Slashdot Mirror
What Makes a Good Web Design?
Grand Master Math asks: "I'm currently redesigning my website and I have checked out tons of various web sites, gone from link to link, etc...to find the best web design techniques, layouts, and features. Wow Web Designs proved to be a pretty useful site, as it showcased virtually 'the best of the web' in design and creativity. I was wondering what the Slashdot community has to say about web design and what the best web design should implement and address. From browser compatibility, to simplicity and complexity, and customization to user interaction, what should a perfect web design incorporate?"
Too often, people get too gadgety when they design software. Keep it as simple and as direct as the functionality and purpose of the site allows you to. Gimmicks are worthless. The best web designs get out of the way and promote the presentation of their content. Once you've taken into account the structure of your content, half the battle is over.
Keep it simple
To the point
Searchable
Flash-non flash versions
no unnecessary plugins
no popups/unders, etc.
two versions of the same website is cool.
Not everyone has a blazing net connection, so remember the little guy sucking on a 33.6 dialup connection.
that's it.
Sent from your iPad.
There is no such thing as good web design. There is only good user design. Who are you users? What do they want to accomplish by visiting your site? What do you want them to accomplish on your site? Once you answer those questions you'll be in a position to make some decisions about a design that compliments your goals.
;)
Or, you could just put all the important stuff in flashing text
There's a huge split. If you ask the "Slashdot Community" what makes good web design, you'll hear... a lot of noise.
There's the progress camp:
www.webstandards.org, that wants everyone to upgrade their browsers and live on the bleeding edge of style sheets (how ironic is it that their bleeding edge stance has been replaced with an "under construction" sign).
Then there's the compatibility camp:
anybrowser.org that wants every web page to work in the old browsers.
There are probably a few things everyone can agree on, like Flash being worthless at best and extremely annoying most of the time.
Personally, I say: look at the successful dynamic sites. Google, Yahoo, Slashdot. Light HTML, very light images, strong dynamic backend. Don't get too caught up in the format details; it's the power of what's driving the web page, and the content, that matters.
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
It seems that web design has changed over the years in order to better accommodate database-driven websites. Text graphics, for example, are pretty much out.
Check out the big boys and see what they've been doing with their sites in order to compensate for massive quantities of content.
I'm biased, but I've got to say that the LDS Church website has done a remarkable job of integrating content and design in an attractive and useful way.
Got Rhinos?
Whats more important?
The "look" of the website, or the "content"?
Glammer up garbage, and its still garbage. Glammer up content and you've got a blockbuster site.
Just a tidbit to think about when redesigning.
BTW - Cliff, you realize that this is a "need hits on my website" article dressed in "AskSlashdot" clothes, right?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I'm in the process of reading the book "Don't make me think!" by Steve Krug. It's a very easy read, very short, big pictures etc. One of the main points he brings up which I think you should keep in mind is exactly what his title suggests.. don't make the user think. If the user has to think about using your page, "Gee, where's that search button? Is that the product I want?" etc, well, who knows how long they'll stick around. Don't make the user think.
Another thing he brings up is usability tests. I admit, I haven't started doing this yet, but I agree with him. Grab a user that isn't a web programmer. Go to their machine and have them load your page. Then ask them to perform some function and watch what they do. Do they struggle when they try to add a user to the list of names? Do they search around for a help button? In some cases, have the user actually speak out loud about what they are doing. Usability tests can really help you learn where your app works well and where it just plain sucks. Hell, I forgot to add a 'save' button to one of mine because I knew how to get it to save without the button (there was a trick to it). I almost put it in to production, but we do quality checks with other people and they caught it (I believe my thoughts were, "Doh!").
Anyway, I'd suggest the book. It's something you could read while sitting in a Barnes and Nobel sipping tea or whatnot.
-Frijoles-
Good web design is like good music or good writing. It's only good insofar as it meets the desires and expectations of the audience. My wife and I think Son Seals and Koko Taylor are The S**t. The 18 year old young women in our WSD are bored with them. They like (boring, rhytmless, tuneless :-) techno.
