My Gripes on Web design..
biiin
I just wanted to post a msg on some of the annoying over-used things on the
web. If any of this is on your page or u get offended , then dont.. because i
used them on my page too. Just my opinion.
1.MIDI's.... I see way too many people putting MIDI's or other autostart
audio files on their pages. My suggestiong is to put the control panel at the
bottom so that if the user wants to hear it, he can start it. Most pages now
use the autostart, loop, and hidden controls so u have no control over these.
2. There is way too many animated gifs out there.. If you have more than 2
on your web page, I'd reconsider. These usually take a while to load and get
annoying looking at them.
3. Frames.. Dont over use the frames. Ive seen a few pages with so many
frames that its hard as hell to navagite at 640x480. Most of the times these
site can better organize it and use less if not any frames.
4. Javascript: Clocks, spin off windows, mail senders, etc, etc. Javascipt
is a useful, powerful tool, but sometimes it can be over used. One example
is with clocks. Im sure everyone had a clock on either their desktop, wall,
or toolbar. This grip doesnt complain about the creative uses like days till
2000 or whatever, but days till your birthday doesnt interest me. Also the
status bar messages are a big headache. I like to see the progress of whats
loading but the msg usually interferes with it. I usually have to get rid of
the status bar (crtl+S) to avoid this one. Spin off windows and all of that
havent been too big of a problem but some of the people that use them do over
do it.
5. Now the all too common huge file sizes. I read where C-net says they try
to keep their pages under 30k i beleive but if u have visited Cnet lately, you
see its not try with all their flashy graphics, but it is a good goal. If
you have a page of pics, try using thumbnails... Or if u have a huge picture,
use jpg instead of GIF..
6. Browser specific pages. I only have one browser and i only use one..
NETSCAPE 3.0 Ive had it since early beta and thats what im sticking too.
I believe in a perfect world, all browsers would be equal, but since thats not
true, keep pages with HTML standard. I missing stuff on pages because it
wont display on my browser. This is usually some Microsoft forced thing they
try to create like VBSCRIPT or ACTIVEX and all that other stuff..
7. Plugins.. Too many different plugins.. Too many sites require different
plugins in order to see something that i probably wouldnt want to see anyways.
I dont know anyone that has time to d/l every plug in for every page. I'd
suggest that you people that use plugins have javascript (like i said, js can
be useful) to check for the plugins that us users have.
Anyways.. I think that I have probably pissed off enough people for now, but
hopefully I have given yall something to think about when designing pages. I
am by no means an expert but when I am subjected to criticism, I usually
evualate it before i flame the author :)
I'd also like to hear anyone else grips or responses to this..
Thanks
biiin
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8570/
Take the NOSPAM out of my address to reply via email.
Stop the spam....
Wendy Jervis
In article <777cd$0352a.1b3@NETSERVER2>, biiin <NOSPA...@hotmail.com>
writes
>I'd also like to hear anyone else grips or responses to this..
Only one thing to say really... I agree wholeheartedly!
--
Wendy Jervis
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
NOSPA...@hotmail.com (biiin) wrote:
>I just wanted to post a msg on some of the annoying over-used things on the
>web. If any of this is on your page or u get offended , then dont.. because i
>used them on my page too. Just my opinion.
>1.MIDI's.... I see way too many people putting MIDI's or other autostart
>audio files on their pages. My suggestiong is to put the control panel at the
>bottom so that if the user wants to hear it, he can start it. Most pages now
>use the autostart, loop, and hidden controls so u have no control over these.
Not a bad idea. My computer won't even play MIDIs because I never
installed the software, so I just get a pop-up notice that the MIDI
can't play. Which is fine with me.
>2. There is way too many animated gifs out there.. If you have more than 2
>on your web page, I'd reconsider. These usually take a while to load and get
>annoying looking at them.
They also slow response, even with graphics turned off. When I'm
trying to go somewhere else, and there's an animated GIF on the page,
I find I have to click frantically on the link any number of times
before I get a response.
>3. Frames.. Dont over use the frames. Ive seen a few pages with so many
>frames that its hard as hell to navagite at 640x480. Most of the times these
>site can better organize it and use less if not any frames.
I don't know much about frames, never use them and probably never
will. I do note some peculariaties with them. If you have images
turned off and try to load images, evidently they load only into the
main frame. Since about 90% of the sites I've seen use a menu of
images (without ALT tags, of course) down the left side, this means I
either have to (1) load each image individually or (2) test each image
with the mouse to see if that gives me some idea of where it will take
me.
Also, using the Back button seems to give unpredictable results with
frames.
>4. Javascript: Clocks, spin off windows, mail senders, etc, etc. Javascipt
>is a useful, powerful tool, but sometimes it can be over used. One example
>is with clocks. Im sure everyone had a clock on either their desktop, wall,
>or toolbar. This grip doesnt complain about the creative uses like days till
>2000 or whatever, but days till your birthday doesnt interest me. Also the
>status bar messages are a big headache. I like to see the progress of whats
>loading but the msg usually interferes with it. I usually have to get rid of
>the status bar (crtl+S) to avoid this one. Spin off windows and all of that
>havent been too big of a problem but some of the people that use them do over
>do it.
Again, these things also slow browser response.
>5. Now the all too common huge file sizes. I read where C-net says they try
>to keep their pages under 30k i beleive but if u have visited Cnet lately, you
>see its not try with all their flashy graphics, but it is a good goal. If
>you have a page of pics, try using thumbnails... Or if u have a huge picture,
>use jpg instead of GIF..
I've never tested this, but it seems to me that JPGs aren't
significantly faster than GIFs, even though the file size may be
smaller. It may have something to do with the higher compression
ratio, which requires more deciphering? Or maybe my impression is
simply mistaken.
>6. Browser specific pages. I only have one browser and i only use one..
>NETSCAPE 3.0 Ive had it since early beta and thats what im sticking too.
>I believe in a perfect world, all browsers would be equal, but since thats not
>true, keep pages with HTML standard. I missing stuff on pages because it
>wont display on my browser. This is usually some Microsoft forced thing they
>try to create like VBSCRIPT or ACTIVEX and all that other stuff..
>7. Plugins.. Too many different plugins.. Too many sites require different
>plugins in order to see something that i probably wouldnt want to see anyways.
>I dont know anyone that has time to d/l every plug in for every page. I'd
>suggest that you people that use plugins have javascript (like i said, js can
>be useful) to check for the plugins that us users have.
I have no plug-ins and wouldn't download one for anything.
>Anyways.. I think that I have probably pissed off enough people for now, but
>hopefully I have given yall something to think about when designing pages. I
>am by no means an expert but when I am subjected to criticism, I usually
>evualate it before i flame the author :)
If you've pissed anybody off, they probably deserve it.
>I'd also like to hear anyone else grips or responses to this..
>Thanks
>biiin
>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8570/
>Take the NOSPAM out of my address to reply via email.
>Stop the spam....
--
Ralph Hickok
Author "The Pro Football Fan's Companion"
Macmillan, 1995 (Paper--Green & Gold Cover)
Hickok's Sports History: http://www.ultranet.com/~rhickok/
Lars Marius Garshol
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
>
>>use jpg instead of GIF..
>
>I've never tested this, but it seems to me that JPGs aren't
>significantly faster than GIFs, even though the file size may be
>smaller. It may have something to do with the higher compression
>ratio, which requires more deciphering? Or maybe my impression is
>simply mistaken.
It's not. JPEG uses Fourier analysis in the compression, which is decidedly
heavier than GIFs Lempel-Ziv Welch. I don't think this makes much difference
on a fast computer, but your comment about animated GIFs made me think you
have a slow computer.
JPEG is not necessarily smaller than the equivalent GIFs (at least not at an
acceptable quality). What JPEG does is basically to save most of the info in
the image and then restore it as an image that is a little blurred. To test
this, take a photo and draw a circle on it, then save it and view at at a
really large magnification. You'll see the color from the circle has tainted
nearby pixels.
GIF, by comparison, saves the image excactly (so-called lossless
compression) by exploiting bit sequences that are repeated. This makes it
very well suited for images with few colors, simple raster or simple line
drawings. For photographs, JPEG is likely to be better.
BTW: The gripes from mr. Biiin are pretty much in accord with my own.
--Lars M.
________________________________________________________________________
Lars Marius Garshol
"Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot", Bill Arnett
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
lar...@ifi.uio.no (Lars Marius Garshol) wrote:
>rhi...@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
>>
>>>use jpg instead of GIF..
