your thoughts on the "perfect" website

  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
Sumen wrote:
im not stupid


Does that sound like something someone smart would say?


Yes.

Quote:
I rest my case.


So you're saying he's smart, and that smart people can't figure out the navigation? 8)

Or are you calling him stupid? If so, why not say it directly, neh?
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
that makes you s t u p i d


Sounds to me like I did. But look, I don't want to insult anyone (tho' saying that makes me look like a hypocrite). I want to bring art to the Internet. Is that such a bad thing?

Plus, here's another way to look at things:

What kind of site would you remember, want to visit again and maybe show to your friends: a dull, "classic" one or one that made you stop and think for a second? One with arborescent navigation structure or one with an ingenious nav system? Plain ol' Microsoft.com or a site that made you smile or even shiver?

My experience with design has tought me that the actual product you're selling or displaying is just a pretext for potential greatness. So the content as I define it has little to do with the site's value. (eg. you can make a site about trash very funny, serious or even abominable. Why not all three and let the user choose?) But some (read "most") think that "content" is the actual text on the site. No, people, that's also part of the design.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

Fiveseven, no one has a problem with bringing art to the internet.

rtm223 wrote:
beautiful and technically sound are not mutually exclusive and far too many people, on both sides of the argument are trying to force them to be so.
rtm223 wrote:
Beauty is a great thing and most definately is important in the visual medium of the web, but the web is not a purely visual medium.
Sam Hughes wrote:
What is great is that visual art and the art of organization and function are not mutually exclusive! Good design is artful in both manners, and with good design, the visual aspect augments the functional and organizational aspect!


Can you see now, no-one has a problem with sites being beautiful and artistic, but its the attitude that you seem to be promoting that only visual aspects of a website matter and everything else can go to hell:
Quote:
THINK for a minute, people: what is fast, content centric, semantically-correct, etc. etc. ? A block of text! Oh, sure, you can add hyperlinks to browse through this insipid e-book.

This is incorrect, in fact. I can take the blocks of text and use CSS to present them with any amount of graphical content and art you want. It would remain beautiful to the "normal" user on a pc with a graphical browser, but it will download damn fast, still be friendly with a text browser, with a screen reader, users with other disabilities, with search engines and even on the 150px wide screen on my shiny new mobile phone. Now I'm sorry if you don't care about this type of user, because they don't see your graphics, but the internet is not a poster and a good website designer will be designing for the users, all the users, not just a select group.

Bring Visual Art to the internet, just don't get tunnel vision and disregard everything else that is important. You say that you want to make the internet better, so do that. Help to make all aspects of the internet better.
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

I know what CSS can do. Do you ? http://www.scottschiller.com/
It could have been done in Flash and it probably would have loaded a litle faster. But it's a show-off site.
And you can add all the CSS you want to a block of text, make it pink and fuzzy, but it will still be a block of text. Haven't seen many blocks of text in an art museum. (and remember we're not talking about literature)

Some other examples : http://www.aleart.net/
For text is not the only way to communicate.

And you say the Intenet is not all visual. Indeed, nowadays you can add sound. What are you doing right now? You're reading some text off you're computer's display.

vis-u-al (vizh'ue uhl) adj.
1. of or pertaining to seeing or sight: a
visual image.
2. used in seeing: the visual sense.
3. optical.
4. perceptible by the sense of sight; visible.

Don't tell me you can smell or touch what I'm writing right now. If you have a screen reader, you could hear it. So what does that mean? It means that the Internet is, indeed, strictly audiovisual.
I know what you're trying to say, you're saying that it's more than graphic :

graph-ic (graf'ik) adj.
...
6. of or pertaining to the graphic arts.

Which I never disagreed to. I'm just trying to make you see that no matter what and how much programming a webmaster will use, the end user can only see the end result, which is, in the end, strictly audiovisual.

But that's not even the main argument. My initial point is that with the increasing use of broadband connections, download times should be less of an issue for web-designers and they should NEVER copy "standard" sites like Amazon.com or Yahoo.com or whatever and they should GO WILD when designing, free their minds so the end user can, too.