Some people LIKE lots of Flash, animated buttons and dancing bologna on the screen. I like clean and simple. Each is appropriate for different tasks.
The question is, as always, "What problem are you trying to solve?"
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
Web Pages That Suck
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
Everything you want to now is here. Enjoy!
You really can't go wrong if your website follows those three principles. There are hardware concerns, too (make sure your servers and your connection is up to the expected task).
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
useit.com. It's a great resource for usability information, including a lot of stuff on web usability and design.
I'd suggest reading Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox on web design, not only the current columns but past ones, too. Some columns like The Top Ten New Mistakes of Web Design are definitely worth reading. It's a couple years old, but people still make those same mistakes.
Besides not falling into the trap of flash without substance (pun intended; Flash is frequently useless for most web sites), keep in mind that people have come to expect certain things from how web pages work. It's nice to have an inovative design, but if it's so far outside the norm that no one can figure it out, people aren't going to use it.
For example, for web commerce, you may not like Amazon, but their site has become the standard for how people expect to shop on the web.
The only design that works contains the following:
.Gif icons (a must: apply a drop-shadow filter with Gimp or Photoshop!) .sig to advertise their business/website
/.!
[] A teal color scheme
[] Black text on a white background
[]
[] A plethora of spelling and grammatical errors; otherwise, it will look like some type of machine is running the site rather than a genuine dumb human being
[] The ability to add users
[] At least 40% of all users must troll
[] Allow them to have a
[] Commenting capabilities
[] Comments must be rated as an integer value with 5 being the highest and -1 being the lowest. In special cases, incessantly naughty trolls can be bitchslapped into a -2 blackhole.
[] First post is life, the rest is just details
[] Moderating capabilites
[] Posts may be moderated an infinite number of times. Even if every rating is used a handful of times on the same comment, it should be rated as whatever adjective the last moderator thought it deserved.
[] Ultimate goal: build a large enough user base so that you can post links to sites you yourself hate on the front page and watch those sites' servers go up in smoke in a little under five minutes
This is meant as a joke. I love
:-)
1) Are you selling a product or yourself?
If you are selling a product, keep it simple. Flashy shit, while nice as eyecandy, inevitably will cause problems with SOMEONE's browser out there if they don't have installed/activated the plugin that you require and then you've alienated a potential customer.
Also, make good use of the title tags. Put the page name AND COMPANY OR PRODUCT NAME in it, and not "Home" or, worse, "Untitled Document". Think of how you want your bookmark in their list to look.
1. World Wide Web Consortium is thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods.
2. Flash is evil, and of the devil. Flash is blaspemy.
3. Javascript can be useful for on-page functions that don't necessarily require a server call, but remember your page still still fundamentally work with no javascript enabled.
4. Images should be used for illustrative purposes, not to show you found a neat image and *never* as a background.
5. Images should be small and reduced to webpage resolutions.
6. Content shouldn't be laborous to read. Black on white text is the best, but at least always make sure to use contrasting colors.
7. Style sheets should always be used (see number 1) but make sure that necessary style pairings (such as colored tables and the text within) are defined in the same scope. A page-declared table color and text/css file declared table text color could cause problems if your style sheet file doesn't load.
8. Design for non-compliant brower protocols *only* if your business depends on it. Private sites should *always* be written to the HTML specs (see #1) all browsers be damned.
9. Do not covet they neighbors hyperlinks. Links should be used in *context* and not in a random listing. Don't say "you can find a link about greyhound adoption *here*." Instead, write either "There is a lot of information about *greyhound adoption*" or "*Greyhound Puppies Inc* has a lot of information about greyhound adoption." All of this results in a page more useable by non-traditional browsers. (see number 1)
10. If you change the color of links, you should make sure that the default colors (blue, purple, red) will show up on your site. Another reason not to use picture backgrounds. Also, don't ever *ever* reverse the color scheme... cool (blue-like) colors for unvisited links, purple or red-like (hot) colors for visited links.
