I figured since a lot of us around here design sites for "customers" a lot,
I'd ask a general question that might help a lot of us in the future.
When dealing with clients asking for _professional_ web sites, I am
constantly trying to explain why less is more; that professional-grade web
sites should focus on functionality, usability, and accessibility before you
even think about graphical design and layout. I read a great quote once on
webpagesthatsuc k.com that said something like this (paraphrasing):
The ideal web site is one in which the site quickly and easily tells the
customer what to buy, then proceeds to take their wallet our of their
pocket, read their credit card numbers for them, and processes the order in
one click of the mouse.
Of course their use of the word "ideal" means that we will never accomplish
this. I consider it a hyperbole of what we should attempt to accomplish
with web design.
So I always argue that it's better make the page load faster and be more
accessible to people on all different types/sizes of hardware than to load
down the page with graphics, Flash, scripting and other things that just
make the site more "cute." However, when the customer is "always right" and
their competitors have graphically-heavy web sites, they don't know that
their resource can be better than the competitions' through technical
superiority.
I'm a big fan of making the site visually interesting, but I really hate to
see a great web site drowning in GIFs and JPEGs. When I propose a
mostly-text layout, a graphically-light layout, and a graphically-heavy
layout, it always seems that forms wins over function. And, of course,
there are some (very few) instances when having a little client-side script
really can make a site more useful (like displaying multiple colors of the
same product without another trip to the server). It's when the "cuteness"
of these features becomes merely decorative that I start having issues.
So here's my poll:
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won't work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?
How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).
Here's a short list of some of my reasons:
1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don't do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)
Many thanks to all,
Zac
I'd ask a general question that might help a lot of us in the future.
When dealing with clients asking for _professional_ web sites, I am
constantly trying to explain why less is more; that professional-grade web
sites should focus on functionality, usability, and accessibility before you
even think about graphical design and layout. I read a great quote once on
webpagesthatsuc k.com that said something like this (paraphrasing):
The ideal web site is one in which the site quickly and easily tells the
customer what to buy, then proceeds to take their wallet our of their
pocket, read their credit card numbers for them, and processes the order in
one click of the mouse.
Of course their use of the word "ideal" means that we will never accomplish
this. I consider it a hyperbole of what we should attempt to accomplish
with web design.
So I always argue that it's better make the page load faster and be more
accessible to people on all different types/sizes of hardware than to load
down the page with graphics, Flash, scripting and other things that just
make the site more "cute." However, when the customer is "always right" and
their competitors have graphically-heavy web sites, they don't know that
their resource can be better than the competitions' through technical
superiority.
I'm a big fan of making the site visually interesting, but I really hate to
see a great web site drowning in GIFs and JPEGs. When I propose a
mostly-text layout, a graphically-light layout, and a graphically-heavy
layout, it always seems that forms wins over function. And, of course,
there are some (very few) instances when having a little client-side script
really can make a site more useful (like displaying multiple colors of the
same product without another trip to the server). It's when the "cuteness"
of these features becomes merely decorative that I start having issues.
So here's my poll:
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won't work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?
How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).
Here's a short list of some of my reasons:
1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don't do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)
Many thanks to all,
Zac
Comment