And about compatibility with text browsers/ mobiles/ etc. : media-specific document versions have been invented. That way you can optimize a site for each media without compromising. But unfortunately most webmasters go like "why make 3 good sites when I can make 1 bad one?"
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
I know what CSS can do. Do you ? http://www.scottschiller.com/
Thats much more to do with javascript, the CSS usage is limited to controlling widths and heights, font colours etc. the newbie-ish basics of CSS. On a technical level that site sucks ass for so many reasons, but I digress.
Quote:
And you can add all the CSS you want to a block of text, make it pink and fuzzy, but it will still be a block of text. Haven't seen many blocks of text in an art museum. (and remember we're not talking about literature)
You can add graphics and all the art you want using CSS as well. Are you proposing that we don't use text at all in our websites? No, we use text and graphics together.
Quote:
Some other examples : http://www.aleart.net/
For text is not the only way to communicate.
Not being funny, but I was on that site for well over two minutes and still not 100% certain what they do there, or if they even do anything at all. Thats not good communication.

Quote:
I'm just trying to make you see that no matter what and how much programming a webmaster will use, the end user can only see the end result, which is, in the end, strictly audiovisual.
So html is a language for creating things that are visual? Really? I think someone needs to go check up on what html, the backbone of our internet, really is. I'm not even going to try and argue against ignorance on that one.

Quote:
But that's not even the main argument. My initial point is that with the increasing use of broadband connections, download times should be less of an issue for web-designers and they should NEVER copy "standard" sites like Amazon.com or Yahoo.com or whatever and they should GO WILD when designing, free their minds so the end user can, too.
You initial point, as I recall, was that you can't have well programmed sites that look good too. My point is that the two can be achieved side by side and any half decent website designer should be aiming to achieve that, not just limiting themselves to one field, be that field graphic design or multimedia production or seo or usability or whatever.

I totally agree that designers should try to be original, I hate dull-looking sites, but download times are still important as broadband connections are in the minority. And we should be looking at semantics and accessibility and paying attention to user needs. I'm sure you are aware that many surveys have been carried out on what the "average" internet user wants. roughly 1/3 - 1/2 are more likely to come back to your site if it has multimedia content, and 1/2 - 2/3 are more likely to come back if they can find the information/product they want quickly. Very vague figures, because those a rough trends and there is no "average" user. All we can see is that both sides are important to a huge percentage of our potential userbase, so neither side should be ignored.

So we give people what they want, attractive, media rich sites, that load quickly, can be found easily on search engines and have decent, intuitive navigation. We give everyone what they want, no matter if they can see or if they are using a pc or a palmtop, no matter what browser they have and regardless of browser settings and whether they have 3rd party plug-ins. Everyone should be able to access the information on your site. Can you free your mind enough to think about that for a moment? I know actually implementing such a thing is not simple, it takes planning and a proper understanding of what you are doing to manage it, but it is possible.

Please check back to all my other posts where I have agreed with you on all matters of art being important. I never once disagreed with that. I'm just saying you need to look at the bigger picture of the internet with multimedia and art as one part of it.

Quote:
And about compatibility with text browsers/ mobiles/ etc. : media-specific document versions have been invented. That way you can optimize a site for each media without compromising. But unfortunately most webmasters go like "why make 3 good sites when I can make 1 bad one?"
I'd go down the road of making one good site, without compromise on any level, without media-specific versions. But maybe thats just good old-fashioned common sense on my part, and actually knowing what I'm doing....
  • mr_darek
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 554

Post 3+ Months Ago

I believe it was gsv2com who said in one of his posts that the essence of the internet is information, not design...I couldn't agree more.

Design is only a tool to present the information you are trying to relay to the user and the same can be said for audio on a lot of sites nowadays as well.

With that in mind:

// The perfect website provides the information I want to access at no more than 2 clicks away.

// The design, color scheme and layout should make sense according to the content and purpose of the website.

// Flow. My eyes should not have any difficulty navigating through design or information.

// As far as functionality and technology used...I'll leave that to the web designer but as long the above three are followed and I'm not sitting around waiting too long for something to load (I'm on broadband for cryin out loud) I'm fine.

// Originality. Thats a term lacking in these threads I think. I remember an instructor in college told me that Originality is the art of concealing your secrets...well, that may be true, but I think today with creative minds working together and feeding off eachother there are those who see outside the box and produce new trends, looks and styles which make way for a new generation of concepts a la 2advanced.com. Don't be afraid to try something new.

For the most part, I think I covered what I wanted to share in regards to a "perfect website." But in the end as mentioned before in this thread...nothing is really perfect...after all, these website are developed by us humans. :wink:
  • bitrunner
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • bitrunner
  • Posts: 45

Post 3+ Months Ago

I agree with gsv2com. While some websites may be prettier and more art-like than others, what makes sales are words. The design is supposed to emphasize the message behind the words, to reinforce the sale. Maybe some differentiation is needed between a purely artistic site which exists only for eye/brain candy and a commercial-centric site whose intent it is to sell someone (everyone hopefully) something. When speaking about the latter, I would say the perfect site:

1. Has super easy navigation. Meaning the disabled and dumb can follow it and get to your point of sale.

2. The site is specific and useful. Not like a hemp jewelery store that also sells web design.

3. Content rich, content specific, sales specific content in a natural tone.

Tada!
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
So html is a language for creating things that are visual? Really? I think someone needs to go check up on what html, the backbone of our internet, really is.