Frankly, I think you're asking the wrong crowd.
Of all computer users, the Linux crowd is the least qualified to comment about design. Oh sure, there are exceptions, both among Linux users and among Slashdot readers, but just read the comments that have already been posted. The common thread is that people wouldn't want to sacrifice content for a flashy web site, and that just shows their ignorance. These people don't realize that good design does not involve compromizes. Good design is about presenting the content in such a manner that the appearance enhances the content presentation, not distracts from it.
Besides, look at the state of 99% of Linux software, especially the open source stuff. User interfaces are the last concern of the developers. It's obvious to me that the majority of Linux developers and users really don't care, or just don't know anything about, good design. But, I guess I should cut them some slack, since it's very hard to be a good programmer and a good designer. Yet I'm disappointed that most developers don't try to get good design ideas from others.
So yes, Virginia, you can have your cake and eat it too, provided that the web site is designed by a real graphic designer. Such an individual has both training and experience in creating designs that work.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Making your page look good on every browser and platform is impossible. It will take too much work and you probably don't have all the systems
Bullshit!
Making a page that looks good on every browser is as simple as using standard W3C approved HTML. Once you start using advanced CSS you'll run into a few problems, but they're managable. But once you start using scripts, animations, frames and proprietary plugins, you'll never get it to look decent on any browser but they one you're coding for.
We've got a new guy at work who used to be a web developer. I had a long discussion with him about why websites were designed for specific browsers. Why use all these proprietary plugins and scripts redirecting browsers to appropriate versions, instead of just using the standards that are out there. The answer was surprising to me. "The requirement and specifications that come from marketing demand that the website look *identical* to every viewer."
He was serious. His former company was paying testers to measure stuff on the screen, to verify that a box in NS wasn't two pixels taller than it was under IE. They even had some pages on the site that were 100% Flash. If more browsers could handle embedded PDF, they'd use that instead. Ridiculous.
Use FRAMES and Images maps if you need it.
Good idea. Especially since you NEVER need to use frames, and should ALWAYS accompany image maps with standard text navigation.
Sheesh, I bet you're one of these guys that doesn't even use alt tags.
Flash and Shockwave when necessary
And just when are Flash and Shockwave ever necessary?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Especially since you NEVER need to use frames
I dispute that: there's a certain very well-defined set of circumstances in which using a frameset is beneficial. Although I agree that 99% of the frameset usage on the web is inappropriate, in certain circumstances framesets can be used for efficient navigation and still look good - the main advantage of frames is that they only need loading once - it's a frivolous waste of bandwidth to put the same graphical navigation bar on each page, for example (not that I'm a huge fan of graphical navbars).
Still, the rule for frames is: If in doubt, don't use them.
Actually, not. There's the normal page that 99% of users will use but through effective use of SSI it doesn't have to be duplication of effort at all.
" />
If your default design requires Javascript, include a
<noscript>
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;http://server.domain.com/texthome.html
</noscript>
in the HEAD.
This will send all of the folks with no scripting to the page that has none.
The very first thing that should appear on the default page is a link to the text-only version. This is for the benefit of non-sighted users who are using a browser that processes the scripting. This should appear first because you don't want them to have to wait while their screen reader recites the entire page before they get to the one piece they really need to function.
Yes, by all means "know your audience." But, remember that unless you are going to authenticate your entire audience there will be other people coming to your site.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Actually Eric Binna and Lou Montoulli invented the Blink tag at Netscape. It was an easter egg, it was never documented by Netscape, they just used it a couple of times on their Web site. It was actually meant as a joke.
To answer the original question, Web designers should be taught to use as little active code as is necessary. I am fed up with sites that collapse in a mess of poorly debugged Javascript. At least these days Javascript rarely causes the browser to crash, but you can still go to a major site and hit a Jscript bug with a major browser release.
The main design point I think Web Designers need to be taught is allowing the user to decide how to view the site. I really get fed up with sites where the main purpose is to satisfy the Web Designer's ego.