>>
>>I've never tested this, but it seems to me that JPGs aren't
>>significantly faster than GIFs, even though the file size may be
>>smaller. It may have something to do with the higher compression
>>ratio, which requires more deciphering? Or maybe my impression is
>>simply mistaken.
>It's not. JPEG uses Fourier analysis in the compression, which is decidedly
>heavier than GIFs Lempel-Ziv Welch. I don't think this makes much difference
>on a fast computer, but your comment about animated GIFs made me think you
>have a slow computer.
Between my home and my office, I use 7 or 8 computers of varying
speeds and conformations (including my wife's Mac) for Internet access
at various times. None of them is super-fast, but none of them is
super-slow, either. Seems to me I've expereicne the animated GIF
problem on all of them, but maybe not.
The one I use most commonly is a 486/125, and animated GIFs are
certainly a problem there. The odd thing I notice is the repeated
access when an animation is running. (Netscape 3.01). Even though I
have images turned off, I guess it accesses the server whenever it's
supposed to get a new image to continue the animation. Could that be
right?
BTW, I've never used JPEGs for the Web because my understanding is
that a fairly high percentage of browsers still can't handle them.
True or false?
>JPEG is not necessarily smaller than the equivalent GIFs (at least not at an
>acceptable quality). What JPEG does is basically to save most of the info in
>the image and then restore it as an image that is a little blurred. To test
>this, take a photo and draw a circle on it, then save it and view at at a
>really large magnification. You'll see the color from the circle has tainted
>nearby pixels.
>GIF, by comparison, saves the image excactly (so-called lossless
>compression) by exploiting bit sequences that are repeated. This makes it
>very well suited for images with few colors, simple raster or simple line
>drawings. For photographs, JPEG is likely to be better.
>BTW: The gripes from mr. Biiin are pretty much in accord with my own.
>--Lars M.
>________________________________________________________________________
> Lars Marius Garshol
> "Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot", Bill Arnett
> http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
--
Tom Lane
Responding to various comments (hope I got all the attributions right):
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
>>> I've never tested this, but it seems to me that JPGs aren't
>>> significantly faster than GIFs, even though the file size may be
>>> smaller.
What do you mean by "faster"? JPEGs take more CPU time to decompress,
but for typical Web-browsing setups the file size (download time) is the
critical factor. Whichever format gives the physically smaller file
will be faster.
lar...@ifi.uio.no (Lars Marius Garshol) wrote:
>> JPEG is not necessarily smaller than the equivalent GIFs (at least
>> not at an acceptable quality).
For the sort of image JPEG is intended for (ie, photos), it *will* be
smaller than GIF. Substantially so. And better quality too. On the
other hand, for the kind of image GIF excels on, it will beat JPEG
on both quality and file size. If you haven't absorbed the minimal
knowledge about what kind of image each format is suited for, you have
no business calling yourself a Web graphics designer.
Some reference pages I usually recommend for this include:
http://www.servtech.com/public/dougg/graphics/index.html
http://www.webreference.com/dev/graphics/
http://www.adobe.com/studio/tipstechniques/GIFJPGchart/main.html
http://the-light.com/netcol.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/
http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/Poynton-colour.html
http://www.photo.net/philg/how-to-scan-photos.html
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com writes:
> BTW, I've never used JPEGs for the Web because my understanding is
> that a fairly high percentage of browsers still can't handle them.
> True or false?
False. Unless perhaps you are living in Upper Volta. Every self-
respecting browser since Netscape 1.0 (yes, I said ONE point 0) has
supported baseline JPEG. If your web pages are otherwise fully
conformant to HTML 1.0 --- no frames, no animated GIFs, no tables,
no backgrounds, no plugins, no nothing --- you might have a rationale
for not using JPEG.
There's still a weak compatibility argument for not using progressive
JPEG ... heavens, that wasn't supported by Netscape until 2.0. That
makes it roughly Bronze Age in Web years, as opposed to Neolithic
baseline JPEG, or Paleolithic GIF...
regards, tom lane
organizer, Independent JPEG Group
Liam Quinn
On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 01:28:33 GMT, rhi...@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
>The one I use most commonly is a 486/125, and animated GIFs are
>certainly a problem there. The odd thing I notice is the repeated
>access when an animation is running. (Netscape 3.01). Even though I
>have images turned off, I guess it accesses the server whenever it's
>supposed to get a new image to continue the animation. Could that be
>right?
It sounds more like you're using Netscape 2.x (in which case the
browser reads the GIF from the cache with each animation loop) or
you're seeing a
server-push/client-pull/whatever-you-want-to-call-the-hack animation,
in which case the server continuously sends out new images, over and
over again until you leave the page or die. (Okay, the images keep
coming if you die, but proving this is difficult.)
>BTW, I've never used JPEGs for the Web because my understanding is
>that a fairly high percentage of browsers still can't handle them.
>True or false?
False.
Liam Quinn
=============== http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/ ===============
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/
news
I subscribe to this newsgroup not because I design but becuase my company
needs to have design done, and I like to keep up with what designers are
doing/thinking. In addition to this, spending more than 20 hours per week
online, I have come to my own conclusions on design and performance.
In general I feel that PRINCIPLED RESTRAINT and CONTROL are key design
criteria for effective presentations in a world of dial-up modems. Like an
architect with many choices in materials and styles, today's designers have
a wide, dare I say bewildering, array of tools to construct their pages all
requiring the browser to have that specific interface to display the
content - this is a great opportunity for ineffecive presentations.
Off the top of head, some pages which I like a lot are www.porsche.com ,
www.lotus.com, and www.mid-point.com. Porsche just has fabulous,
no-thrills design; Lotus has ONE clean and and niffty, restrained animated
gif image; and mid-point has given, what seems to me, a "frame" look with a
great control over graphic size.
Regarding JAVA, many people are turning off the option becuase of some
potentially neffarious code - I dare not even mention ActiveX.
In general, I almost totally agree with biiin while looking forward to the
day when we all have ADSL modems to nullify all bandwith concerns.
scott
biiin 寫入到標題物件 <777cd$0352a.1b3@NETSERVER2>...
>
>I just wanted to post a msg on some of the annoying over-used things on
the
>web. If any of this is on your page or u get offended , then dont..
because i
>used them on my page too. Just my opinion.
>
>1.MIDI's.... I see way too many people putting MIDI's or other autostart
>audio files on their pages. My suggestiong is to put the control panel at
the
>
>bottom so that if the user wants to hear it, he can start it. Most pages
now
>use the autostart, loop, and hidden controls so u have no control over
these.
>
>2. There is way too many animated gifs out there.. If you have more than
2
>on your web page, I'd reconsider. These usually take a while to load and
get
>annoying looking at them.
>
>3. Frames.. Dont over use the frames. Ive seen a few pages with so
many
>frames that its hard as hell to navagite at 640x480. Most of the times
these
>site can better organize it and use less if not any frames.
>
>4. Javascript: Clocks, spin off windows, mail senders, etc, etc.
Javascipt
>is a useful, powerful tool, but sometimes it can be over used. One
example
>is with clocks. Im sure everyone had a clock on either their desktop,
wall,
>or toolbar. This grip doesnt complain about the creative uses like days
till
>2000 or whatever, but days till your birthday doesnt interest me. Also
the
>status bar messages are a big headache. I like to see the progress of
whats
>loading but the msg usually interferes with it. I usually have to get rid
of
>the status bar (crtl+S) to avoid this one. Spin off windows and all of
that
>havent been too big of a problem but some of the people that use them do
over
>do it.
>
>
>5. Now the all too common huge file sizes. I read where C-net says they
try
>to keep their pages under 30k i beleive but if u have visited Cnet lately,
you
>
>see its not try with all their flashy graphics, but it is a good goal.
If
>you have a page of pics, try using thumbnails... Or if u have a huge
picture,
>
>use jpg instead of GIF..
>
>6. Browser specific pages. I only have one browser and i only use one..
>NETSCAPE 3.0 Ive had it since early beta and thats what im sticking too.
>I believe in a perfect world, all browsers would be equal, but since thats
not
>
>true, keep pages with HTML standard. I missing stuff on pages because
it
>wont display on my browser. This is usually some Microsoft forced thing
they
>try to create like VBSCRIPT or ACTIVEX and all that other stuff..
>
>7. Plugins.. Too many different plugins.. Too many sites require
different
>plugins in order to see something that i probably wouldnt want to see
anyways.
>
>I dont know anyone that has time to d/l every plug in for every page.
I'd
>suggest that you people that use plugins have javascript (like i said, js
can
>be useful) to check for the plugins that us users have.
>
>Anyways.. I think that I have probably pissed off enough people for now,
but
>hopefully I have given yall something to think about when designing pages.
