less weight.
>Ever hear of a games called Doom, Quake, Unreal this is what your
>average user is using his computer for.
No the average user is working on computers, 'kids' and young single
men are playing those games.
Jim.
B.P.
>
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 04:44:28 GMT, "B.P." <do...@bother.me> posted:
>
> >
> >IMHO Ask Jeeves was about the stupidest concept I have ever seen on the
> >web. Movement does not have to be excessive, facial expressions can
> >changed to match the relevancy of results ... ie... Jeeves smiles when
> >he knows you answer and frowns when he doesn't. The concept is nothing
> >more than a meta serch engine, yet he is being promoted as a personal
> >servant and artificial intelligence.
> >
>
> to "Ask Jeeves", if at least to just see what the hoopla is all about.
> I, for one, have seen it, but never checked it out. I will now. <g>
Maybe I should apply for a job there :')
B.P.
B.P.
>
> Graphics for their own sake interfere with the message of a web page or ad or
> any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean you should do
> it.
>
> The web is a graveyard of web sites cluttered with useless graphics, sound
> effects, flash and splash screens that are only there because someone has no
> understanding of design.
> kirby
>
This is a really sad world view which you possess. The diversity of the
web is what makes it such an amazing place. All those "useless"
graphics and sounds are peoples personal expressions of themselves.
Are you suggesting that people not express themselves COMRADE.
B.P.
Johnnie ego
I guess it depends on what purpose the site in question has. Is the priority
the creator or the end user? The example above would make sense in the
latter, where the creator is of less import than the site visitors (just
check boo.com - a sad example of style over content).
2P
B.P.
>
> B.P. <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38EA2A60...@bother.me...
> > J Kirby Inwood wrote:
> > >
> > > Graphics for their own sake interfere with the message of a web page or
> ad or
> > > any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean you
> should do
> > > it.
> > >
> > > The web is a graveyard of web sites cluttered with useless graphics,
> sound
> > > effects, flash and splash screens that are only there because someone
> has no
> > > understanding of design.
> > > kirby
> > >
> >
> >
> > This is a really sad world view which you possess. The diversity of the
> > web is what makes it such an amazing place. All those "useless"
> > graphics and sounds are peoples personal expressions of themselves.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that people not express themselves COMRADE.
> >
>
> I guess it depends on what purpose the site in question has. Is the priority
> the creator or the end user? The example above would make sense in the
> latter, where the creator is of less import than the site visitors (just
> check boo.com - a sad example of style over content).
>
Have you ever thought that the style can be part of the content.
Integrating form and function, what a unique concept. An image, an ICON
to represent a concept, what a novel idea. Using a picture to tell a
story, who would have really believed that "a picture is worth a
thousand words."
Whether it is a company or a personal site, the site is an expression of
that corporate culture, or that persons ideology.
This is why there is such diversity. Some people will like one site,
and hate another. Other people will have counter opinions.
B.P.
REBUS
expression"characters. To which we can only say, fine...write whatever you
want on the bathroom wall...but, if you where like a number of posters in
this newsgroup, you'd be looking for information on how to "effectively
communicate your ideas." Hence, the caution in responses concerning
technology and overuse of images for technologies (and the author's ego)
sake.
"Johnnie ego" <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8cdbko$17b$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
: B.P. <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38EA2A60...@bother.me...
: > J Kirby Inwood wrote:
: > >
: > > Graphics for their own sake interfere with the message of a web page
or
: ad or
: > > any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean you
: should do
: > > it.
: > >
: > > The web is a graveyard of web sites cluttered with useless graphics,
: sound
: > > effects, flash and splash screens that are only there because someone
: has no
: > > understanding of design.
: > > kirby
: > >
: >
: >
: > This is a really sad world view which you possess. The diversity of the
: > web is what makes it such an amazing place. All those "useless"
: > graphics and sounds are peoples personal expressions of themselves.
: >
: > Are you suggesting that people not express themselves COMRADE.
: >
:
: I guess it depends on what purpose the site in question has. Is the
priority
: the creator or the end user? The example above would make sense in the
: latter, where the creator is of less import than the site visitors (just
: check boo.com - a sad example of style over content).
:
: 2P
:
:
Isofarro
>
>Have you ever thought that the style can be part of the content.
When it works - the effect is captivating. Unfortunately the vast
majority of web designers are mere mortals.
>Using a picture to tell a
>story, who would have really believed that "a picture is worth a
>thousand words."
