This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Website Design Forum > May 2006 > Appealing Web Design
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Appealing Web Design
|
|
|
| What type of design really appeals to the masses? Please take a look
and give me your comment. I think it works, some might think it's too
busy but, you can do allot of reading without too much clicking, that's
what I think. What do YOU need to make you come back?
Thanks for any input you could give.
http://www.schmooseme.com
RSC
| |
| Jim Moe 2006-05-18, 7:07 pm |
| RSC wrote:
> What type of design really appeals to the masses? Please take a look
> and give me your comment. I think it works, some might think it's too
> busy but, you can do allot of reading without too much clicking, that's
> what I think. What do YOU need to make you come back?
>
> http://www.schmooseme.com
>
The layout is a disaster.
HTML:
- 176 HTML validation errors
<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...hmooseme.com%2F>
- The code itself is beyond description. It is a train wreck.
Visual:
- text overlays images
- text overlays text
- text overflows the boxes
- width is way too wide
- color bars over the boxes are not the same size as the box
- text colors and link colors are sometimes the same. How do I tell the
difference?
You should really test the site with a modern browser (Opera, Firefox).
IE6 is ancient.
FrontPage is one of the lousiest WYSIWYG editors for HTML. The HTML code
it generates is atrocious. Sadly, there are not any good GUI editors.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-05-18, 7:07 pm |
| On 18 May 2006 12:15:52 -0700, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , "RSC"
<rsceliberti@hotmail.com> in
<1147979752.535740.266280@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>What type of design really appeals to the masses? Please take a look
>and give me your comment. I think it works, some might think it's too
>busy but, you can do allot of reading without too much clicking, that's
>what I think. What do YOU need to make you come back?
>
>Thanks for any input you could give.
>
>http://www.schmooseme.com
>
I think it is one of the ugliest sites I have ever seen. I don't know
what it is and I don't want to know. It is really too bad to consider
detail of errors. Nor would I care about code validation. Start over
with a clean piece of paper.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
|
| Wow, you guys must have a bad home life! I've never heard that much
bad news about my site. One thing, I would never write code for
anything but IE , why waste my time on 10% of the browsers in use? I
will check out your sites and see how the gods design a page.
I do thank you fboth for looking at it.
RSC
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-05-18, 7:07 pm |
| RSC wrote:
> One thing, I would never write code for anything but IE , why waste my
> time on 10% of the browsers in use?
Writing for 90% (probably less) of browsers (IE), and ignoring the rest
is about the same as turning off your web server during June and July
every year.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
| Jim Moe 2006-05-18, 7:07 pm |
| RSC wrote:
> [...] One thing, I would never write code for
> anything but IE , why waste my time on 10% of the browsers in use? I
> will check out your sites and see how the gods design a page.
>
It is a truly awful site, even when viewed with IE. Try increasing the
text size and see what happens to your layout.
There is a lot of variation in what IE's market share is these days, but
90% is definitely on the high side. The numbers range from 50% to 80%,
probably closer to the latter. If your own access logs indicate more than
90%, I would say it is because your site is so ghastly in other browsers
that none of those visitors come back.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-05-18, 7:07 pm |
| Jim Moe wrote:
> [...] I would say it is because your site is so ghastly in other
> browsers that none of those visitors come back.
Then again, it may be the content. <lol>
http://www.schmooseme.com/SurftheWeb.htm a partial quote:
"We all know the best way to keep your computer claim is to surf the web
responsibly, you will find that topic covered on the site. For now
let's assume you have been infected with a virus or spy where or both.
Four you begin your cleaning exercise please make sure your System
restore settings are disabled in Windows XP." ...
--
-bts
-Warning: I keep my computer claim all the time
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-05-18, 7:07 pm |
| On 18 May 2006 13:45:21 -0700, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design , "RSC"
<rsceliberti@hotmail.com> in
<1147985121.228439.80040@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Wow, you guys must have a bad home life! I've never heard that much
>bad news about my site. One thing, I would never write code for
>anything but IE , why waste my time on 10% of the browsers in use? I
>will check out your sites and see how the gods design a page.
>
>I do thank you fboth for looking at it.