I
>am by no means an expert but when I am subjected to criticism, I usually
>evualate it before i flame the author :)
>
Diane Wilson
In article <777cd$0352a.1b3@NETSERVER2>, NOSPA...@hotmail.com (biiin) writes:
|>
|> I just wanted to post a msg on some of the annoying over-used things on the
|> web. If any of this is on your page or u get offended , then dont.. because i
|> used them on my page too. Just my opinion.
|>
|> 1.MIDI's.... I see way too many people putting MIDI's or other autostart
|> audio files on their pages. My suggestiong is to put the control panel at the
|> bottom so that if the user wants to hear it, he can start it. Most pages now
|> use the autostart, loop, and hidden controls so u have no control over these.
Software not installed. Speakers unplugged and turned off.
Sound should *always* be under user control. That includes starting it.
|> 2. There is way too many animated gifs out there.. If you have more than 2
|> on your web page, I'd reconsider. These usually take a while to load and get
|> annoying looking at them.
If you've used more than 2 in your entire life, you need to ask yourself
why? They are *extremely* annoying, and interfere with the usability of
a page.
|> 3. Frames.. Dont over use the frames. Ive seen a few pages with so many
|> frames that its hard as hell to navagite at 640x480. Most of the times these
|> site can better organize it and use less if not any frames.
Frames? What are they?
|> 4. Javascript: Clocks, spin off windows, mail senders, etc, etc. Javascipt
|> is a useful, powerful tool, but sometimes it can be over used. One example
|> is with clocks. Im sure everyone had a clock on either their desktop, wall,
|> or toolbar. This grip doesnt complain about the creative uses like days till
|> 2000 or whatever, but days till your birthday doesnt interest me. Also the
|> status bar messages are a big headache. I like to see the progress of whats
|> loading but the msg usually interferes with it. I usually have to get rid of
|> the status bar (crtl+S) to avoid this one. Spin off windows and all of that
|> havent been too big of a problem but some of the people that use them do over
|> do it.
One of my favorite adages about design is that a design is complete when
there's nothing left to take away. With almost *anything* done in JS,
you can take it away and not miss it.
|> 5. Now the all too common huge file sizes. I read where C-net says they try
|> to keep their pages under 30k i beleive but if u have visited Cnet lately, you
|> see its not try with all their flashy graphics, but it is a good goal. If
|> you have a page of pics, try using thumbnails... Or if u have a huge picture,
|> use jpg instead of GIF..
I see 50K recommended more often than 30K, but the point is well taken.
There are occasional exceptions, and it's usually good policy to warn people
on the link. But occasionally you can't avoid it, and it's on your home
page or something else that gets external links. The next-best solution is
to keep the top of the page fast-loading, and to make the page usable without
having to wait for everything to load.
One must also learn that "medium" quality is fine for screen jpegs, and
that palette-minimizing for gifs is an essential part of one's craft.
|> 6. Browser specific pages. I only have one browser and i only use one..
|> NETSCAPE 3.0 Ive had it since early beta and thats what im sticking too.
|> I believe in a perfect world, all browsers would be equal, but since thats not
|> true, keep pages with HTML standard. I missing stuff on pages because it
|> wont display on my browser. This is usually some Microsoft forced thing they
|> try to create like VBSCRIPT or ACTIVEX and all that other stuff..
There is no excuse for a browser-specific page. You don't design for
browsers; you design for people.
|> 7. Plugins.. Too many different plugins.. Too many sites require different
|> plugins in order to see something that i probably wouldnt want to see anyways.
|> I dont know anyone that has time to d/l every plug in for every page. I'd
|> suggest that you people that use plugins have javascript (like i said, js can
|> be useful) to check for the plugins that us users have.
Not only do I not download plugins, I usually leave the site when I run
into such a request.
|> Anyways.. I think that I have probably pissed off enough people for now, but
|> hopefully I have given yall something to think about when designing pages. I
|> am by no means an expert but when I am subjected to criticism, I usually
|> evualate it before i flame the author :)
8. Any use of <font> tags. <font> can easily make pages unreadable.
9. Advertisements. Why would I want to put an advertisement on my site
that would take people *away*? And advertising brokers like LinkExchange
give you *one* ad for every *two* that you display--a losing proposition
if I ever saw one.
Beyond that, pages need to be focused. The first thing that an advertisement
tells me is that the designer hasn't even thought about focusing his page
on his message.
10. Entry pages. Why, why, WHY? All they do is remind you that the net
is SLOW. I really hate it when a site is designed like an obstacle course.
--
Diane Wilson | Most of my symphonies are tombstones.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com |
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | --Dmitri Shostakovich
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ |
Jeff Wilkinson
In article <5pr8d8$hp7$1...@decius.ultra.net>, rhi...@ma.ultranet.com says...
>
>NOSPA...@hotmail.com (biiin) wrote:
>
>>I just wanted to post a msg on some of the annoying over-used things on the
>>web. If any of this is on your page or u get offended , then dont.. because i
>>used them on my page too. Just my opinion.
I agree with all of these. Some notes added.
jw
>>1.MIDI's.... I see way too many people putting MIDI's or other autostart
>>audio files on their pages. My suggestiong is to put the control panel at the
>>bottom so that if the user wants to hear it, he can start it. Most pages now
>>use the autostart, loop, and hidden controls so u have no control over these.
And each time you go to the page, it gives you the stupid little
dialog saying you can't play it. Try to navigate through a site
with these on each page and you hit that dialog every page and
every Back. Gets REALLY annoying after about 3 times.
>>2. There is way too many animated gifs out there.. If you have more than 2
>>on your web page, I'd reconsider. These usually take a while to load and get
>>annoying looking at them.
And if you want to print the page, netscape often has trouble.
On my work machine, with HP laserjet drivers, it GPFs most times
when I try to print with any animations on the page. I often have
to go back a page, turn image loading off, clear the cache,
and go to the page again before I'm safe to print. Those banners
that so many pages use for ads are the worst.
>>3. Frames.. Dont over use the frames. Ive seen a few pages with so many
>>frames that its hard as hell to navagite at 640x480. Most of the times these
>>site can better organize it and use less if not any frames.
And navigation and bookmarks are a pain.
Also, don't link to external things so that they come up
within a frame.
>>6. Browser specific pages. I only have one browser and i only use one..
>>NETSCAPE 3.0 Ive had it since early beta and thats what im sticking too.
>>I believe in a perfect world, all browsers would be equal, but since thats not
>>true, keep pages with HTML standard. I missing stuff on pages because it
>>wont display on my browser.
Agree WHOLE-HEARTEDLY. Don't let MSIE or Netscape divide up the web.
It should be usable by everyone. Use extensions only after very careful
thought about whether it is really necessary and who loses when it can't
be seen. (generally author and surfer)
Nice suggestions overall.
jw
--
--------------------------------------------
Jeff Wilkinson jwilk...@who.net <><
____________________________________________
Lynn Alford
http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/web.html
The Care and Feeding of Web pages. Read it, you may enjoy it.
Lynn
--
lynn....@jcu.edu.au | "And most important, trust no ones
lal...@nyx.cs.du.edu | steps but your own." Ruby 1
Centre for Interactive Multimedia | http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/
Game Review pages based at http://www.jcu.edu.au/~imla/games2.html
Matt Henderson
In article <TGL.97Ju...@netcom4.netcom.com>, t...@netcom.com (Tom Lane)
wrote:
> For the sort of image JPEG is intended for (ie, photos), it *will* be
> smaller than GIF. Substantially so. And better quality too.
In my experience, by adaptively indexing photographic images to around
5-bits one can sometimes produce GIFs which are actually smaller than JPEGs
of similar quality (as viewed in a browser dithering to 216 colors).
> There's still a weak compatibility argument for not using progressive
> JPEG ...
Yep. I recently created a slide show of a vacation using progressive JPEG
images, and about 20% of the people on my mailing list reported being
unable to view the site.
Regards,
-- matt
--
Matt Henderson
Exponet International, Ltd.
http://www.intl.expo.net/
mhen...@netcom.com
Tom Lane
mhen...@netcom.com (Matt Henderson) writes:
> In my experience, by adaptively indexing photographic images to around
> 5-bits one can sometimes produce GIFs which are actually smaller than JPEGs
> of similar quality (as viewed in a browser dithering to 216 colors).