Playing a purist devil's advocate for the moment - does this mean that
we are 1000 words worse off not being able (by hook or crook) to see a
picture?
>Whether it is a company or a personal site, the site is an expression of
>that corporate culture, or that persons ideology.
http://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk is the best example I've seen of
combining the style of presentation with the content.
>This is why there is such diversity. Some people will like one site,
>and hate another. Other people will have counter opinions.
Maybe this will see the introduction of two types of paths to major
sites - the Louvre tour, or the Shakespear tour.
Is catering for the lowest common denominator (browser-wise, not
intelligence-wise) a dangerous technique?
B.P.
REBUS wrote:
>
> Uh, oh...it looks like we got one 'dem "the web is my oyster for personal
> expression"characters. To which we can only say, fine...write whatever you
> want on the bathroom wall...but, if you where like a number of posters in
> this newsgroup, you'd be looking for information on how to "effectively
> communicate your ideas." Hence, the caution in responses concerning
> technology and overuse of images for technologies (and the author's ego)
> sake.
>
Uh, oh......it looks like we got one of them...ther... thar...top
posting critters.
Regardless of what you or anyone wishes to call it, when you design a
site it comes from your personal expression. If your expression is to
create a barren lifeless design, that is still your expression. if you
choose to overload a site with images and flash and applets, then that
is your personal expression. Your expressions are based upon your
beliefs and neither your beliefs, my beliefs or anyone in this groups
beliefs are wrong.
What it comes down to is preferences and no two preferences are the
same.
There are several people in this group (not as bad as CIWAH) who think
that their ideas of web-design are the only correct ideas. This is
wrong and is also bad to force your opinions on "newbies" who may be
misguided as a result
B.P.
B.P.
Isofarro wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 19:28:59 GMT, "B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote:
>
> >
> >Have you ever thought that the style can be part of the content.
>
> When it works - the effect is captivating. Unfortunately the vast
> majority of web designers are mere mortals.
>
Very true, but shouldn't this be something which all professional strive
for.
> >Using a picture to tell a
> >story, who would have really believed that "a picture is worth a
> >thousand words."
>
> Playing a purist devil's advocate for the moment - does this mean that
> we are 1000 words worse off not being able (by hook or crook) to see a
> picture?
>
No it means you had to read 1000 words less of drivel. Sometimes it
easier for people to uderstand a picture than a bunch of words.
> >Whether it is a company or a personal site, the site is an expression of
> >that corporate culture, or that persons ideology.
>
> http://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk is the best example I've seen of
> combining the style of presentation with the content.
>
As long as they dont turn mercedes into little front wheel drive
econo-boxes :')
Speaking of this, have you noticed that www.microsoft.com uses macintosh
style drop down menus instead of the their windows start menu for site
navigation
> >This is why there is such diversity. Some people will like one site,
> >and hate another. Other people will have counter opinions.
>
> Maybe this will see the introduction of two types of paths to major
> sites - the Louvre tour, or the Shakespear tour.
>
> Is catering for the lowest common denominator (browser-wise, not
> intelligence-wise) a dangerous technique?
>
No it is perfectly acceptable. However, by focusing on the least common
denominator, you are detracting from more capable configurations.
Javascript is a perfect solution to provide enhanced features for
enhanced browsing environments while degrading nicely for the least
common denominator. Unfortunately javascript is given a bad wrap
because of the abuses.
There also comes a point where a designer has to drop support for older
browsers. Now the so called "purists" will argue that they can support
all browsers which is false because some browsers cannot render tables
and will break on 99% of web-sites. Is it any different if a designer
drops ie3 or ie1, someone is being dropped.
B.P.
Johnnie ego
> > B.P. <do...@bother.me> wrote in message
news:38EA2A60...@bother.me...
> > > J Kirby Inwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Graphics for their own sake interfere with the message of a web page
or
> > ad or
> > > > any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean
you
> > should do
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > The web is a graveyard of web sites cluttered with useless graphics,
> > sound
> > > > effects, flash and splash screens that are only there because
someone
> > has no
> > > > understanding of design.
the
> > > web is what makes it such an amazing place. All those "useless"
> > > graphics and sounds are peoples personal expressions of themselves.
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that people not express themselves COMRADE.
> > I guess it depends on what purpose the site in question has. Is the
priority
> > the creator or the end user? The example above would make sense in the
> > latter, where the creator is of less import than the site visitors (just
> > check boo.com - a sad example of style over content).
>
> story, who would have really believed that "a picture is worth a
> thousand words."