>
I looked at the site with FF and IE, so that strawman is not an issue.
Nor is my home life. You asked for a favor and I tried my best. If
insults are all you can offer in response then, perhaps, it is not my
home like that is a problem. I am not a god nor does it require
godhood to see your site for the horrible ugly useless dreck it is.
HTH. HAND.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| Alan J. Flavell 2006-05-18, 10:48 pm |
| On Thu, 18 May 2006, RSC wrote:
> One thing, I would never write code for anything but IE , why waste
> my time on 10% of the browsers in use?
If you're getting 90% visits from MSIE, then your plan of keeping away
substantial numbers of users of web browsers is evidently proving
successful beyond your wildest dreams. Except that you appear to be
unaware of just how successful you've been.
For what it's worth, I found the first page of the cited site useless
on MSIE, and saw no point in trying to go further. It was hardly
worth bothering trying it on a web browser, after what you'd said, so
I didn't.
By the way, MSIE isn't totally incapable of rendering standards-
conforming web pages. Most IE hits are from IE6, and - if you avoid
its weak points, and take care to put it into its standards mode - it
can almost imitate a web browser. With only a little extra effort,
it's possible to design for the web, and still get results from MSIE.
Not that you'd wish to know that, apparently.
| |
|
| Matt and Jim -
I did not mean to offend with the home life remark, I was only making a
funny. But lets not forget how Matt started his reply: " think it is
one of the ugliest sites I have ever seen". Let's move on, I am
greatfull for everyones reply but I visit alot of business pc's in my
job as a consultant and have only come across 1 FF user and that is a
guy in our office. And even he must revert back to IE to get certain
key websites to authenticate and function properly. I plan to study
the information Jim showed me, I guess I don't understand the
importants of the validation when I don't see a problem in IE. I
actully use IE7. I did notice a few browsers that the font was off, I
thought that was because thier PC did not have that font installed.
Lastly, I did start out this using layers which I know was a big boo
boo, and Matt is correct in saying I should start over again. I do
have a smaller site that uses tables, http://www.treasurethemalways.com
( not quite finished though).
Again thanks for everyones comments.
RSC
http://www.dailyusage.com
http://www.treasurethemalways.com
http://www.schmooseme.com
| |
| Brendan Gillatt 2006-05-19, 7:04 pm |
| RSC wrote:
> Matt and Jim -
>
> I did not mean to offend with the home life remark, I was only making a
> funny. But lets not forget how Matt started his reply: " think it is
> one of the ugliest sites I have ever seen". Let's move on, I am
> greatfull for everyones reply but I visit alot of business pc's in my
> job as a consultant and have only come across 1 FF user and that is a
> guy in our office.
So your only targeting office based connections? That cuts out a hell of
a lot of potential traffic. Your website doesn't have particularly
office based resources and so office workers may not even want to visit.
> And even he must revert back to IE to get certain
> key websites to authenticate and function properly. I plan to study
> the information Jim showed me, I guess I don't understand the
> importants of the validation when I don't see a problem in IE. I
> actully use IE7. I did notice a few browsers that the font was off, I
> thought that was because thier PC did not have that font installed.
You should NEVER rely on having fonts on the end-user's system apart
from true type fonts such as sans-serif.
> Lastly, I did start out this using layers which I know was a big boo
> boo, and Matt is correct in saying I should start over again. I do
> have a smaller site that uses tables, http://www.treasurethemalways.com
> ( not quite finished though).
Tables are a bad idea too for layout - they make a site a lot slower at
rendering and make it impossible to comprehend in a small window size -
the static properties of tables don't change well with a smaller than
anticipated screen. I have to admit my old site relied heavily on tables
for layout. After some advice by the experts in this group I completely
re-hauled the design and used <div> elements for positioning instead.
Oh and your server at http://www.treasurethemalways.com is having some
sort of problem - It takes longer than the 30 second timeout of most
browsers to send its data even though the ping to the server is just
142ms from where I am.