There are some browsers in which that *might* produce better quality,
but in Netscape I don't believe it. Netscape will redither your
carefully-chosen adaptive palette into its usual 216 colors, producing
a mess.* There's no way the result will beat out a (properly made) JPEG.
regards, tom lane
organizer, Independent JPEG Group
* well, in some versions of Netscape you *can* get the browser to use an
adaptive palette, if you put the GIF alone on a page with no background
or anything. But if you're willing to design your site that way, you
should just expect people to view out-of-line images using a real image
viewer ... that way will produce far better results than bare Netscape
for either JPEG or GIF.
One should also keep in mind that users who care about image quality
are likely running better-than-8-bit display hardware these days.
Optimizing your photos for the 8-bit case, at a substantial sacrifice
of quality for higher bit depths, is probably a mistake.
Charles A Smith
Diane, how do "FONT" tags make pages unreadable?
Chuck Smith
Lars Marius Garshol
cas...@ksu.edu (Charles A Smith) writes:
>
> Diane, how do "FONT" tags make pages unreadable?
I'm not Diane, but this should give you what you want anyway:
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/%7Emudws/font.html
--
Diane Wilson
In article <wkrad84...@ifi.uio.no>, Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
|>
|> cas...@ksu.edu (Charles A Smith) writes:
|> >
|> > Diane, how do "FONT" tags make pages unreadable?
|>
|> I'm not Diane, but this should give you what you want anyway:
|> http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/%7Emudws/font.html
Yup, that's Warren Steele's rant on <font>, and it should be required
reading for every web designer.
But the short answer is that <font> plays into a variety of unpredictables
about platforms and compatability issues.
<font color> for instance. Most users can override colors specified on
<body> but not on <font>. Or <font color> may be used inside <td> with
a background color, which isn't supported on all browsers. The result
can end up as "white text on a white background" or some other such
unreadable combination.
Or <font face>. In order to ensure that <font face> actually picks a
font that the user has, most designers pick a list of generic Helvetica-
related or Times-related fonts. These are among the worst-designed
fonts in the world for screen display. The irony is that <font face>
is most dangerous when it *does* work as the designer intended. And even
then, it doesn't do a bloody thing to help control layout if you're
trying to fit type precisely into a fixed-size space (like, say, a
non-resizable frame).
And <font size>. A lot of designers go to smaller size type for some
reason or another. It's hell on those of us with bad eyes. It also
doesn't take into account that there is close to 100% variation between
default type sizes on Windows and some common Unix platforms, USING
EXACTLY THE SAME TYPEFACES AND POINT SIZES. (Yes, exactly the same
typefaces, Adobe Postscript Times and Helvetica.) So while <font size="-1">
might compensate for Windows' poor type management, it will be microscopic
on my Unix workstation.
Anyway, read Warren's rant. It's good.
John Pangia
So far this has been a very good thread. Would like to throw in a page
that I stumbled across.
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
Really much better than it sounds, and should be read by anyone that
wants to build a homepage.
John
--
Altered Images
http://www.jersey.net/~usns/
Steve Grant
In article <5pu3mr$h...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, diane....@pobox.com wrote:
>
> In article <777cd$0352a.1b3@NETSERVER2>, NOSPA...@hotmail.com (biiin)
> writes:
..
> |> you have a page of pics, try using thumbnails... Or if u have a huge
> picture,
> |> use jpg instead of GIF..
>
> I see 50K recommended more often than 30K, but the point is well taken.
> There are occasional exceptions, and it's usually good policy to warn people
> on the link. But occasionally you can't avoid it, and it's on your home
> page or something else that gets external links. The next-best solution is
> to keep the top of the page fast-loading, and to make the page usable without
> having to wait for everything to load.
>
> One must also learn that "medium" quality is fine for screen jpegs, and
> that palette-minimizing for gifs is an essential part of one's craft.
At the expense of asking off-topic questions for this site-design
newsgroup: What is a suggested minimum compression value for jpg
"medium" quality - or is this a case by case evaluation, depending on
things like height/width or maybe total image area for a single web
page? Related question: is it worth fiddling with compression/palette
to reduce image file size below some minimum thumbnail value, say, 5K?
Steve
--
Steve Grant
sgr...@iglou.com
http://www.iglou.com/sgrant/
Tom Lane
sgr...@iglou.com (Steve Grant) writes:
> At the expense of asking off-topic questions for this site-design
> newsgroup:
This really belongs in c.i.w.a.images, and I set followups accordingly.
> What is a suggested minimum compression value for jpg
> "medium" quality - or is this a case by case evaluation, depending on
> things like height/width or maybe total image area for a single web
> page?
It's a case-by-case situation, really; some images show artifacts more
readily than others. And don't forget that JPEG quality scales aren't
standardized anyway. On the fairly-widely-used IJG scale, somewhere
between 50 and 75 is probably what you want, but there's no substitute
for experimentation...
> Related question: is it worth fiddling with compression/palette
> to reduce image file size below some minimum thumbnail value, say, 5K?
I don't think there's a hard-and-fast answer to that one either.
Depends on your purpose for the page, how many images on the page,
etc. etc. I would suggest that your opening page should load in a few
seconds, and that you not waste much download time on gewgaws such as
fancy navigation buttons. But if the *content* of your site is, say,
nice photos of rare African butterflies, then by all means provide
good high-quality photos. Just lay out the site so that the visitor
knows what it is they're waiting for. (If you're way ahead of me,
and are wondering how big to make thumbnails that link to out-of-line
large images, I still say it depends on how many thumbnails per page.
But yeah, I'd make the thumbnails just a couple K if I could. They
don't need to be high quality if they're just there to give the
visitor a whiff of what the full-size image is like.)
d_walla
Diane Wilson wrote:
>
> In article <wkrad84...@ifi.uio.no>, Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> |>
> |> cas...@ksu.edu (Charles A Smith) writes:
> |> >
> |> > Diane, how do "FONT" tags make pages unreadable?
> |>
> |> I'm not Diane, but this should give you what you want anyway:
> |> http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/%7Emudws/font.html
>
> Yup, that's Warren Steele's rant on <font>, and it should be required
> reading for every web designer.
> --
> Diane Wilson
<sorry for snipping your sig>
You're right- Warren's rant *is* good, and nearly every point he makes
is a good one. I read the last paragraph and laughed to myself, because
those tags mentioned in that paragraph are about the only ones I use.
Font color and size are off-limits, because as you pointed out, many
things can go wrong.
My question is this- if someone like myself uses <font face=> for purely
aesthetic reasons (ie, I think my page looks better with a sans-serif
font), how do I sidestep inserting the tags?
Or do I just set my browser preferences to display "Arial" and let it
go, realizing that my preferences don't always match up with the world
at large?
Just wondering if there's another way to do it.
Don
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
d_walla <dwa...@unix.asb.com> wrote:
Well, setting your browser preference isn't going to affect the way
other people see it. But, if it makes you happy to see it the way you
think it ought to be seen, while the rest of the world sees it
differently, fine.
Or you could use style sheets.
Lars Marius Garshol
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com writes:
>
> Or you could use style sheets.
BODY { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif }
Should do the trick :-)
I've redone most of my home pages in pure HTML (no presentational tags
or attributes) and CSS and it works great! With a little effort they're
also readable without CSS. Highly recommended.
(Note: I haven't put them out on the server yet, so following the links
below will give you my old pages.)
Abigail
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com (rhi...@ma.ultranet.com) wrote on 1411 September
1993 in <URL: news:5q906p$nin$1...@decius.ultra.net>:
++
++ Well, setting your browser preference isn't going to affect the way
++ other people see it. But, if it makes you happy to see it the way you
++ think it ought to be seen, while the rest of the world sees it
++ differently, fine.
I really fail to see why people think it is important in which font I
see a site. Would you really be more happy if I view your site in your
choice of fonts then in mine? Even if that makes me hit the back button
without reading the text?
Abigail
--
Anyone who slaps a "this page is best viewed with Browser X" label
on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the
Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on
another computer, another word processor, or another network.
[Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996]
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
abi...@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
>rhi...@ma.ultranet.com (rhi...@ma.ultranet.com) wrote on 1411 September
>1993 in <URL: news:5q906p$nin$1...@decius.ultra.net>:
>++
>++ Well, setting your browser preference isn't going to affect the way
>++ other people see it. But, if it makes you happy to see it the way you
>++ think it ought to be seen, while the rest of the world sees it
>++ differently, fine.
>I really fail to see why people think it is important in which font I
>see a site. Would you really be more happy if I view your site in your
>choice of fonts then in mine? Even if that makes me hit the back button
>without reading the text?
I agree totally. If the text is readable and the font is readable,
who cares? I suspect some of the people who worry too much about
fonts are probably the same people who do things like putting pink
lettering on a red background.