The best sites, as with the best architecture, combine form and function
seemlessly. In fact the debate regarding form and function has raged in
architecture from year dot, with the modernist movement insisting that form
follows function, the post-modernists rejecting this for the reverse
concept. The issue would be with graphics and tricks for their own sake. I'm
sure we've all done this at some point, whether merely as a personal
expression or unfortunatley for a client. The key is balance. There are some
visually fantastic Flash sites out there (for example) which fail by taking
too long to deliver the user what s/he wants. For a commercial site, the
most important thing is the end user. This will often lead to curbing one's
creativity, as usability may be reduced to an unacceptable level. Going back
to architecture, there is a very famous building by Zaha Haddid in Vitra
that is incredible in it's use of form and it's spacial qualities -
architecturally brilliant, on one level, but absolutely useless as the fire
station it was intended to be (IIRC it no longer serves as a fire station,
and has become nothing more than an architectural exhibit, a folly if you
like). I would suggest that http://www.balthaser.com/ tends towards this
too. It is certainly one of the most captivating Flash sites I have seen
thus far, but is little more than an exhibit - an oddity. What does it do?
Whose purpose is it serving? For what it is, I would suggest it is fairly
successful (once you wait for the files to download, it becomes clear that
this format DOES suit the message, and that the format *is* the message) -
but something similar would not work for Yahoo, for example.
With both Web sites and architecture (for those that don't know me, this is
what I did before Web development, and I do see many similarities between
the two practices), the form IS important, but perhaps not so much as the
function. Usability, and recognition of target audience, must be the key.
The ability to reconsile form and function, without impinging upon the user
experience for your target audience, must be the aspiration of architects
and Web developers alike. There will always be parameters that compromise
you, be it the HTML language itself, download time, building regulations,
the planning authorities or the client him/herself. It's not always easy,
and takes both an understanding of the user experience and experience of the
game itself, not to mention a willingness to step back and judge your work
on it's merits, aside from ego or personal preference, and compromise.
That's not always easy, and often frustrating - as most graphic designers I
have worked with would contest : )
J Kirby Inwood
sites. None are so blind....
"B.P." <do...@bother.me> hypothesizes:
>> > : B.P. <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38EA2A60...@bother.me...
>> > : > J Kirby Inwood wrote:
>> > : > >
>> > : > > Graphics for their own sake interfere with the message of a web page
>> > or
>> > : ad or
>> > : > > any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean you
>> > : should do
>> > : > > it.
>> > : > >
>> > : > > The web is a graveyard of web sites cluttered with useless graphics,
>> > : sound
>> > : > > effects, flash and splash screens that are only there because someone
>> > : has no
>> > : > > understanding of design.
>> > : > > kirby
>> > : > >
>> > : >
>> > : >
>> > : > This is a really sad world view which you possess. The diversity of the
>> > : > web is what makes it such an amazing place. All those "useless"
>> > : > graphics and sounds are peoples personal expressions of themselves.
>> > : >
>> > : > Are you suggesting that people not express themselves COMRADE.
>> > : >
>> > :
>> > : I guess it depends on what purpose the site in question has. Is the
>> > priority
>> > : the creator or the end user? The example above would make sense in the
>> > : latter, where the creator is of less import than the site visitors (just
>> > : check boo.com - a sad example of style over content).
>> > :
>> > : 2P
>> > :
>> > : John
>> > : --
>> > : John Lyons
>> > : -----------------------------------
>> > : jo...@egovision.co.uk
>> > : *Web reference centre & tutorials:
>> > : http://www.egovision.com
>> > : *egovision professional Web design:
>> > : http://www.egovision.co.uk
>> > : -----------------------------------
>> > :
>> > :
Curious
> J Kirby Inwood <j...@krapwood.com> wrote:
> Seems that the dilettantes here are confusing vanity sites with professional
> sites. None are so blind....
Well Kirby your sad excuse for a site definitely comes under the
heading of vanity site...... You have no background, knowledge, nor
ability in graphic design yet you keep passing judgment as if you have
experience in that area and you have never provided a URL to any site
you have made that offers any graphic design period. Your sites talk
about how the message should be brief succint and to the point yet like
the pink bunny that keeps going keeps going keeps going - Your sites go
on ad naseum ad naseum ad naseum ad naseum..............
Talk about verbal diarrhea KIRBY - Your sites take the cake.