I could recommend that you try to get a focus for your website. It's
basically lots of dribs and drabs that don't have a central idea; this
is only your front page. Even grouping these ideas into separate
headings / pages could clean up your design. If, for example I came from
google to your site hoping to find out about home decorating I would
need to scroll a long way down your page and then look under a tiny
heading to the right to find what I was after.
| |
|
| Thank you, that's the best advice I've heard so far, I will proceed to
adjust fonts and organize the front page, although I'll have to think
of a theme, as you can see, I don't have one.
RSC
| |
|
| I have to throw this in because I still can't get past the FF v IE.
This articale states IE just fell below 90% total usage.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/60404020
I feel my (our) time is better spent tring to satisfy 90% the 10% don't
you? I also have 2 tracking tools that tell me the brower versions,
and I've had 2 FF in the past 6 months (and it was probebly my buddy I
mentioned earlier). Allthough I bet I will see a few more next time I
look. :-)
I know a few FF users and I wonder, why do they still have the IE icon
on thier desktp?
Don't get mad at me, I'm just making convo.
RSC
| |
|
|
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-05-19, 7:05 pm |
| RSC wrote:
> I have to throw this in because I still can't get past the FF v IE.
> This articale states IE just fell below 90% total usage.
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/60404020
"February 28, 2005 (2:43 PM EST)
Firefox Nips IE Ankles Again"
Try to find an article that is not over a year old.
Or look here:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
IE 60%, Firefox 25% ...
Stats can be anything. Depends on who and what you read.
> I feel my (our) time is better spent tring to satisfy 90% the 10%
> don't you?
You may one day realize that it is actually easier to "design" for *no*
browser in particular (sticking to standards), instead of trying to use
any peculiarities of that one operating system component that
masquerades as a browser.
> I also have 2 tracking tools that tell me the brower
> versions, and I've had 2 FF in the past 6 months (and it was probebly
> my buddy I mentioned earlier). Allthough I bet I will see a few more
> next time I look. :-)
...at least in the last couple of days.
> I know a few FF users and I wonder, why do they still have the IE
> icon on thier desktp?
Mine is labeled "Evil Program!"
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
| Alan J. Flavell 2006-05-19, 7:05 pm |
| On Fri, 19 May 2006, Beauregard T. Shagnasty brought to light that:
> RSC wrote:
>
>
> Mine is labeled "Evil Program!"
Well, I can perfectly well explain the reasons why I need MSIE, if
anyone cares.
Number 1 priority is for installing the endless stream of security
fixes for its OS.
Number 2 priority is as the user interface to a few remote proprietary
applications which I have to use as part of my job. Those applications
look a bit like web pages, but in reality they are no such thing -
they have been designed to make certain sure that they cannot be
successfully used from a web browser: they demand a whole swath of
proprietary features supported only by IE.
I didn't design those proprietary applications, but I have to use
them.
Number 3 priority is to verify that web pages which I have made, can
also be successfully viewed on the operating system component that
thinks it's a web browser.
But I certainly would *not* use it instead of a web browser for
randomly wandering the world wild web.
However, I still maintain that it's well capable of browsing properly
made web pages. It's just that it's potentially unsafe for browsing
improperly made pages, if you catch my drift.
| |
|
| This is what I got in the last two days, check it out:
43 43.00% MSIE 6.0
20 20.00% Firefox 1.5.0
15 15.00% Firefox 1.0.7
8 8.00% Opera 8.50
5 5.00% MSIE 7.0
2 2.00% Opera 9.00
2 2.00% Safari 1.0
2 2.00% Mozilla 5.0
1 1.00% Mozilla 8.72
1 1.00% Netscape 7.02
1 1.00% Opera 8.52
I would conclude that this "group" are more advanced then the average
surfer. The average surfer will just use whatever browser comes with
thier PC. Take AOL users, (please). I would not think "Advanced" and
AOL would be used in the same sentence yet they account for how many
members? Anyway, I may load FF on a system I have just for giggles.
And if I see it looks hitius, It would nag me and I'd have to make a
change. I was mostly looking for content comments but learned a bit
more!
RSC
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-05-20, 6:59 pm |
| RSC wrote:
> I would conclude that this "group" are more advanced then the average
> surfer.
