SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 108
  1. #26
    dooby dooby doo silver trophybronze trophy
    spikeZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    13,807
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Surely the point is that it is whatever the site is for? If you have an arty farty site for an arty farty project then it will work, if your design brief is for a business site with a corporate image, an arty farty site wouldn't work and it would look daft.

    Horses for courses, I say.

    And I do like the words Arty and Farty!
    Mike Swiffin - Community Team Advisor
    Only a woman can read between the lines of a one word answer.....

  2. #27
    perfect = good enough peach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    -Netherlands-
    Posts
    1,383
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    The only one I could think of that's not crossbrowser compatible in that case is 1px dotted. Even 2px+ dotted works well cross-browser.
    Most pretty borders such as double, dashed and dotted borders are CSS2 and depending on your target audience not fully supported or buggy.

    Another problem with using a lot of borders with your layout is that different browsers render CSS very differently, for instance gecko based browsers render your CSS ver different from ie wich might result in border-collapse or just a totally screwed up website.

    Im not at all against CSS but it just isnt as much supported as images, so dont use it for images.

  3. #28
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    vgarcia, I was leaning more towards the '****' part.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    my PC desk
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spikeZ
    Surely the point is that it is whatever the site is for? If you have an arty farty site for an arty farty project then it will work, if your design brief is for a business site with a corporate image, an arty farty site wouldn't work and it would look daft.

    Horses for courses, I say.

    And I do like the words Arty and Farty!

    And one of the more difficult things in the business is telling a client that wants the wrong site for their business that they do not know the difference between Arty and Farty. Many of them are too 'young' in the business to remember Boo.com.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard Anat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    1,281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It really does depend on your target audience. On some of my sites I have people who like it graphic intensive (even - horror of horrors - animated gifs!). I try to keep it to a level that won't come in the way of people on dial-up though. Some sites I have I don't do graphics at all, maybe just for the logo - sometimes even the site title is text-only.
    My Web Publishing Blog: B6S.net - I dofollow but don't spam!
    Follow me on Twitter
    My favorite content writer:
    Steve Snedeker

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicbox
    graphics increases your site traffic and sales as well.
    Can you point us to an independant published study to back this up?

    I prefer a graphically minimalist approach. Although I do like good visual appeal via CSS. To me graphics add extra kb to a page's download and on high traffic sites, kb quickly adds up to mb which turn into gb which costs $$ and slows down page loading for the user. On my most popular site, I have actually stripped out almost all "fluff type graphics to reduce bandwidth expense and save money.

    As others have said, to go graphic rich or graphics lean really depends upon the genre of your website.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think most of all whether you go with a high graphic site vs. a clean layout depends on

    1. Your customers audience
    2. your customers goals


    If your customers site will be viewed by direct referrals by people mostly in offices with T1 connections then yeah you may want to go heavier on graphics and multimedia.

    For example if you do a site for a video production company then yeah your site will most likely be a high bandwidth production and rightly so.

    Think about your customer and what he/she needs to relay their products etc. and there lies your answer. One of the site I did (see #3 below ), it was important that I used high impact multimedia because the client requested it and 99% of his customers were rich and have broadband connections.

    Basically know your audience.

  8. #33
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peach
    Most pretty borders such as double, dashed and dotted borders are CSS2 and depending on your target audience not fully supported or buggy.
    If your target audience includes version 4 browsers, then yes it may cause problems. I stopped letting v4 browsers see my stylesheets ages ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by peach
    Another problem with using a lot of borders with your layout is that different browsers render CSS very differently, for instance gecko based browsers render your CSS ver different from ie wich might result in border-collapse or just a totally screwed up website.
    Really? Never had a problem with it personally.

  9. #34
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    Really? Never had a problem with it personally.
    Agreed the only time I see a problem with this is on pages that are poorly written and do not comply with W3C HTML and CSS specifications.
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  10. #35
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    617
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOriginalH
    http://www.google.com/ - Gotta be one of the busiest sites on the planet....graphic/layout intensive? Good function will always beat wow "form" on the web
    Have you seen the code behind their site? For what they are doing, its enormous. My site (www.ashwebstudio.com) has a small file size yet still graphic intense.

    I think it's how you build the site. Especially with CSS, you can get away with A LOT more design and keep a site size small for dialup.

  11. #36
    I am obstructing justice. bronze trophy fatnewt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sccr410
    Have you seen the code behind their site? For what they are doing, its enormous.
    Their homepage is pretty lean. It has to be... one way or another, bandwidth costs money and for a site like Google, every little bit counts. With the user base they have, if Google adds an extra couple of characters to their homepage, their bandwidth use could go up dramatically.
    Colin Temple [twitter: @cailean]
    Web Analyst at Napkyn


  12. #37
    SitePoint Zealot pionar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree that it has to do with audience. The audience for most of the stuff I work on is academic researchers (PhDs, MDs and such) who just want to find information and find it now. So while I like to put in nice professional touches to please the stakeholders and project directors who hire us, the function comes before everything.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    617
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fatnewt
    Their homepage is pretty lean. It has to be... one way or another, bandwidth costs money and for a site like Google, every little bit counts. With the user base they have, if Google adds an extra couple of characters to their homepage, their bandwidth use could go up dramatically.
    They have cleaned it up significantly in the last few months (hadn't checked it in a while), but they still use font tags.