Just out of curiosity KIRBY how about posting the URL to six sites that
you have actually made for clients who actually paid you for your
effort and lets see what a famous KIRBY site looks like.
six KIRBY.......... just six will do.
REBUS
"Johnnie ego" <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message news:8cf224:
: The best sites, as with the best architecture, combine form and function
Clap, clap, clap, clap....when is the book due out?
REBUS
"B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38EAA97E...@bother.me...
:
: REBUS wrote:
: >
: > Uh, oh...it looks like we got one 'dem "the web is my oyster for
personal
: > expression"characters. To which we can only say, fine...write whatever
you
: > want on the bathroom wall...but, if you where like a number of posters
in
: > this newsgroup, you'd be looking for information on how to "effectively
: > communicate your ideas." Hence, the caution in responses concerning
: > technology and overuse of images for technologies (and the author's ego)
: > sake.
: >
:
: Uh, oh......it looks like we got one of them...ther... thar...top
: posting critters.
believe the phrase is Jepordy style posts...but since there was no question
asked, and the post referred to the entire message...
:
: Regardless of what you or anyone wishes to call it, when you design a
: site it comes from your personal expression.
No, in my case its called (or at least should be called) professional
expression. Certainly professionals have a "style", but its a style that's
put in service for the client.
:If your expression is to
: create a barren lifeless design, that is still your expression.
Well, personally, I like minimalism as a design estetic.
:if you
: choose to overload a site with images and flash and applets, then that
: is your personal expression. Your expressions are based upon your
: beliefs and neither your beliefs, my beliefs or anyone in this groups
: beliefs are wrong.
Some beliefs are more effective than others, and from a professional
standpoint, its effect that matters. Now, when we are taking about "personal
vanity site," then all bets are off, and the "author" is free to make any
design choices they wish. When an author proports to be a professional, and
asks for an opinion, its our right, if not duty to say what we think--you
included.
: What it comes down to is preferences and no two preferences are the
: same.
Hmmm, but there's usually an aggragate range of preferences (however
mis-guided) that can also be called "contempory style".
: There are several people in this group (not as bad as CIWAH) who think
: that their ideas of web-design are the only correct ideas.
True, so what.
:This is
: wrong and is also bad to force your opinions on "newbies" who may be
: misguided as a result
Those that can devine opinion from fact are more than just "newbies", they
are clueless, and neither you nor I can change that.
: B.P.
:
: > "Johnnie ego" <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message
: > news:8cdbko$17b$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
: > :
Johnnie ego
news:8chbs9$kp5$0...@216.39.131.29...
>
> "Johnnie ego" <jo...@egovision.co.uk> wrote in message news:8cf224:
<snip rambling discourse>
> Clap, clap, clap, clap....when is the book due out?
LOL! I think that was it. Care to do a foreword for me : )
B.P.
REBUS wrote:
>
> "B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38EAA97E...@bother.me...
> :
> : REBUS wrote:
> : >
> : > Uh, oh...it looks like we got one 'dem "the web is my oyster for
> personal
> : > expression"characters. To which we can only say, fine...write whatever
> you
> : > want on the bathroom wall...but, if you where like a number of posters
> in
> : > this newsgroup, you'd be looking for information on how to "effectively
> : > communicate your ideas." Hence, the caution in responses concerning
> : > technology and overuse of images for technologies (and the author's ego)
> : > sake.
> : >
> :
> : Uh, oh......it looks like we got one of them...ther... thar...top
> : posting critters.
>
> believe the phrase is Jepordy style posts...but since there was no question
> asked, and the post referred to the entire message...
> :
> : Regardless of what you or anyone wishes to call it, when you design a
> : site it comes from your personal expression.
>
> No, in my case its called (or at least should be called) professional
> expression. Certainly professionals have a "style", but its a style that's
> put in service for the client.
>
"style" "expression" it's just a matter of semantics. Either way, the
client chooses the "style" which he/she feels best reflects his/her
company.
> :If your expression is to
> : create a barren lifeless design, that is still your expression.
> Well, personally, I like minimalism as a design estetic.
>
I personally hate barren sites, but on the other hand, I also dislike
sites which overdo the "glitz."
> :if you
> : choose to overload a site with images and flash and applets, then that
> : is your personal expression. Your expressions are based upon your
> : beliefs and neither your beliefs, my beliefs or anyone in this groups
> : beliefs are wrong.
>
> Some beliefs are more effective than others, and from a professional
> standpoint, its effect that matters. Now, when we are taking about "personal
> vanity site," then all bets are off, and the "author" is free to make any
> design choices they wish. When an author proports to be a professional, and
> asks for an opinion, its our right, if not duty to say what we think--you
> included.