Yes, we probably are. We have more chooses.
http://www.schmooseme.com/Soda%20Cans.htm
"After emptying you soda can of every drop of soda you have two chooses;
throw the can in the trash or recycle it and save the planet._"
One of our chooses is to not use FrontPlague.
> The average surfer will just use whatever browser comes with thier PC.
> Take AOL users, (please). I would not think "Advanced" and AOL
> would be used in the same sentence yet they account for how many
> members? Anyway, I may load FF on a system I have just for giggles.
Why stop with just Firefox? There are several other good browsers out
there you may want to try. After Firefox, go get Opera.
> And if I see it looks hitius, It would nag me and I'd have to make a
> change. I was mostly looking for content comments but learned a bit
> more!
It looks just as hitius in IE as it does in Firefox, Opera, SeaMonkey,
and others.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
| Derek.Moody 2006-05-20, 6:59 pm |
| In article <1148072607.518623.149450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, RSC
<URL:mailto:rsceliberti@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's ages since I looked in on one of these. I thought we'd left this sort
of attitude behind in '98.
> I have to throw this in because I still can't get past the FF v IE.
> This articale states IE just fell below 90% total usage.
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/60404020
Way out of date around here. My users have 0% IE usage. I think one or two
use FF - I have a copy for checking for eg. but it's not my #1 choice.
> I feel my (our) time is better spent tring to satisfy 90% the 10% don't
> you? I also have 2 tracking tools that tell me the brower versions,
> and I've had 2 FF in the past 6 months (and it was probebly my buddy I
> mentioned earlier). Allthough I bet I will see a few more next time I
> look. :-)
Not from me you won't.
> I know a few FF users and I wonder, why do they still have the IE icon
> on thier desktp?
Um, they might be Windows users: I understand it's almost impossible to get
rid of IE from Windows.
OK, to the site:
It works quite well if you turn off javascript, disable CSS magnify all the
text and turn off image rendering.
It isn't clever to deliver an 800x1k image and tell the browser to resize it
for you and that's just the worst example.
The rendering begins with a lie ;-)
'800X600 will not see the page to the right' indeed! - it rendered as well
as it was ever going to at 270 wide. At 1600X1200 it was a bit gappy and
still needed four pages to scroll to the bottom.
If you're going to make graphics of your headers -do- try to spell them
correctly.
Luckily I have none of Curlz Arial, Chicago so I got my preferred founts.
'...href="mailto:m****@******e.com?subject=About Schmooseme.com"...'
- Oh dear.
And the little graphical page counter is sooooo retro-cute.
I'm not going to bother to validate it - though:
s /img/ -count
:16
s /alt/ -count
:4
Hmmm. Figures.
Cheerio,
--[color=darkred]
| |
| Garmt de Vries 2006-05-20, 6:59 pm |
| Appealing Web Design?
No... Appalling Web Design.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:15:52 +0200, RSC <rsceliberti@hotmail.com> wrote:=
> What type of design really appeals to the masses? Please take a look
> and give me your comment. I think it works, some might think it's too=
> busy but, you can do allot of reading without too much clicking, that'=
s
> what I think. What do YOU need to make you come back?
>
> Thanks for any input you could give.
>
> http://www.schmooseme.com
>
> RSC
>
-- =
Garmt de Vries
| |
| Wizzah 2006-05-24, 7:04 am |
| HI RCS,
My feeling about schmooseme is that it's a bit restless. The other link
you gave looks more balanced. Never mind the discussion about browsers.
You need a good design first, then test and repair for FireFox. If that
works about the same, your ready. I've been making sites for a few
years now and this is how I'd try to fine-tune the page.
FONT USAGE
A thing that strikes me at a glance is that you use at least 3
different font types in different variants. I see the weird logo font,
wich could work - but not on all computers, the arial below it and the
assorted times and arial fonts mixed up in your content.To give the
site a clean and peacefull look try using just one type of font. My
favorite is verdana for web, but you can just choose. Some text has a
different status as other text. Try using different sizes or using
capitals for titles etc. That way you can still use different status
and you get a more balanced look. Stick with the logo though. It will
stick out much more. Four text variants are the maximum. The logo would
strike more if you put it on a white/lighter background. To make sure
everyone sees it, make it an image. You can use the alt tag for SEO.