While w3.org say:

Quote:
XML was designed to describe data and to focus on what data is.
HTML was designed to display data and to focus on how data looks.


Again, those words: DISPLAY, how it LOOKS.
I have a feeling W3 know what they're talking about.

I think I've used arguments that any rational human would consider sufficient. I would like to hear some other people's opinions, people that are not obsessed with download times.

Quote:
what makes sales are words


That is the most degrading thing I have ever heard. I'm talking about art and you're talking about MONEY ?! If I wasn't a cold-blooded bastard I'd burst into tears. So I see it's not worth it. I'll just have to leave this community for there is no point in asking turtles to fly.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

The goal of a website is content/information delivery.
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Like - DUUH!, but when are you going to accept the fact that text is not the only way to deliver information? And after that, when are you going to see that it's not the best way, eiter? To make it clear for those with low IQ: You can display text in both the book and the movie, but the movie can also deliver sound and graphics... animated graphics, even (it may sound dull to you, but think about your forefathers) !

You're just the kind of people that would look at a revolutionary, pure genius website and go like "I don't like it 'cause it uses nested tables" or "It takes too much time to load". Oh, wait... you already did!

I see stupidity is the only real flaw of mankind. The others can be fixed.
  • digitalMedia
  • a.k.a. dM
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 5149
  • Loc: SC-USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

:scratchhead: uh-huh.
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

This guy has to be a joke.
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
While w3.org say:

Quote:
XML was designed to describe data and to focus on what data is.
HTML was designed to display data and to focus on how data looks.


Again, those words: DISPLAY, how it LOOKS.
I have a feeling W3 know what they're talking about.


Except for the fact that the W3C never said that. Searching on Google, I get no matches for that quotation on w3.org (but if you have a link that proves otherwise, go ahead and post it).

And you are wrong anyway - - HTML was designed to semantically describe data. It was the browsers with their proprietary extensions such as the FONT tag, CENTER tag, etc, that moved HTML in the direction of visual display. Want evidence? Read the HTML 2 Specification. Right in the introduction: "HTML documents are SGML documents with generic semantics that are appropriate for [i]representing information[i] from a wide range of domains." ( http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html ... .html#SEC1 )

HTML is still a language for structural markup - - CSS is for presentation. The W3C also says that, in its most up-to-date draft of HTML:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/intro.html#h-2.4.1
  • bitrunner
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • bitrunner
  • Posts: 45

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I'm talking about art and you're talking about MONEY ?!


I specifically distinguished between sites for content/business and showoff/art sites.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
Like - DUUH!, but when are you going to accept the fact that text is not the only way to deliver information?
Ho hum, I think we all did, but never mind, I'm sorry you can't keep up with the conversation, but you really can't blame us for that.

Quote:
And after that, when are you going to see that it's not the best way, eiter?
Really? I think you will find that words are the best method of communication. Imagine a conversation with someone, where you are trying to tell them something important. No imagine you can't use any words (and that includes sign language). Now how easy is that going to be? You can make as much movement and noise as you like, but try conveying the paragraph "I'm just going to go down the shops to get some orange juice and coke. I'll be stopping of on the way to pick up my prescription from the pharmacy and probably have a chat with the guy in the corner shop whilst I'm there, so I'll be gone around a half hour. See you later" without words. Go on, see it as a challenge, as we are all stupid and don't understand, why not show us - prove you are right, show us how better it is to communicate that without words. And before you think I'm taking the piss, I'm not. I genuinely want to see what you come up with.

You see, if you have an art site, then the main thing you are trying to communicate is your artistic skills, along with the associated emotions and feeling behind the work. In this case a fully multimedia site will be appropriate, because there is no tangible message. You can communicate emotion better with imagery. But you try creating a news site thats fully multimedia, with full 2 minute intro's on every story. It's not going to work, because for many sites, multimedia does little to enhance the site, or improve it's functionality.