>Abigail
>--
> Anyone who slaps a "this page is best viewed with Browser X" label
> on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the
> Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on
> another computer, another word processor, or another network.
> [Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996]
--
Liam Quinn
On 13 Jul 1997 08:54:21 +0200, Lars Marius Garshol <lar...@ifi.uio.no>
wrote:
>I've redone most of my home pages in pure HTML (no presentational tags
>or attributes) and CSS and it works great! With a little effort they're
>also readable without CSS.
What effort? With pure HTML there should be no effort at all needed
to get CSS-styled pages readable in non-CSS browsers. It happens
naturally, which is why I can apply a Cascading Style Sheet to
documents that are years and not even have to look at them in a
non-CSS browser.
The problem I've found with CSS is the browsers that try to support
it, since their implementations are often so incredibly bug-ridden.
With a little effort, though, I can get CSS-styled pages to be
readable in CSS-enabled browsers :)
d_walla
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
> rhi...@ma.ultranet.com writes:
> >
> > Or you could use style sheets.
>
> BODY { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif }
>
> Should do the trick :-)
>
> or attributes) and CSS and it works great! With a little effort they're
>
> (Note: I haven't put them out on the server yet, so following the links
> below will give you my old pages.)
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Lars Marius Garshol
>
> "Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot", Bill Arnett
> http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
Lars;
Thanks for the tip. I already do use <font face> in my HTML, and it does
work well.
I also try to type in as much HTML as I can, so as not to 'color' it
with what I consider useless program-generated code. (I'm sure many HTML
'purists' would disagree with my approach.)
I guess I was just wondering aloud if my distaste for the look of a
serif font on a browser was really something people worry about.
Again, thanks for the suggestion.
Don
d_walla
Abigail wrote:
>
> rhi...@ma.ultranet.com (rhi...@ma.ultranet.com) wrote on 1411 September
> 1993 in <URL: news:5q906p$nin$1...@decius.ultra.net>:
> ++
> ++ Well, setting your browser preference isn't going to affect the way
> ++ other people see it. But, if it makes you happy to see it the way you
> ++ think it ought to be seen, while the rest of the world sees it
> ++ differently, fine.
>
> I really fail to see why people think it is important in which font I
> see a site. Would you really be more happy if I view your site in your
> choice of fonts then in mine? Even if that makes me hit the back button
> without reading the text?
Well, that was pretty much what I was questioning in my original post. I
personally don't think Arial or Helvetica are particularly great fornts,
but I prefer the way they look over Times on a browser. And I guess a
lot of people don't think about it or care.
Thanks for answering my question.
Don
Alan J. Flavell
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, d_walla wrote:
> Thanks for the tip. I already do use <font face> in my HTML, and it does
> work well.
It does? On the WWW? How can you possibly know that?
Diane Wilson
In article <EDE2D...@nonexistent.com>, d_walla <dwa...@unix.asb.com> writes:
|> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
|> >
|> > rhi...@ma.ultranet.com writes:
|> > >
|> > > Or you could use style sheets.
|> >
|> > BODY { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif }
|> >
|> > Should do the trick :-)
|> >
|> > I've redone most of my home pages in pure HTML (no presentational tags
|> > or attributes) and CSS and it works great! With a little effort they're
|> > also readable without CSS. Highly recommended.
|> >
|> > (Note: I haven't put them out on the server yet, so following the links
|> > below will give you my old pages.)
|> >
|> > --
|> > ________________________________________________________________________
|> >
|> > Lars Marius Garshol
|> >
|> > "Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot", Bill Arnett
|> > http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
|>
|> Lars;
|>
|> Thanks for the tip. I already do use <font face> in my HTML, and it does
|> work well.
|>
|> I also try to type in as much HTML as I can, so as not to 'color' it
|> with what I consider useless program-generated code. (I'm sure many HTML
|> 'purists' would disagree with my approach.)
|>
|> I guess I was just wondering aloud if my distaste for the look of a
|> serif font on a browser was really something people worry about.
Well, I have a strong distaste for sans serif typefaces, especially for
text, especially on screens.
You might ask yourself whom you design your pages for, yourself or your
readers.
--
Diane Wilson | Practice safe philosophy. Use
anon-...@anon.twwells.com | conundrums.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | --Rose Prescott
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ |
Eric Soroos
> Well, I have a strong distaste for sans serif typefaces, especially for
> text, especially on screens.
>
> You might ask yourself whom you design your pages for, yourself or your
> readers.
Same here, but it depends on the sans serif face.
Monaco 9, for example, is one of the clearest fonts I've ever seen.
Geneva 12 is similarly excellent.
Helvetica 12 has somewhat screwy spacing, so that it doesn't really work
well on screen.
For an example of this, see http://e-soroos.ce.washignton.edu/fontTrouble.GIF
From the umax website. "One click website" becomes "One dick website", at
least on screen. This is not something that a tech support website should
be trying to supply.
There's a reason that Monaco 9 and Geneva 12 are good screen fonts: They
were hand tuned for 72ppi display. As was Times, New York and Palatino 12.
Adobe Garamond and Computer Modern Roman look excellent on the printed
page, but lousy on screen in body text size. It's all a matter of where
the optimization lies.
eric "impatiently waiting for 300ppi displays" soroos
d_walla
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, d_walla wrote:
>
> > work well.
>
Wild guess. :-)
Diane Wilson
In article <EDE2n...@nonexistent.com>, d_walla <dwa...@unix.asb.com> writes:
|> >
|> > I really fail to see why people think it is important in which font I
|> > see a site. Would you really be more happy if I view your site in your
|> > choice of fonts then in mine? Even if that makes me hit the back button
|> > without reading the text?
|>
|> Well, that was pretty much what I was questioning in my original post. I
|> personally don't think Arial or Helvetica are particularly great fornts,
|> but I prefer the way they look over Times on a browser. And I guess a
|> lot of people don't think about it or care.
I think about it and care about it a great deal, and I detest both Times
and Helvetica. That's why I set my browser preferences for Veljovic.
Now please keep your hands off the <font> tag so I can see your pages the
way I want. (And until Meatscape decides to implement style sheet overrides,
kindly don't specify fonts there, either, OK?)
Diane, celebrating National Bitch-About-Fonts Day
Steve Grant
In article <5qiut4$6...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, diane....@pobox.com wrote:
>
> In article <EDE2D...@nonexistent.com>, d_walla <dwa...@unix.asb.com> writes:
> |> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> |> >
> |> > rhi...@ma.ultranet.com writes:
> |> > >
> |> > > Or you could use style sheets.
> |> >
> |> > BODY { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif }
> |> >
> |> > Should do the trick :-)
> |> >
> |> > I've redone most of my home pages in pure HTML (no presentational tags
> |> > or attributes) and CSS and it works great! With a little effort they're
> |> > also readable without CSS. Highly recommended.
> |> >
> |> > (Note: I haven't put them out on the server yet, so following the links
> |> > below will give you my old pages.)
> |> >
> |> > --
> |> > ________________________________________________________________________
> |> >
> |> > Lars Marius Garshol
> |> >
> |> > "Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot", Bill Arnett
> |> > http://www.ifi.uio.no/~larsga/ http://birk105.studby.uio.no/
> |>
> |> Lars;
> |>
> |> work well.
> |>
> |> with what I consider useless program-generated code. (I'm sure many HTML
> |> 'purists' would disagree with my approach.)
> |>
> |> I guess I was just wondering aloud if my distaste for the look of a
> |> serif font on a browser was really something people worry about.
>
> text, especially on screens.
>
> You might ask yourself whom you design your pages for, yourself or your
> readers.
Interesting question. I wonder how artists answer this in non-www
mediums.
Ken Ward
In article <5qlc4c$s...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, Diane Wilson <thwi...@bnr.ca>
writes
>I think about it and care about it a great deal, and I detest both Times
>and Helvetica. That's why I set my browser preferences for Veljovic.
>
>Now please keep your hands off the <font> tag so I can see your pages the
>way I want.
publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward in Norwich k...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
Old City web pages http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Flavell
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Ken Ward wrote:
> In article <5qlc4c$s...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, Diane Wilson <thwi...@bnr.ca>
> writes
> >Now please keep your hands off the <font> tag so I can see your pages the
> >way I want.
> Just out of curiosity, do you demand that magazine and newspaper
> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
Isn't this kind-of absurd? We got this marvellous ability to tailor the
presentation to each particular recipient's circumstances and needs, and
you're basically offering us instead the centuries-old paradigm of what
you get is what you get.
