Feedback on: Web Design Hints and Tips
2. http://www.irt.org/untested/xjs141/index.htm#12
"Most people who posses a computer also have a watch, and if not there is one in the bottom right corner." Not necessarily on
a UNIX/X platform.
3. http://www.irt.org/untested/xjs141/index.htm#18
Good, but what about other proprietary tags? <MARQUEE>
4. "These faults are not necessarily in order of how important they are ..."
True. But then it may be nice to "categorize" them: authoring,
web-based graphics, etc.
5. http://www.irt.org/untested/xjs141/index.htm#10
Okay, but what about other scripting languages?
Java Applets, Flash.....
"I hate the Java applets which mirror an image with a lake effect and those fireworks applets you occasionally find.... These types of applets ruin pages, they make them look cheap and its obvious that they have been stolen from somewhere."
You mention in the introduction that these tips are not just for beginners. I would argue that the successful use of these superficial applets and plug-ins really depends on the type of site you are trying to create. For a standard corporate site, they are obviously not suitable unless you are a graphic design or perhaps an advertising/PR company. A site designed purely for marketing purposes however, could benefit. Remember that visitors to such a site will mainly be web beginners, not technical types, and they are likely to be impressed by such eye-candy without caring too much about load times.
Background sound
I agree. I've got to the stage where I mute the MIDI at the first note of a tune.
Resolution and colour depth
A good point. Web designers should not make people adapt to the site; they should make the site adapt to the people (and their configurations).
"Us web professionals" sounds a bit patronising though.
JavaScript Errors
"...if your page requires a version 4 browser you should have a redirect page in place..."
Perhaps you should also labour that any pages containing script should be designed to degrade gracefully on older browsers. This is often a more satisfactory solution than a redirect page, but granted it is not always possible.
File Sizes
"I would recommend Fireworks and there is a review at irt.org"
Actually, there isn't :-) Or at least not yet - so it's probably best to remove this comment for now.
Progressive JPEGs are not supported on some older browsers.
Concise
"I am constantly amazed by how many big commercial sites I can get lost in, and I've had a few years experience on the net. I would name some but that's unprofessional."
I think it's a good idea to mention a couple of the commercial sites you don't like, and perhaps say why or which of the article headings apply to them. It gives a good example to your readers, a bit like the "Web pages that suck" site. I don't think it's very unprofessional.
Overall the article is interesting to read - hopefully we can get people to come up with more pet hates.
Michael
There seems to be various "self-justifications", assumptions, sweeping statements, generalities, and some errors. Examples:
"Never use background sound unless you really need it to enhance your page. I listen to music most of the time
I am surfing the web, and some clattery MIDI ruining my CD irritates me. If I do not need to look at the page for
its content I will leave immediately, otherwise I will mute MIDI in the sound control panel. Either way I do not
listen to the sound so its not worthwhile having it there. Unless I really need to view your page for its content
you will have lost a visitor straight away. "
Good. So putting a sound file in the background is not recommended. A whole paragraph of "I this, I that" was
not necessary.
"People who have those little animated links to Netscape and Internet Explorer sites should have their pages taken offline."
Somebody might say that for this article too.
"Most people who posses a computer also have a watch, and if not there is one in the bottom right corner."
Bottom right on which platform? Windows 95/98-based? Not on UNIX/X necessarily.
"Never go over the top with multimedia plug-ins. The plug-ins listed above ..."
Above, where?
"... all slow down the loading of a page considerably so try and achieve what you want in some other way, by JavaScript, CGI or DHTML."
CGI's can also slow downloading. Also, there are various formats
for which none of JavaScript, CGI or DHTML may work or work easily, like serving simple PDF files, for which it might be useful for the user to have a plug-in.
"I hate the Java applets which mirror an image with a lake effect and those fireworks applets you occasionally find. They take ages to load and really are not worth it because they detract from the page. These types of applets ruin pages, they make them look cheap and its obvious that they have been stolen from somewhere."
Fine. So what's the tip? Don't use stolen Java applets? Or don't use Java applets?
"I hardly think that a visitor is going to reboot their machine at the correct resolution and colour depth"
Well, even under Windows 95 one may not have to reboot the
machine to change resolution. (You just have to have the right
Power Toy.)
"Us web professionals believe that people actually know what resolution and colour depth mean ..."
Really? Who's "Us"?
" I can guarantee that less than 10% of the visitors to an average site like Yahoo! will be able to define it ..."
Wow! That's quite a guarantee.
"Its always a good idea to insert target="_blank" at the end of your links so its opened in a new window."
target="_blank" will open each link in a DIFFERENT window.
Do you really want that?
All the "tips" are relevant but mentioned ad hoc; there seems to be a lack of organization. For example, if some reader is looking
for web graphics design, he/she has to wade through the entire article to find relevant sections.
There are NO references, which might give the (false) impression
that the article itself is an authoritative standard on Web Design.
In conclusion, the article can be quite useful but it requires some serious rethinking and modifications.
Worth:
Very worth reading
Comments:
>Saying it rite (sic!)
Once you've completed writing the content, running a spell checker over the text is worth doing. First impressions count. Spelling and grammar errors give the impression of unprofessionalism. <
I'd also have a knowledgable person proofread the content to catch things like misuse of "your" and "you're" -- ie. things a spell checker wouldn't flag.
Worth:
Very worth reading
Comments:
>Obviously the former is to be condemed and the latter condoned.<
"condemed" should be "condemned"
Worth:
Worth reading
Length:
Just right
Technical:
Just right
Comments:
It would be great, if we could also include some information on link titles in this article, as it is a very easy way to increase usability significantly.
For more information see:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980111.html
Worth:
Very worth reading
Comments:
What a long long long page you have...but I liked it and have bookmarked your site because Content is King!!!
Worth:
Very worth reading
Comments:
Your initial instruction on doing it "rite" [sic] should be taken to heart. See, for example your own improper use of the apostrophe in "gif's"; the apostrophe indicates possessive, not plural.
--knit picker
Worth:
Very worth reading
Length:
Too long
Technical:
Not technical enough
Comments:
Pretty good information. Will definitely bookmark it for further refernce. Good links provided. Could follow up with a more technical document
Length:
Too long
Comments:
This article is a bit out of date now, and not particularly well written or organised.
The one thing that rather irritated me was that you didn't even follow your own recommended guidelines - fix the grammatical errors! GIF's?! Logo's?!
Have to say I got bored reading it about half way down the page, but soldiered on bravely.
Don't mean to be too critical - this is an excellent website in general.