Quote:
To make it clear for those with low IQ: You can display text in both the book and the movie, but the movie can also deliver sound and graphics... animated graphics, even (it may sound dull to you, but think about your forefathers) !
Yep, once again, no one has a problem with multimedia, no one has said multimedia has no place on the internet, but obviously we didn't put enough illustrations with our text so you failed to understand. Maybe we could produce a special little cartoon for you, with a talking dog named Spot in it.

Seriously man, if you want to argue against people, the best bet is to try and understand their viewpoint first and make your arguments relevant, because at the moment you are making a fool of yourself. And just to prove the relevance point:

The topic is about the perfect website. We established that website design is much more than just visual art, yet you persist in only talking about art. I really am sorry you are far to hung up on this one aspect of website design to fully appreciate the entire field.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

I rarely double post, but thought I should separate out these posts. Sorry for the rant BTW, but dumb people get me all worked up and we all know what happens then ;) Back on topic:

What is the perfect website? Well It's the one that is designed to appropriately suit it's purpose.

If your goal is to create a shedload of money, then that is what your site should be aiming to do. Amazon, in this respect, is well designed. The number of features on amazon to try to get you to buy stuff is phenomenal and they have clearly met their goals. It may not be pretty, but Amazon would NOT be enhanced in any way by eye-candy, if anything it would detract from the real purpose of the site.

If your goal is to showcase your art, then you need a site that is also artistic, with an appropriate aesthetic and an appropriate feel, to get people into the right mood for your art. A multimedia presentation type site is perfect for this.

The perfect website is a fictional beast, not because "nothing is perfect", but because every website is different. Every website has different needs, different audiences, different goals. The job of a designer is to meet the specification, to put in what is needed and leave out what is not.
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

rtm wrote:
What is the perfect website? Well It's the one that is designed to appropriately suit it's purpose.


No way, man. The perfect Web site is the one that is perfectly designed to suit its purpose! 8)
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

hehe, otherwise it would just be an "appropriate" website. My bad :lol:
  • Sumen
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 421
  • Loc: Rochester or Albany, NY

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
Sumen wrote:
im not stupid


Does that sound like something someone smart would say?
I rest my case.


What is wrong with you?
FiveseveN wrote:
Sounds to me like I did. But look, I don't want to insult anyone


Your trying to say my post/opinion is invalid because I am stupid? And you say your not trying to insult anyone?

Well, the perfect website for me would take care of all the school work I have to do, clean around the house, answer any questions I have, and maybe give me a little money.
My point is that a website is only good for what it does for you. It should provide a service or provide information. The easier it is for me to find what I want the better. Sometimes graphics help with that. Pure text sites suck, they are boring and they are harder to ....parse..in you head when you look at them.

FiveseveN wrote:
To make it clear for those with low IQ: You can display text in both the book and the movie, but the movie can also deliver sound and graphics... animated graphics, even (it may sound dull to you, but think about your forefathers) !


I like good looking sites, but I dont appreciate the fancy effects that the flash sites you have posted have.
http://www.aleart.net/
I was navigating the site, the effects are neat, but I didn't get what the point of the site was. All these fancy effects and strange shadowing text dont do it for me. Your site gave me nothing, at the most it could've given me was visual entertainment. I find websites dont do a good job of supplying that, TV and Video are much more effective. I am not mesmerized by these twirling particles and etc. WarCraft 3 has better looking effects and I dont go around on battle.net clicking on menus just to watch the menus scroll down the screen the way they do. This kind of flashy stuff has its place but not on most websites...DirectX and Video are a much more effective way of getting visual effects. Webpages are for accessing services and information quick and easily...
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
WarCraft 3 has better looking effects and I dont go around on battle.net clicking on menus just to watch the menus scroll down the screen the way they do.

You don't?! I sure as heck do! :) lol. The menus are the highlight of the whole game for me!
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1853

Post 3+ Months Ago

Aleart.net? I don't know what that site is about - - I enter it and get two options, "feather" and "candle." Oh, well that's great. I click on "feather" and it opens a brand new window! How artistic.

In this new window is some movie of something. I don't know what to do. What is this site giving me? I have no idea. So then I noticed the really tiny five-pixel X inside a seven-by-seven box, and I click that. A timer starts at ten and counts down at a rate of less than a unit per second. Okay, so it's loading more information, right? No, the timer loads a window.close() and closes the window. Thanks. I really admire how it has me wait approximately twelve cryptic seconds before closing the window. That, my friends, is art. I know it when I see it. Also artistic about that timer is that they started it at ten, which is symbolic of space exploration. When it reaches zero, I get to "lift off" into closing of the window.