If you were offering calligraphy, then this would be a different matter;
I've pored over some fascinating manuscripts on the WWW, that took ages
to download, but were well worth it for the purpose. But instead, you
suggest to us cruddy old newsprint as a paradigm. Pfui!
Don't you feel like an old stick-in-the-mud for even suggesting such
a thing? I may be old and cranky, but I'm thankful that I can still
get enjoyment out of different ideas.
Eric Soroos
In article <Nya5fDAP...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>, Ken Ward
<k...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, do you demand that magazine and newspaper
> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
No, but magazines and newspapers have something like 10x the resolution and
information density of a computer screen. They can afford to waste half of
it, websites can't. Most newspapers carefully choose the fonts that they
use to be legible and good looking when produced on their pages. When you
wo that to a website, you have no clue how it's going to look coming out
the other end.
eric
John Stanley
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 05:01:11 GMT, sgr...@iglou.com (Steve Grant)
wrote:
>Interesting question. I wonder how artists answer this in non-www
>mediums.
The answer will likely be different depending on whether it's art for
art's sake or whether it is art for a specific purpose. For example,
art for a product brochure must meet certain design goals for product,
and communicate a certain message to the viewer.
Ken Ward
In article <Pine.A41.3.95a.970718194151.39596D-100000@sp049>, "Alan J.
Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> writes
>
>On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Ken Ward wrote:
>
>> In article <5qlc4c$s...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, Diane Wilson <thwi...@bnr.ca>
>> writes
>
>> >Now please keep your hands off the <font> tag so I can see your pages the
>> >way I want.
>
>> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
>
>presentation to each particular recipient's circumstances and needs, and
>you're basically offering us instead the centuries-old paradigm of what
>you get is what you get.
>
>If you were offering calligraphy, then this would be a different matter;
>I've pored over some fascinating manuscripts on the WWW, that took ages
>to download, but were well worth it for the purpose. But instead, you
>suggest to us cruddy old newsprint as a paradigm. Pfui!
>
>Don't you feel like an old stick-in-the-mud for even suggesting such
>a thing? I may be old and cranky, but I'm thankful that I can still
>get enjoyment out of different ideas.
>
cranky myself, but how can you 'still get enjoyment of out different
ideas' when you stiffle yourself by having to 'tailor the presentation
to each particular recipient's circumstances and needs'.
Ken Ward
In article <soroos+usenet797-ya02...@news.u.washingto
n.edu>, Eric Soroos <soroos+u...@u.washington.edu> writes
>> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
>
>information density of a computer screen.
>They can afford to waste half of
>it, websites can't.
> Most newspapers carefully choose the fonts that they
>use to be legible and good looking when produced on their pages.
> When you
>wo that to a website, you have no clue how it's going to look coming out
>the other end.
text only displays.
My point is that the WWW is a _publishing medium_. If you want to stick
to bog-standard text, publish on the newsgroups. On the web we DO have
the ability to design how the pages will look on the majority of
systems, so why shouldn't we.
Liam Quinn
>> Most newspapers carefully choose the fonts that they
>>use to be legible and good looking when produced on their pages.
>So why can't webmasters?
What's legible to you might be illegible or unavailable to me. Some
people can't read newspapers without a magnifying glass; on the Web,
these people would just increase their font size. What's wrong with
that?
>> When you
>>wo that to a website, you have no clue how it's going to look coming out
>>the other end.
>Use that for an argument and we might as well all go back to 80 by 25
>text only displays.
Why? You can write Web pages that look (or sound) good in all
environments, from your 24-bit colour 1280x1024 display to your 80x25
character-mode display to your screen reader.
>My point is that the WWW is a _publishing medium_. If you want to stick
>to bog-standard text, publish on the newsgroups.
The user will decide whether he or she sticks to "bog-standard text".
>On the web we DO have
>the ability to design how the pages will look on the majority of
>systems, so why shouldn't we.
On the Web, the user has the ability to decide what font and font size
is most readable given his or her eyesight, resolution, operating
system, etc. Why should we take away this revolutionary ability
because some people are stuck in the outdated world of newsprint?
Liam Quinn
>how can you 'still get enjoyment of out different
>ideas' when you stiffle yourself by having to 'tailor the presentation
>to each particular recipient's circumstances and needs'.
Why do you want to stifle the user's freedom? Why do you find it
stifling to have a presentation that is nice and readable to all
users? Who do you prefer making Web sites for: yourself or your
users?
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:41:20 +0100, Ken Ward
>Use that for an argument and we might as well all go back to 80 by 25
>text only displays.
It's not an "argument", it's an undeniable FACT. As in, two times two
is four.
>My point is that the WWW is a _publishing medium_. If you want to stick
>to bog-standard text, publish on the newsgroups. On the web we DO have
>the ability to design how the pages will look on the majority of
>systems, so why shouldn't we.
This is a total misconception of the medium: There is _no_ way you can
"design the look" like you can in paper-oriented publishing. Nobody
are advocating "bog-standard text" - it's just that the entire _point_
of HTML is device independence. What fonts are installed vary, display
resolution varies, installed software varies, and the chosen rendering
and defaults of the browsers vary. Which is all as should be.
Why, oh why, do some people fight this?
--
Tor I. Wilhelmsen to...@online.no
"This thorn in my side is from the tree I planted"
- Metallica: Bleeding Me
rhi...@ma.ultranet.com
sgr...@iglou.com (Steve Grant) wrote:
>In article <5qiut4$6...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, diane....@pobox.com wrote:
<snippage of previous posts>
>>
>> You might ask yourself whom you design your pages for, yourself or your
>> readers.
>Interesting question. I wonder how artists answer this in non-www
>mediums.
That interesting question spurred you to ask another interesting
question. Much depends on how you define "artist." And "medium," for
that matter.
To a graphic artist, of course, "medium" can mean, e.g., watercolor,
acrylic, pen and ink, aquatint, charcoal, pastels, oil, and so forth.
Any artistic work can then appear in another medium, possibly
unanticipated by the artist. For example, an oil painting might show
up as a 4-color halftone in a book, or in a TV show or motion picture,
or as a GIF or JPEG on the web. Any work is probably going to suffer,
and perhaps suffer very badly, by this transference to another
"medium."
And artists differ in their approach. Some will say (truthfully or
not) that they are working toward self-expression, that they don't
care whether anybody else really likes the work or not. Others
believe in reaching as broad an audience as possible, in the hope of
changing ideas, attitudes, ways of seeing things, political views,
whatever.
If an "artist" chooses the Web as a "medium," I would think that the
artist is aiming, not for self expression, but for a fairly broad
audience. I would further think that this hypothetical artist would
then want to make his or her work accessible to as many people as
possible. (Just as I would think, if Diego Rivera were doing murals
today, he'd want them to be in buildings that are
handicapped-accessible.)
But maybe I anticipate too much. What is your idea of an "artist"
working in a "medium" called the World Wide Web?
Diane Wilson
In article <EDI0J...@iglou.com>, sgr...@iglou.com (Steve Grant) writes:
|> In article <5qiut4$6...@brtph500.bnr.ca>, diane....@pobox.com wrote:
|> > You might ask yourself whom you design your pages for, yourself or your
|> > readers.
|>
|> Interesting question. I wonder how artists answer this in non-www
|> mediums.
In all media, on all tasks, having answers for "why am I doing this?" and
"for whom am I doing this?" are crucial. If you are doing something strictly
for yourself, then you have to please no one but yourself. If you are doing
something to communicate with others, then effective communication has to
be a foundation for your design approach. That gives you a criteria for
assessing answers to your design questions.
In my own work I tend to have one rule, and treat everything else as
guidelines. That rule is "whatever works." It is a ruthless, hard-driving
rule, because for every single issue I have to know what it means "to work"
or not, and I have to be able to judge whether what I've done actually
does work. I don't always have quick answers, or single answers, or
sometimes any answer at all. Things which don't work are discarded,
reworked, analyzed, or simply set aside for later consideration.
Most of my creative work is done on the web. It is done to communicate;
I tend to have a lot to say. Effective communication is my criteria for
"whatever works." From that point on, everything is secondary; questions
such as "web" or "not-web" simply create a frame for the question of
effectiveness.