>
I couldn't agree more and a developer should recommend the design fit
the purpose. The requiremnets for an entertainmnet site like disney
http://www.disney.com are completely different than the requirements for
a portal site (Yahoo, Lycos etc...)
> : What it comes down to is preferences and no two preferences are the
> : same.
>
> Hmmm, but there's usually an aggragate range of preferences (however
> mis-guided) that can also be called "contempory style".
>
Agreed
> : There are several people in this group (not as bad as CIWAH) who think
> : that their ideas of web-design are the only correct ideas.
>
> True, so what.
>
The point was that my ideas, your idea, or anyone in specific ideas are
not the only solution. A designer has to stay flexible in what he/she
does or will lose a lot of business
> :This is
> : wrong and is also bad to force your opinions on "newbies" who may be
> : misguided as a result
>
> Those that can devine opinion from fact are more than just "newbies", they
> are clueless, and neither you nor I can change that.
>
Absolutely, but we can at least help guide these people so they realize
that there are many different ways to do a job and to use the right
tools for the job.
B.P.
REBUS
"B.P." <do...@bother.me> wrote in message news:38EC80F6...@bother.me...
:
:
It could be, and in this case seems to be. But again, I must emphasis (and
believe me, even with firms like razorfish, t3, saltmine, etc. its not
always the case) that a professional, needs to consider the client's
stylistic needs and not just there own. Sure, some clients will be wooed to
a web house based on thier "own" style, but in my experiance most come to a
web house based on "reputation" with no knowledge of the house style. Then,
the web house totally mis-reads the clients needs (usually because the
client has a hard time expressing it) and creates something completely out
of wack.
: > :If your expression is to
: > : create a barren lifeless design, that is still your expression.
: > Well, personally, I like minimalism as a design estetic.
: >
:
: I personally hate barren sites, but on the other hand, I also dislike
: sites which overdo the "glitz."
Barren and minimilist are not necessarly the same thing. A good minimilist
design would not appear "empty." It would just take the most "efficient"
route.
: > :if you
: > : choose to overload a site with images and flash and applets, then that
: > : is your personal expression. Your expressions are based upon your
: > : beliefs and neither your beliefs, my beliefs or anyone in this groups
: > : beliefs are wrong.
: >
: > Some beliefs are more effective than others, and from a professional
: > standpoint, its effect that matters. Now, when we are taking about
"personal
: > vanity site," then all bets are off, and the "author" is free to make
any
: > design choices they wish. When an author proports to be a professional,
and
: > asks for an opinion, its our right, if not duty to say what we
think--you
: > included.
: >
:
: I couldn't agree more and a developer should recommend the design fit
: the purpose. The requiremnets for an entertainmnet site like disney
: http://www.disney.com are completely different than the requirements for
: a portal site (Yahoo, Lycos etc...)
Yea, its one of the reasons I never do a "site" review for a home page...I
have no idea of what the criteria should be...maybe the faq should have a
little form for site reviews allowing requestors to judge on appropriate
measures.
:
: > : What it comes down to is preferences and no two preferences are the
: > : same.
: >
: > Hmmm, but there's usually an aggragate range of preferences (however
: > mis-guided) that can also be called "contempory style".
: >
:
: Agreed
:
: > : There are several people in this group (not as bad as CIWAH) who think
: > : that their ideas of web-design are the only correct ideas.
: >
: > True, so what.
: >
:
: The point was that my ideas, your idea, or anyone in specific ideas are
: not the only solution. A designer has to stay flexible in what he/she
: does or will lose a lot of business
Well now we get into a sticker relm...that of professional design skills and
client needs. Clients usually don't know, from a design/development/content
standpoint, what they need. I can't count (at least one my hands) the number
of times clients have asked for a "chat room" or "message board", or
rotating dohicky with no idea what that feature should accomplish.
This, to me is completely out of the relm of
design/developement/appropriateness issues and more towards client
expectation management (simply put, convincing the client that what they
asked for is exactly what you gave them).
But I think I understand the larger aspect, and yes, a certain faction of
certain newsgroups refuse to think beyond the "must be simple" princable.
Personally though, I have never called them to task on it because I think
the world needs that perspective heard, and its becoming a dim whimper. That
being said, any one who has taken a graphics, art or whatever design class
should surely remember that you start working with simple elements first,
before you get the whole paint box.