Then I tried clicking some other words. There was this "last opera" dealie on the right side. When I clicked that, after an artistically brief loading bar, it shows some image rapidly diminishing in size. A light of some sort is blinking on an infinite loop. Then I started to write a description of it, the images are now getting bigger! Sometimes they're rotated. And they're getting faster! Faster and faster, and then sometimes the light is blinking, and then it goes out, and then it's blinking and then it goes out, and then there are multiple images in different places or is it one image they flicker so fast I get a seizure!

Wow.

Then I have nothing to do but click on the five pixels of X inside the forty-nine-pixel square, unless I want to watch it again, but this time, instead of meaning "close the window," it means "go to the previous page," which makes so much more sense, since that's not what the other X does.

I could describe all the other parts of the site, but that wouldn't be interesting. *

Well, maybe we could look at the "candle" portion.

It opens up with a meme of brackets like [35k]]] etc. Disappointingly, the brackets aren't a nested tree structure or anything elegant; there are more closing brackets than opening ones. But being inelegant is art too.

Eventually it has an eye with a candle in it. Or maybe the eye is looking at a candle, and the candle's image is reflecting in a physically impossible large manner. Maybe that person can't afford electricity.

There are a couple of spots on my monitor for some reason; I don't know why. Eventually I'm told to enter the site.

A larger image of the candle appears. There are some new spots on my monitor. I get a paper towel to wipe them off. Oh look, I moved the mouse and more candles appeared! Now they're gone.

Eventually, you can figure out that the dots indicate navigation, so I go to learn about his life.

Facts: This person does Web design, but he/she is not a Web designer. This person communicates through sensation. Since the computer can't produce smells or electrocute me, I guess that would be through the sensation of sight. What a novel idea! Other information is provided as well, with fullstops omitted for artistic reasons.

Anyway, that is an awesome site. I especially enjoy it opening a window with only my Prefsbar appearing, the other toolbars omitted. Waiting extra time for windows to close is also artistic, although having it start at nine and counting a bit more slowly would be more to my tastes; ten is too haughty a number. I appreciate that gesture, because it's not art unless it takes necessary time from my life.

Thank you for sharing that; I change my views on art now. We should all make our sites' navigation as byzantine as possible, too. Or, to have individuality solely for individuality's sake (as all true artists do), maybe make the navigation not be byzantine. Maybe on my next site, I'll use radially symmetric crosses for navigation, instead of dots or pathetic things like hyperlinks. Or I could do minuses. I better consult my handbook on normal Web design, and then do something completely different.


* However, I find it interesting how the "No Illegal Sex" portion of the site recommends letting people die.


(edited for spelling)
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

holy crap that site sucks
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

Sam Hughes, you've got an awesome sense of humor. lol
  • shevegen
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • shevegen
  • Posts: 15

Post 3+ Months Ago

1) Loading that takes not more than 5 seconds and NEVER causes a freeze. (I have had
some japanese sites that caused me to freeze, that is ugly IMO).
Of course, it would be best if the loading takes 1-2 seconds at max.
2) Helpful for the eyes. I want to recognize what i want to see, i want information,
i dont want ad (which i annoyingly must put away via adblock or
3) Small flash things are ok and can be quite nice but on a serious site I do NOT want Java
nor Flash. I have oh so often seen them used as advertisement, and this forces me to
quickly adblock them in firefox.
3) Allows user to customize, for example simply put via templates. I in general prefer
black background and white font. At times, white background and black fonts are ok, with
some color aiding.
4) Good scaling context, ie usage of em instead of px and so on
5) Conforming to open standards, not to proprietary ones like MS.
Some things by MS werent a bad idea, but i never want to see the development of the whole
web controlled by any single company.


ozzu has a good design, one of the better forums i was on so far.
Some sites of eric meyers are also nice, and some other css experts are fine.

The best sites i saw were with flash actually, but as i pointed out above i really
honestly dislike if a site is written in flash, and i have plenty of reasons why. :)



Last but not least, no... certainly most important.
For me the most important aspect is the way how i can get to new information.
I used to read a lot of books, nowadays i read a lot on my screen, and i
have an odd reading-technique. Isnt the best, but then again my eyes are neither
very good. :(

something. On my editors, this is usally 80 characters.

Now, my whole screen is about 140 chars, and on the 80 characters i am a bit mixed...
i look at about 35 chars, then scroll downwards. That is, for me, the fastest
way to read and select information I like to see.

Ok, that's a bit lengthy... the basic point is, that, if a site offers information,
the most important aspect is that i can easily read through it.
I hate width:100% via lines :>

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 54 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.