--
Diane Wilson | The technology we should standardize
anon-...@anon.twwells.com | to is the human being.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | --Bill Buxton
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ |
Diane Wilson
In article <i5uCdCAA...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>, Ken Ward <Wa...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> In article <soroos+usenet797-ya02...@news.u.washingto
|> n.edu>, Eric Soroos <soroos+u...@u.washington.edu> writes
|> >In article <Nya5fDAP...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>, Ken Ward
|> ><k...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
|> >
|> >> Just out of curiosity, do you demand that magazine and newspaper
|> >> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
|> >
|> >No, but magazines and newspapers have something like 10x the resolution and
|> >information density of a computer screen.
|> true
|> >They can afford to waste half of
|> >it, websites can't.
|> Why not?
|> > Most newspapers carefully choose the fonts that they
|> >use to be legible and good looking when produced on their pages.
|> So why can't webmasters?
|> > When you
|> >wo that to a website, you have no clue how it's going to look coming out
|> >the other end.
|> Use that for an argument and we might as well all go back to 80 by 25
|> text only displays.
|> My point is that the WWW is a _publishing medium_. If you want to stick
|> to bog-standard text, publish on the newsgroups. On the web we DO have
|> the ability to design how the pages will look on the majority of
|> systems, so why shouldn't we.
Ya know, there's a delicious irony here; the people who *do* try to force
type selection as part of their web design pick the most trite, tired,
*BORING* typefaces ever developed for print media. Why? Because they're
there.
I *don't* try to do bog-standard text; if that's what I wanted, it would
be easy: <font face="times">. Instead, I don't try to force anything at
all. If I *do* want to use a particular typeface to make a point, I'll
do it for a header, in a graphic. I'll make sure it's readable, I'll
tweak it in Photoshop so that the graphic aspect reinforces the message,
and I'll design around it so that the absence of the graphic won't kill
my message--not just "alt" text, but appropriate redundancy of information
and attitude in my writing.
But beyond that..... I try not to design for the *majority* of systems;
I have my sights set higher than that. I want to reach *everyone* who
visits my site. You DO NOT have to sacrifice looking good to get there;
you simply have to learn how to look good without breaking when the
reader's configuration isn't what you designed for.
Ken Ward
In article <33d0e217...@news.total.net>, Liam Quinn
<li...@htmlhelp.com> writes
>
>What's legible to you might be illegible or unavailable to me. Some
>people can't read newspapers without a magnifying glass; on the Web,
>these people would just increase their font size. What's wrong with
>that?
>
things like drop-down menus, plus all the other software that he does
not have the ability to change font size on. This poor-sighted user
would have already adjusted his screen res or bought a bigger monitor to
be able to read these. So he shouldn't need to change the fontsize I
specify.
As for the "unavailable". If he hasn't got the font specified, the
software will ignore the <FONT FACE=> instruction and he will see the
page in his default font and be none the wiser.
Also, allowing the end user to control font size can make your site look
like rubbish. I know a user with a 640 screen res that has his browser
set to about 400 pixels wide. Try that on your
http://enhanced-designs.com/ site title page and increase the font size
and you'll find the title overlaping the right-hand pic. Is that how you
want your site seen?
Also on the subject of poor eyesight. Many sites are now using more and
more image maps with small text that cannot be resized. How do you
handle that? Or is this going to be another campaign - ban image maps?
K. Bjarnason
[snips]
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, do you demand that magazine and newspaper
>> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
>
>Isn't this kind-of absurd? We got this marvellous ability to tailor the
>presentation to each particular recipient's circumstances and needs, and
>you're basically offering us instead the centuries-old paradigm of what
>you get is what you get.
No, not really.
Many of us look for web pages for information. Using, oh, drop caps,
or bold, underline, etc to make things stand out works quite well if
you have something to say.
If you're presenting some inherently graphical topic (eg artwork,
calligraphy) then certainly, use images to demonstrate the purpose.
Does this mean the body text has to be in 14-pt bright red Dom Casual?
Or would it work just as well in whatever font the user has set up as
his default font for his browser?
Body text is there primarily for information. If it's buried in
weird layouts, bad colour schemes, "neat" fonts, or whatever, it fails
in its purpose; such things don't enhance readability, they generally
reduce it.
Yoo C. Chung
Ken Ward <Wa...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Also, allowing the end user to control font size can make your site look
> like rubbish. I know a user with a 640 screen res that has his browser
> set to about 400 pixels wide. Try that on your
> http://enhanced-designs.com/ site title page and increase the font size
> and you'll find the title overlaping the right-hand pic. Is that how you
> want your site seen?
A site designed by a competent web designer would not be plaqued by
this sort of problem.
> Also on the subject of poor eyesight. Many sites are now using more and
> more image maps with small text that cannot be resized. How do you
> handle that? Or is this going to be another campaign - ban image maps?
Simple, use the other navigation methods available on the site. If
there are none available, there's probably nothing useful on the site,
anyway.
--
Yoo C. Chung <http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~wacko/>
School of Electrical Engineering, Seoul National University
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:05:01 +0100, Ken Ward
<Wa...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> uttered:
>Also, allowing the end user to control font size can make your site look
>like rubbish.
Only if you don't know what you are doing. The "look" is _entirely_ up
to the browser. This is a fact a lot of old-school designers seem to
have a problem with.
> I know a user with a 640 screen res that has his browser
>set to about 400 pixels wide. Try that on your
>http://enhanced-designs.com/ site title page and increase the font size
>and you'll find the title overlaping the right-hand pic. Is that how you
>want your site seen?
If that happens, you have used HTML wrongly.
>Also on the subject of poor eyesight. Many sites are now using more and
>more image maps with small text that cannot be resized. How do you
>handle that? Or is this going to be another campaign - ban image maps?
In Opera, if I magnify the page to 200%, the image also gets
magnified. Where's the difficulty now?
Plus, proper, modern CSIs can be expressed as a list of the links
contained in the MAP element. That no graphical browser seems to do
this (except a modified GNUscape) is _not_ the fault of the authors.
--
Rebecca, Agent and Opera - now what was it I needed Netscape for?
Liam Quinn
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:05:01 +0100, Ken Ward
>In article <33d0e217...@news.total.net>, Liam Quinn
><li...@htmlhelp.com> writes
>>
>>What's legible to you might be illegible or unavailable to me. Some
>>people can't read newspapers without a magnifying glass; on the Web,
>>these people would just increase their font size. What's wrong with
>>that?
>>
>Whats wrong with that is that outside the web page window there are
>things like drop-down menus, plus all the other software that he does
>not have the ability to change font size on.
So take away one of the Web's biggest advantages because it's a unique
advantage?
>This poor-sighted user
>would have already adjusted his screen res or bought a bigger monitor to
>be able to read these. So he shouldn't need to change the fontsize I
>specify.
What font size do you specify?
>Also, allowing the end user to control font size can make your site look
>like rubbish.
Then your site is poorly authored.
>I know a user with a 640 screen res that has his browser
>set to about 400 pixels wide. Try that on your
>http://enhanced-designs.com/ site title page and increase the font size
>and you'll find the title overlaping the right-hand pic.
One browser is poor at handling floating images with limited space.
This is not directly related to font size, and could easily be
considered a fault of the browser (though I agree that it's an issue,
which should be solved by using style sheets to allow the user to
override the images' float properties).
Floating images can be problematic--only with one browser AFAIK--with
variable font size, but in general most pages (and most of the cited
page) should have no problems adjusting to virtually any font size.
Even with the floating image problem, users who require a large font
size can still disable images or use a browser without this bug.
Admittedly this is not an optimal solution, but unfortunately the
shortcomings of today's browsers can at times mask the advantages of
the Web, and make it difficult to author accessible sites. This does
not mean, however, that we should not strive for accessible sites that
exploit the Web's advantages.
>Is that how you
>want your site seen?
I want the site to be seen in the user's preferred font size, whatever
that may be.
>Also on the subject of poor eyesight. Many sites are now using more and
>more image maps with small text that cannot be resized. How do you
>handle that?
I leave.
>Or is this going to be another campaign - ban image maps?
It's not image maps that are the problem, but images that consist
solely of text. Pages would be much more accessible if they used
actual text, perhaps with style hints to give some presentational
flair. Oh yeah, and they'd be faster to download too.
John Stanley
>Whats wrong with that is that outside the web page window there are
>things like drop-down menus, plus all the other software that he does
>not have the ability to change font size on. This poor-sighted user
>would have already adjusted his screen res or bought a bigger monitor to
>be able to read these. So he shouldn't need to change the fontsize I
>specify.
Are you sure the user has no control over the system font settings on
his operating system? In any case, an example of a non-configurable
operating system is no excuse for to make your web pages hard on the
eyes. Two wrongs don't make a right. As for the font size you
specify, you do realize that on different platforms, the same font
size displays at different rendered sizes.
>As for the "unavailable". If he hasn't got the font specified, the
>software will ignore the <FONT FACE=> instruction and he will see the
>page in his default font and be none the wiser.
What is worse is when the font is available and is difficult for the
reader to discern at the size you have specified.
>Also, allowing the end user to control font size can make your site look
>like rubbish. I know a user with a 640 screen res that has his browser
>set to about 400 pixels wide. Try that on your
>http://enhanced-designs.com/ site title page and increase the font size
>and you'll find the title overlaping the right-hand pic. Is that how you
>want your site seen?
Then you have a poorly designed site. One of the things that you need
to understand as a web designer is that you do not have a fixed
constant platform on which to present your work. Your work must be
done such that it adapts to a variety of presentation environments.
>Also on the subject of poor eyesight. Many sites are now using more and
>more image maps with small text that cannot be resized. How do you
>handle that? Or is this going to be another campaign - ban image maps?
There's nothing wrong with image maps. A GOOD designer would also
provide alternative navigation schemes for those who choose not or
cannot use the image map. Every try to navigate a site with image
loading off when the only navigation scheme is image maps?
Kathy E. Gill
Ken Ward wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, do you demand that magazine and newspaper
> publishers only use _your_ font preferences?
Huh? What's the point here? The web is a different medium, with a far
less superior display resolution (72 Pixels/Inch) ... the ability to
change font sizes and faces assists with individual readability .. and
compensates (somewhat) for the rez shortfall.
The fact is that once something is printed -- it has only one look
because the display device is static. Not so with the web.
When a designer is 100% assured of the computer, software, monitor, etc.
that the visitor is using -- and the age and vision constraints of the
user (near sighted, far sighted, color-blind) -- well then perhaps the
designer can dictate the "look."
We are a LONG way from that point.
Kathy
k...@dotparagon.com
Kathay
Kathy E. Gill
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote, in response to:
> >My point is that the WWW is a _publishing medium_. If you want to stick
> >to bog-standard text, publish on the newsgroups. On the web we DO have
> >the ability to design how the pages will look on the majority of
> >systems, so why shouldn't we.
>
> "design the look" like you can in paper-oriented publishing. Nobody
> are advocating "bog-standard text" - it's just that the entire _point_
> of HTML is device independence. What fonts are installed vary, display
> resolution varies, installed software varies, and the chosen rendering
> and defaults of the browsers vary. Which is all as should be.
The web is a revolutionary medium in the computer-world -- it's cross
platform. Just drop by and read some of Tim Berners-Lee's notes on good
design.
You want ultimate control -- fine, publish in Acrobat. That's what it is
there for.
Kathy
Kathy E. Gill
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote, in response to Ken Ward:
> >My point is that the WWW is a _publishing medium_. If you want to stick
> >to bog-standard text, publish on the newsgroups. On the web we DO have
> >the ability to design how the pages will look on the majority of
> >systems, so why shouldn't we.
>
> This is a total misconception of the medium: There is _no_ way you can
> "design the look" like you can in paper-oriented publishing. Nobody
> are advocating "bog-standard text" - it's just that the entire _point_
> of HTML is device independence. What fonts are installed vary, display
> resolution varies, installed software varies, and the chosen rendering
> and defaults of the browsers vary. Which is all as should be.
The web is a revolutionary medium in the computer-world -- it's cross
platform. Just drop by and read some of Tim Berners-Lee's notes on good
design. Why do you think the browser et al were invented???
Kathy E. Gill
Ken Ward wrote:
'old and cranky' used as an excuse? I'm pushing 60 and maybe a bit
> ideas' when you stiffle yourself by having to 'tailor the presentation
> to each particular recipient's circumstances and needs'.
Of course, you don't like browser-safe colors either [from your page:
BGCOLOR="#E0E0E0" TEXT="#800000"]. If you want to design sites that will
not look "right" on different platforms, that's your business. Just
don't try to sell me on this approach as being "good design."
Kathy
k...@dotparagon.com
David Ma
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------83FC24E6D576F5BB731C2509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathy E. Gill wrote:
> Of course, you don't like browser-safe colors either [from your page:
> BGCOLOR="#E0E0E0" TEXT="#800000"]. If you want to design sites that
> will
Macs would have a fit wouldn't they :)? Ah the wonders of having an
unstandardized colour palette over a variety of platforms. Luckily
Cougar specifications have deprecated bgcolor and text for obvious
reasons...
--------------83FC24E6D576F5BB731C2509
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for David Ma
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: David Ma
n: Ma;David
org: Graphix Media
adr: 32718 Richmond St.,;;R.R.#3;Lucan;Ontario;N0M 2J0;Canada
email;internet: k...@wwdc.com
title: Producer
tel;home: 1-(519)-227-1003
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------83FC24E6D576F5BB731C2509--
David Ma
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Eric Soroos wrote:
> No, but magazines and newspapers have something like 10x the
> resolution and
> information density of a computer screen. They can afford to waste
> half of
Computer screens use 72dpi and a typical magazine uses approximately
700dpi to anywhere close to 2400dpi on the higher end.
> it, websites can't. Most newspapers carefully choose the fonts that
> they
> use to be legible and good looking when produced on their pages. When
> you
> wo that to a website, you have no clue how it's going to look coming
> out
> the other end.
This is somewhat incorrect. Various typesets defined in HTML 3.2 are
viewed exactly the same in most browsers unless you specifically
over-ride these. The font element may not be standard in HTML 3.2 but
in Cougar (HTML 4.0 which is currently in working draft) includes the
font element. There are various assumed standard fonts availible to
website developers however if these are not present the browser will
goto a generic font which is a definite problem. However in HTML 4.0
and CSS Level 1 this problem is partially dissipated by used CSS object
hierarchy to choose the closest possible typeset as defined by the
author. However this is also somewhat problematic. Probably the only
method of insuring the typeset is exactly as you set it is through
graphics such as JPEGs yet this solution is also trouble ridden even
beyond that of using HTML 3.2 or CSS. Using JavaScript allows
developers to further refine they're sites by being able to obtain more
information on the client and therefore more customized pages. A
possible solution is the dynamic near realtime loading of typesets via a
RSA encoded compressed archives which could be obtained by the client,
if necisary, on demand. Currently this is not possible because of
security issues and the lack of dynamic typeset (aka font) loading in
most operating systems.
David Ma
Graphix New Media
--------------1CE888A6CAED3970AB352779
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for David Ma
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: David Ma
n: Ma;David
org: Graphix Media
adr: 32718 Richmond St.,;;R.R.#3;Lucan;Ontario;N0M 2J0;Canada
email;internet: k...@wwdc.com
title: Producer
tel;home: 1-(519)-227-1003
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------1CE888A6CAED3970AB352779--
Diane Wilson
In article <0UBXmBA9...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>, Ken Ward <Wa...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Whats wrong with that is that outside the web page window there are
|> things like drop-down menus, plus all the other software that he does
|> not have the ability to change font size on. This poor-sighted user
|> would have already adjusted his screen res or bought a bigger monitor to
|> be able to read these. So he shouldn't need to change the fontsize I
|> specify.
Invalid assumption. The monitor I'm using at work is a 21" monitor,
with the smallest type display I've ever seen. It's controllable in
individual circumstances, not globally. Web pages in particular suffer,
*especially* when the author overrides font sizes to go smaller. (And
I've already goosed my default up to 14 points.)
|> As for the "unavailable". If he hasn't got the font specified, the
|> software will ignore the <FONT FACE=> instruction and he will see the
|> page in his default font and be none the wiser.
Invalid assumptions again. <font face> only causes problems when the
requested font *is* available.
|> Also, allowing the end user to control font size can make your site look
|> like rubbish.
That's a problem with site design. When you assume from the beginning
that font and font size can and *will* change, you don't have these problems.
|> I know a user with a 640 screen res that has his browser
|> set to about 400 pixels wide. Try that on your
|> http://enhanced-designs.com/ site title page and increase the font size
|> and you'll find the title overlaping the right-hand pic. Is that how you
|> want your site seen?
Browser bug.
|> Also on the subject of poor eyesight. Many sites are now using more and
|> more image maps with small text that cannot be resized. How do you
|> handle that? Or is this going to be another campaign - ban image maps?
No, I ignore sites that do this.
And if I use text in an image that's a link, (1) I make sure there's a
text alternative, or (2) I make sure that the text is large enough that
legibility will never be a problem, or (3) I use alt text, or most often,
(4) all of the above.
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, the web is not on paper.
It's not the rules that have changed, it's the paradigm.
--
Diane Wilson | I could eat alphabet soup and *shit*
anon-...@anon.twwells.com | better lyrics.
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/ | --Johnny Mercer
http://www.lava.net/~dewilson/asd/ |