COLOR
Same story. You are using at least five different colors. Try using a
more balanced colorscheme. A good trick for making a colorscheme you
can find here: http://slayeroffice.com/tools/color_palette/ Pick a
light solid color for your background. It will be more peacefull. Then
take a dark color for titles and maybe a slightly lighter color for the
disclaimer, etc. Try it, it will make a world of difference. Use about
5 colors maximum but kee-p them within the range of a colorsceme. Same
goes for the lines of boxes.
LAY-OUT
Your text seems to be pushed to the right edge of its containers. It
needs some more air. Try using a padding of 3px on the left of your
text. Also try this on the top and bottom of your titles. When
designing text boxes with the same kind of function, try making them
look the same. Also try to make your columns the same width. To
empasize a textbox, use a subtle color change or use one of these
sparkling icons you've got.
Hope this helps. Succes with the page.
Regards,
Mark van Laere
www.webinzicht.com - www.hersenspinsels.nl
| |
| Wizzah 2006-05-24, 7:04 am |
| HI RCS,
My feeling about schmooseme is that it's a bit restless. The other link
you gave looks more balanced. Never mind the discussion about browsers.
You need a good design first, then test and repair for FireFox. If that
works about the same, your ready. I've been making sites for a few
years now and this is how I'd try to fine-tune the page.
FONT USAGE
A thing that strikes me at a glance is that you use at least 3
different font types in different variants. I see the weird logo font,
wich could work - but not on all computers, the arial below it and the
assorted times and arial fonts mixed up in your content.To give the
site a clean and peacefull look try using just one type of font. My
favorite is verdana for web, but you can just choose. Some text has a
different status as other text. Try using different sizes or using
capitals for titles etc. That way you can still use different status
and you get a more balanced look. Stick with the logo though. It will
stick out much more. Four text variants are the maximum. The logo would
strike more if you put it on a white/lighter background. To make sure
everyone sees it, make it an image. You can use the alt tag for SEO.
COLOR
Same story. You are using at least five different colors. Try using a
more balanced colorscheme. A good trick for making a colorscheme you
can find here: http://slayeroffice.com/tools/color_palette/ Pick a
light solid color for your background. It will be more peacefull. Then
take a dark color for titles and maybe a slightly lighter color for the
disclaimer, etc. Try it, it will make a world of difference. Use about
5 colors maximum but kee-p them within the range of a colorsceme. Same
goes for the lines of boxes.
LAY-OUT
Your text seems to be pushed to the left edge of its containers. It
needs some more air. Try using a padding of 3px on the left of your
text. Also try this on the top and bottom of your titles. When
designing text boxes with the same kind of function, try making them
look the same. Also try to make your columns the same width. To
empasize a textbox, use a subtle color change or use one of these
sparkling icons you've got.
Hope this helps. Succes with the page.
Regards,
Mark van Laere
www.webinzicht.com - www.hersenspinsels.nl
| |
|
| That is some good advice and I will look into it. After some changes
to make my fonts more consistant, maybe the FF browser with fall into
place.
Thanks
RSC
| |
| Wizzah 2006-05-29, 6:53 pm |
| It looks a lot better allreay. Just a few more small adjustmenst and
your ready to go, i would think.
FF has only a few small problems. Allmost there. Nice work.
Regards,
Mark van Laere
| |
|
| Yea - your not kidding, those colors really made a difference. I did
check it out on an FF browser, didn't look to good. I need to find
out why FF has such a problem with "layers". As far as layout
goes, using layers is just so cool because you can set your page up
exactly where you want it. And I did that little trick of keeping the
800x600 in its own area then the extra coulomb for 1024 to the right.
Personally, if I was using 800x600 I don't like to see the page run
off to the right. I like to see a clean cut screen. Unlike tables,
that have big white boarders on either side, I use all my space for
content. Right now I have a few loyal visitors, maybe 100 or so page
hits a day, so this is exiting.
You've really been a big help, thanks again!
http://www.schmooseme.com
RSC
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|