My absolute hate is sites that start to mess arround with the controls on my browser. Especially those that try to disable the back button or fix the window size. At home I have a large LCD display, only i spend a lot of time looking at sites that insist on folding themselves up to a postage stamp size in one corner with 6pt fonts.
Don't ever put 'best viewed in 640x480 on your site, or anything like it. The whole design of HTML was to make that type of thing unnecessary.
IE now allows you to enable javascript on a per site basis. since turning off Jscript by default and only enabling it when necessary the quality of my browsing has improved greatly. A major side benefit is that popup ads no longer work. Now if we can only persuade MSFT to allow Macromedia to be disabled on a site by site basis or provide a button that says 'Never download this application it is a crappy piece of crap whose sole purpose is to bombard me with crappy adverts i don't want to see'.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The difference is that you can make links open in a new windows by control-clicking (or whatever) on them. But if the developer forces all links to open in a new window, how do I (who doesn't want a new window) make it not open in a new window? I can't -- the developer has overridden that option.
To provide the user with choice (which is one of the most important things that a website developer can do), it's important to not force particular UI styles on users. Give them choices. In this case, the only way to do that is by not opening links in a new window.
-Waldo Jaquith
I do web programming for a living, and we get into some very interesting conversations when we're designing a site. Occasionally, I get some very wierd requests for new and novel interfaces. This is a bad idea.
Although the web is fairly new. almost everybody is expecting to see a few things.
- A navigation bar on the left
- A breadcrumb, like on Yahoo!
- Navigation at the very top
You do anything different, and you risk confusing the hell out of your users.You can argue all you want about why your interface is better,but unless you can hard data from usability testing, don't break tradition without a very good reason.I may be heavily biased, since that is what I do all day, but make absolutely sure your code is valid HTML, and leave out all the kruft. Pretty much all WYSIWYG design interfaces by default don't put out valid html, so don't use them. [Emacs |VI] will perform admirably, produce clean code, and if you use a server side scripting language and hide most of your code in templates, will be as fast or faster than Dreamweaver or Frontpage. (You are using PHP/Coldfusion/CGI/ASP, Right?)
For the Love of (insert your choice of deity here), don't make a site all flash unless you have an extremely good reason to. As of yet, I have never heard of a good reason to do so, but they might, in theory, exist. Anything that you put into a web page, be it Javascript, Flash, Shockwave, audio, video, and massive, massive graphics, slows down the site, makes it harder to load, and will turn people away. I'm not saying to use NO graphics. I use quite a few at work, but keep them small, and realise that users very well may have images, stylesheets, or browser-supplied fonts turned off.
Finally, remember what HTML is designed to do. HTML is a markup language designed to format text. All the nifty graphics and such are good, and they have their place, but they weren't invisioned when HTML was designed, and in a sense, they are foriegn to the medium. Use them with caution.
Whoever mentioned the book Don't Make Me Think has a very good point. That one sentence tells you more about User Interfaces than many books ever will.
all these are of course simple usability thoughts. you still need to consider file sizes/image optimisation, cross-browser issues, etc. key to all of these though is knowing your target market. if I'm making a site for other designers it's doubtful it would need to support anything less than 32bit colour 1024x768, a higher than usual bandwidth and slightly more patience to see some eyecandy. however cross-browser compatibility becomes a key issue.
thats all for now, i may follow this up a little more if people want it at a later date.
Glenn
The Smrt way to trade CFDs on the ASX
Listen to the clever people. Not me, but Joel Spolsky.
From his book, User Interface Design for Programmers:
Usability is not everything. If usability engineers designed a nightclub, it would be clean, quiet, brightly lit, with lots of places to sit down, plenty of bartenders, menus written in 18-point sans-serif, and easy-to-find bathrooms. But nobody would be there. They would all be down the street at Coyote Ugly pouring beer on each other.
(he also said that on his site in Nov 2000.)
Joel's a far more clever guy than I, and is always much more eloquent in expressing ideas. You should listen to him, too.
J.J.