:
: > :This is
: > : wrong and is also bad to force your opinions on "newbies" who may be
: > : misguided as a result
: >
: > Those that can devine opinion from fact are more than just "newbies",
they
: > are clueless, and neither you nor I can change that.
: >
:
: Absolutely, but we can at least help guide these people so they realize
: that there are many different ways to do a job and to use the right
: tools for the job.
Yea, I know what you are saying. It just gets so damn fustrating everytime
someone comes here and says..."how can I get MY fonts to appear on
everyone's computer." Regardless of the arguments for this type on
implementation, this, to me, smacks of "I just opened my 164 color paint box
and want to know how to paint the mona-lisa...
:
: B.P.
B.P.
Assuming you are dealing with an established business, and not an
internet startup, the client will decide what best reflects his existing
business. A start up with no established brand is a different story as
the design house has to not just build a site, they also have to
engineer a brand image
The reputation comes from the firms "style". If you look at the client
list from the above companies, you will notice that each attracts a
specific type of business. Looking at http://www.saltmine.com , you
will see their clients tend to be more conservative type companies...
(even with the javascript errors :')
Looking at http://www.razorfish.com their client list is dominated by
more progressive entertainment companies.
While both have a solid mix of companies, their clients are dominated by
certain types of companies. This may also be due to the "good ol' boys
network" though.
> : > :If your expression is to
> : > : create a barren lifeless design, that is still your expression.
> : > Well, personally, I like minimalism as a design estetic.
>: I personally hate barren sites, but on the other hand, I also dislike
>: sites which overdo the "glitz."
> Barren and minimilist are not necessarly the same thing. A good minimilist
> design would not appear "empty." It would just take the most "efficient"
> route.
I think there was a bit of miscommunication there.
> : I couldn't agree more and a developer should recommend the design fit
> : the purpose. The requiremnets for an entertainmnet site like disney
> : http://www.disney.com are completely different than the requirements for
> : a portal site (Yahoo, Lycos etc...)
>
> Yea, its one of the reasons I never do a "site" review for a home page...I
> have no idea of what the criteria should be...maybe the faq should have a
> little form for site reviews allowing requestors to judge on appropriate
> measures.
Ditto
> :
> : The point was that my ideas, your idea, or anyone in specific ideas are
> : not the only solution. A designer has to stay flexible in what he/she
> : does or will lose a lot of business
>
> Well now we get into a sticker relm...that of professional design skills and
> client needs. Clients usually don't know, from a design/development/content
> standpoint, what they need. I can't count (at least one my hands) the number
> of times clients have asked for a "chat room" or "message board", or
> rotating dohicky with no idea what that feature should accomplish.
> This, to me is completely out of the relm of
> design/developement/appropriateness issues and more towards client
> expectation management (simply put, convincing the client that what they
> asked for is exactly what you gave them).
>
A professional in any field has to keep clients from self destructing.
> But I think I understand the larger aspect, and yes, a certain faction of
> certain newsgroups refuse to think beyond the "must be simple" princable.
> Personally though, I have never called them to task on it because I think
> the world needs that perspective heard, and its becoming a dim whimper. That
> being said, any one who has taken a graphics, art or whatever design class
> should surely remember that you start working with simple elements first,
> before you get the whole paint box.
While there is nothing wrong with the "let's keep it simple approach,"
there is also nothing wrong with a "flambouyant" approach. Either way
if you go to the extreme, you will lose visitors. Moderationa nd
suitability for the subject matter will assure a site of the broadest
possible range of visitors.
I do agree that there is a tendency for people to bypass the basics.
>
> Yea, I know what you are saying. It just gets so damn fustrating everytime
> someone comes here and says..."how can I get MY fonts to appear on
> everyone's computer." Regardless of the arguments for this type on
> implementation, this, to me, smacks of "I just opened my 164 color paint box
> and want to know how to paint the mona-lisa...
Sometimes a little tolerance can bring a lot of reward :')
B.P.
Lawless
J Kirby Inwood wrote:
>
> Graphics for their own sake interfere with the message of a web page or ad or
> any other communication. Just because you can do it, does not mean you should do
> it.
What if the message of a web page is to diplay something visually?
You have no idea what you're talking about. Graphics can definitely
contribute to a web page, by providing information, as well as spacing
out text and giving reader's a break. But would you rather have
everyone's page looks like yours - cluttered with tons of text so that
it's very difficult to read and navigate, not to mention unnattractive
on the eyes.