    Check the code from 2003 - inline styles, font tags around each word - http://web.archive.org/web/200303280...ww.google.com/

    Anyway, back to the main subject...

  14. #39
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spikeZ
    Surely the point is that it is whatever the site is for? If you have an arty farty site for an arty farty project then it will work, if your design brief is for a business site with a corporate image, an arty farty site wouldn't work and it would look daft.
    I think that about sums it up. If I dared to have a bland website, devoid of images and other 'extras', I'd be laughed out of the Photoshop Users Club. (Not that there is one, or if there is I haven't been invited).

    We've tried bland before and a few visitors kept asking why we aren't more graphical, though we've never been asked the reverse question.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Land of Oz
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hands up all those minimalist supporters who would like to go back to the days of default text and message boards, maybe that was before your time...lol

    At the end of the day it comes down to horses for courses, we all cater to a different audience to suit a variety of needs and expectations.
    Last edited by squire7; Dec 1, 2004 at 15:16.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy KLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Maine USA
    Posts
    3,781
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperX
    I think that about sums it up. If I dared to have a bland website, devoid of images and other 'extras', I'd be laughed out of the Photoshop Users Club. (Not that there is one, or if there is I haven't been invited).

    We've tried bland before and a few visitors kept asking why we aren't more graphical, though we've never been asked the reverse question.
    I don't think graphics lean necessarily equates to bland. Well used CSS and DHTML with minimal graphics can have a very "rich" look and be very pleasing to the eyes.

    Often times, there are graphics on a site that are rather pointless and in reality contribute nothing to a site. Also there are many times that graphics are unnecessarily bloated and need to be resized or optimized. Why have 30kb of graphics for a side menu when one can accomplish the exact same look with one graphic that is <1kb and well used CSS?
    Ken Barbalace: EnvironmentalChemistry.com (Blog, Careers)
    InternetSAR.org
    Volunteers Assist Search and Rescue via Internet
    My Firefox Theme: Classic Compact
    Based onFirefox's default theme but uses much less window space

  17. #42
    SitePoint Enthusiast chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Charlotte North Carolina
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well, i use graphics barely... only because I am OCD when it comes to my bandwidth...
    Still it came passing by
    The pieces weaved together rose the sun
    And fooled me with another day
    The knocking message called for my life

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard GoldFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    1,517
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes I agree to an extent, but I think the best thing to do is combine these two. I don't like pages to load slowly, but I also get bored with simple layouts. It is a challenge that I myself definitly struggle with, but it is possible to get the perfect combination with some work.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    London, UK.
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2advanced.com is a great graphical site, however it will probably only appeal to fewllow designers and not the general public, as sites like google have the power to do both.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Enthusiast lokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    barcelona
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Selix
    And did you know some formatted text even tae longer than images to process and appear.
    i've never seen that, can you give an example?

  21. #46
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by lokee
    i've never seen that, can you give an example?
    I guess if that text is wrapped in seven nested tables and 300 sets of font tags it can render slowly

  22. #47
    SitePoint Zealot moagw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    188
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the best point on this thread besides finnie and his 300 sets of font tags, and nested tables.. is when SniperX mentioned he needed graphics. Audience specific. Of course if you CAN get away with less, you will. I doubt anyone here wants to pay another chunk of $$ towards the hosting of our site. If you are just rolling in the dough and don't care.. put a 50meg animated gif page up and make a hobby out of it..

  23. #48
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think too that you can always take steps to make the site 'appear' more graphical than it really is, or at least use the tiniest repeating backgrounds.

    I like to think that our latest site has the best of both worlds, graphical enough for those who expect it, yet practical enough for those who just want the content. We asked a load of users on 56K to give us their impressions the other day and nobody said that the load times were unreasonable so I'm a happy camper.

    This will certainly be my approach from here on in.

  24. #49
    SitePoint Member artsyalicatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The whole purpose of web "design" is to create attractive sites that are fuctional and fit the target audience. So, say you are designing a website for a health food store...the design would be minimalistic, and would have very few images, seeing as the general public still uses dialup internet. However, if you are designing a gaming site or a photoshop tutorials site, you would expect the majority of the target audience to have cutting edge systems...but you still wouldn't want to go overboard, because there are those on dialup (myself included) that seek out sites that we expect to be graphic intensive...but we don't want to wait forever and a year to view the site.

    In short, it all depends on the purpose of the site, the content, the target audience, etc.

  25. #50
    Non-Member c1vineoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    460
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Graphic-heavy sites and non graphic-heavy sites both have their time and place. It depends on who your audience is, how they will be accessing your site, how fast their connections are, etc... I tend to prefer graphic heavy sites, because I'm all for the "wow" factor, but all I've really created are personal sites and one website for a company. But then again, take a look at SitePoint for example. Hardly any graphics at all and it looks great.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •