your thoughts on the "perfect" website

  • zoic
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 58

Post 3+ Months Ago

just a random question...what do you consider to be the "perfect" website?

in other words, list any and all features included, colors, layout/navigation, etc...
  • joseph
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 12
  • Loc: Tamil Nadu

Post 3+ Months Ago

1.Fast loading
2.Cool to the eyes
3.User friendly
4.Content centric
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

A perfect website? Try this:
Code: [ Select ]
<html><body bgcolor=#000000></body></html>


I mean... there's so much more to web-design than fast loading, eyecandy and SEO, people!

A perfect website is the website built by the user, not the designer. Since we don't have the technology to probe the visitor's mind and display his deepest desires on screen, we'll just have to try and produce a site where the user can set his imagination free and feel like "the content" (what most designers think of as a product that they must sell) is as familiar as his mother's breast and he'll end up knowing it like the back of his hand.
That, my friends, is what makes a perfect website: synchronization with the user's eyes, ears, mind, soul.
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1852

Post 3+ Months Ago

Everybody has a different "perfect" Web site, because everybody has different needs. The perfect Web sites for a cell phone user, an IE user, and a blind user may be completely different.

Interestingly, they usually turn out to be the same. When people visit a Web site, they are interested in content. If you bog down the content with design, you will only make the information less easy to access. For instance, if you look at http://candystand.com, it has all these hoops the user has to jump through just to play a game! It would be much better made if the main page simply contained a list of games, with optionally a shrunken screenshot of the game, with a login box. It would be rediculously easy to find the game you want to play via the main site. Which would be a great thing.

In the perfect Web site, the design helps clarify the information and actually decreases the amount of time it takes for the user to get what he/she wants. For the archetypal example of such a Web site design, see Google itself.

Unfortunately, most designers are concerned with throwing art in the way of the user's quest for information.

I believe the perfect Web site has the following properties (not a complete list, of course):

1. It keeps font size and family at the user's preference. This way, it is guaranteed that the user can read comfortably (or tolerably).

2. The site's purpose is made clear instantly.

3. The visitor knows what his current "location" is. That is, the site's contents has a clearly-defined structure (tree-like? linear? categorized?), and each page clearly indicates the user's current location within those contents.

4. Nothing breaks the user's standard model of a Web site interface -- all links are underlined, all links are colored the same (unless you have, say, a different color for external links than internal links and you make this clear to the user with a legend). Linked images must be outlined in the site's link color. No page has links which point to the page itself. Nothing breaks when javascript is turned off, unless it is a specialized Javascript application that is a content of a page itself, such as an online Reverse Polish Notation calculator.

5. All information is marked up in a semantically-correct manner, and heading structure follows an H1-H2-H3-... ordering, without skipping levels.

6. CSS, not tables, should be used for layout, if there is any. Typically, no special layout DIVs should be needed. Navigation is for index.html pages, typically -- other pages should have links at the top and bottom that refer back to the index page. (See http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ for an example of a site which follows this model.) Universally-copied navigation menus are a no-no; they are almost always irrelevant (unless the site has a categorized structure, and one of the menu items indicates the current location. On very small sites (3-10 documents) with this structure, universal menus are ok.)

7. Long documents must have a table of contents at their top.
  • musik
  • Legend
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6890
  • Loc: up a tree

Post 3+ Months Ago

I think you all have great valid points that contribute to a great web site. :D
  • sarvel
  • Student
  • Student
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 79
  • Loc: Dubai

Post 3+ Months Ago

It may work perfectly more than one browser.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

One that has NOTHING to distract my attention while im there, including script/layout errors, popups, banner ads, how to bake a cake when the site name is petsRus ect..
  • musik
  • Legend
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6890
  • Loc: up a tree

Post 3+ Months Ago

ooo joebert your a hard man to please! :P
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1852

Post 3+ Months Ago

sarvel wrote:
It may work perfectly more than one browser.


Ah, so it works in IE 6 and IE 5.5! ;-)
  • puKKa
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 274
  • Loc: Sweden

Post 3+ Months Ago

good colors, not too bright, easy to read, optimized and fast, working good in all browsers, dynamic(PHP or ASP), hmm.. new section is good but it always depends on what kind of site it is but news are almost always good to have :)
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

Fast and easy

what more needs to be said? content-centric with no barriers to information.
  • joebert
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13511
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

They did say perfect, I figure no distractions is a good start :P
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

I was afraid it would come to this:
What zoic probably meant to ask is "what is the most standard, the dullest site you can think of?", which you all have strived to answer...
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.

I'm not saying the site should be full of fluffy images and such, nor that it must be an outstanding display of animation skills. I'm just saying that if you're gonna abide these standards that are getting more and more strict, and you're gonna take a draft like amazon.com or yahoo.com and just change the content, the Internet is NOT going to get any better and people like me might as well move to another planet where DESIGN is actually a form of ART.

Oh, if you're wondering, the closest thing to a "perfect website" I've seen so far is http://conclave.ru/ .But hey, I know you're not gonna like it 'cause it's not SEO friendly and it's a full 400 KB or so... oooh, my !
  • zoic
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 58

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
What zoic probably meant to ask is "what is the most standard, the dullest site you can think of?", which you all have strived to answer...

What I was really trying to get at was what features does a good/perfect website include, but these are helpful too.
  • bluephoenix
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 331

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bah, I don't believe in "perfect". No Earthly person, object, or thing is perfect.

Perfection is perception. Something one person reveres as perfect may be the complete opposite in others eyes.

However, most sites are fine by me, so long as...

    - They aren't hosted by Geocities, Angelfire, Lycos, etc. :twisted:
    - It isn't made up of a pink background and green text.
    - If the background is an image, it does not make the text virtually impossible to read.
    - They contain as few animated GIF's as possible... and if it contains any, they relate to the page.
    - The design is clear and concise... in other words, you're not searching for the navigation.
    - The colors burn your retinas (in other words, they are soft on the eyes).
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1852

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
Oh, if you're wondering, the closest thing to a "perfect website" I've seen so far is http://conclave.ru/ .But hey, I know you're not gonna like it 'cause it's not SEO friendly and it's a full 400 KB or so... oooh, my !


It plays sound without my asking it to play sound.
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Oh, if you're wondering, the closest thing to a "perfect website" I've seen so far is http://conclave.ru/ .But hey, I know you're not gonna like it 'cause it's not SEO friendly and it's a full 400 KB or so... oooh, my !

It's very artsy and the pictures are great, however navigation should not be a puzzle. It took me a few minutes to realize there was even a navbar on the top. Good flash, but as is the case with most flash websites: it's all eye-candy.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
people like me might as well move to another planet where DESIGN is actually a form of ART.

design is a form of art, but whereas art is a purely aesthetic field, design (especially design of something technical) requires form and function. THere is more to design than just looks. What use is a furniture designer who's chairs look beautiful, but you can't sit on them because they are so damn uncomfortable? What use is an architect who creates beautiful buildings but you can't find the door to get in?

As a case in point, the millenium bridge in london is a gorgeous piece of aesthetic design, so does that mean that the bridge was well designed? Seeing as it had to be closed down after a few days and redesigned, because the original technical design was flawwed, I'm gonna say no. The aesthetic design was there, but that did not make it any good.

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. You don't just sit and look at a website, it's not a painting hanging on the wall. Plus your arguments take things to rediculous extremes. There is no black and white, 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. Why? Because we all have our strengths and weaknesses and it's far easier to say "well I'm not good at art, so it's not important and I just won't bother", or "I'm not good at the technical aspects of web design, so I'll just not think about it", than it is to actually try and improve your weaknesses. To many people try to cop out.

Quote:
Oh, if you're wondering, the closest thing to a "perfect website" I've seen so far is http://conclave.ru/ .But hey, I know you're not gonna like it 'cause it's not SEO friendly and it's a full 400 KB or so... oooh, my !

You see, here we have to look at what perfect means. A perfect website will have all aspects of design to a high standard. Good aesthetic, fast load times, sound code, browser compatibility, standards compliance with a strategies for forwards compatibility, device independance, accessibility, useability, optimised to be user friendly first but also se friendly, intuitive UI, graceful deformation.... The list goes on and I have not even mentioned back end programming yet. A website is not a simple thing, so the definition of a perfect website is not as simple as a single word.
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Listen, man. You need not tell me what art is. I'm not gonna wave my penis here and say "Look at me, I study art!", but I am going to assure you that I know more about the fundamentals of art, architecture and design then most of the people on Ozzu.

My mission is to burry all that is standard for drafts and templates ARE NOT ART, no matter how user- and se-friendly they are, no matter how spotless their code is.
And frankly... if it took you more than 5 seconds to figure out the navigation system at CMA Darkroom, that makes you s t u p i d .
Maybe standards in my country are so much different than yours that we'll never settle this.

Par example: someone from the UK asked me to design a logo for a site. But I had to do it without even seeing the website (which was to be constructed) or knowing as much as what it's about AND, I had to do it in like 3 hours. I told the man that's insane and he said "As long as you work for me, you'll do what I say!" So I made a joke of a logo and he was OK with it. Because such is life: what is genius for most of you is mediocre for us.
Over here, before we even think of designing a logo, we run extensive inquiries, do a case study, probe the market and the end-users, you know, the things REAL designers do.

And web-design is, as you also stated, much more advanced than graphic design so excuse me if I think Mr. Hey-This-Is-My-First-Website-And-I-Made-It-Last-Night-In-MS-FrontPage's site is everything BUT art.

I am radical. I want to change the world wide web. Sue me.
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Maybe ... we'll never settle this.

Ok, I think I missed the part where you specifically dissagree with me, or show me that I'm wrong, but never mind. I'll just assume you think I'm right ;)
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1852

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
And frankly... if it took you more than 5 seconds to figure out the navigation system at CMA Darkroom, that makes you s t u p i d .


Whether he is stupid or not is irrelevant. If a stupid person cannot figure out the navigation system, then the site has failed. After all, it uses mystery meat navigation, which is like making highway exit signs that don't tell you the exit number and town until you merge into the exit lane.

FiveseveN wrote:
Over here, before we even think of designing a logo, we run extensive inquiries, do a case study, probe the market and the end-users, you know, the things REAL designers do.


But when it comes to Web sites, do you run usability studies as well? They are more important.

FiveseveN wrote:
Listen, man. You need not tell me what art is. I'm not gonna wave my penis here and say "Look at me, I study art!", but I am going to assure you that I know more about the fundamentals of art, architecture and design then most of the people on Ozzu.


But there is some art which you don't seem to appreciate:
The artistic elegance of well-structured data.
The art of usability.
The art of well-written code, in any computer language (especially Perl).
Even the art of designing programming languages (Forth and UserRPL come to mind).
And especially, artfully-presented mathematical proofs. They are the best.

All of the above refer to artful organization of information, and artfully executed function, which is something more abstract but ultimately far more important on the World Wide Web and many other media.

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!

FiveseveN wrote:
I am radical. I want to change the world wide web.


Sure, but in what direction? If you want to take it in any direction that decreases accessibility or usability, then you want to take it in the wrong direction.

FiveseveN wrote:
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.


Ever read a novel?
  • bluedragon
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • bluedragon
  • Posts: 453

Post 3+ Months Ago

The perfect website is the one you spend your time and put all fo your effort into making it unique.
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Sam, how come they teach graphic design in art schools but not programming? Isn't that enough to prove my point? And I appreciate programing, too, for I was also a programmer a long time ago. But THINK for a second: the average user is NOT gonna look at your source code to see if you used nested tables and what-not.

Now about usability and your highway exits: is it my fault you don't know Latin? Is it CMA's fault?
Quote:
Whether he is stupid or not is irrelevant.

Oh, realy? What if he can't read? Does that make the design faulty? I believe IQ is VERY relevant.
  • Kally
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • Kally
  • Posts: 50

Post 3+ Months Ago

It must be dark and composed entirely of black and grey (in other words, it must not inflict pain on my eyes).
  • rtm223
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1855
  • Loc: Uk

Post 3+ Months Ago

FiveseveN wrote:
Sam, how come they teach graphic design in art schools but not programming? Isn't that enough to prove my point?

Most schools of art will teach graphic design but NOT much website design, if they even teach it at all. From this, using your logic, website design is not art and I think you have inadvertently, though rather elegantly, disproved your point :D

Anyhoo, the problem with the navigation in that site is the mystery meat nature of the navigation. You get NO indication of where the link goes until you have moused over it. This is a distinct useability flaw and even those of us with exceptional IQ's cannot see that which is invisible. No, really we can't. This has nothing to do with the intelligence of the user, its a matter of the designer not thinking about basic user needs. Simple as that.
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well, I'm glad you figured one thing out: web-design is NOT considered a form of art and no wonder... Here's a sample from Xone Design dot org:

Quote:
Xone Design is a web-design freelancers association that strives to turn the Internet into a complete and universal form of art.
Why? Because there are true geniuses out there, among terabytes of absolute junk. And because the World Wide Web, due to its accessibility, popularity, multimedia and expansive nature, provides limitless possibilities.
How? By collaborating with similar organizations, by helping new talent and by discouraging cheap eyecandy.


So it's not art, but it could be. And it could be the best kind of art ever!
  • Sumen
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 421
  • Loc: Rochester or Albany, NY

Post 3+ Months Ago

that conclave site has great effects.
But im not stupid, and I didn't notice the Navigation for a bit. Little arrows dont make me think its a link to other parts of the site. Especially since theres already little dots flying around etc.
The music and sound effects make the site interesting. But I also feel like it takes too much time to navigate the site in general and would leave because of that.

and I think when designing a site you should think about who its for. Most of my friends like sites that are flashy like that. I personally spend too much time on the internet already, and I feel like my time is being wasted with that stuff. I also think that plainish layouts can sometimes be even tougher to navigate. Also make the content seem boring.
  • FiveseveN
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 55
  • Loc: Nowhere

Post 3+ Months Ago

Sumen wrote:
im not stupid


Does that sound like something someone smart would say?
I rest my case.
  • spacecadet
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 7
  • Loc: Ann Arbor, Michigan U.S.A.

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well not sure there is such a thing as a "perfect site".

But to me IMHO all sites should:

1) Load fast. The on-page text should be less than 10K and counting images the page size should be kept under 40K for the home page.
Images must be optimized for faster load time.

2) The site should be easy to naviagate. Use bread crumbs to let site visitors know how they got to that page. Use a site map if the website is fairly large. Have a link on all pages to the site map.

3) Make sure the page is search engine friendly. Plain HTML is best; but if you must use JavaScript keep it to a minimum. Run the page through a validator to get rid of ALL coding errors. Make sure the page is cross browser compatible. Correct all spelling errors. Make sure there are NO broken links - not one - on the entire site.

4) Use a pleasing color scheme. One that is easy on the eyes. Use dark text on a light background and light text on a dark background. Blue is the most popular color for websites, so you can't go wrong with using blue.

5) Make use of ALT and TITLE tags; but make sure the text in them actually describes the image or link in question.

6) If your site is a commercial site then remember that "Content is King". The more pages to your site the better.

7) Use hyperlinks in the body text of your sites pages; not just in the nav bar area. If you come to a keyword on one of your pages that describes another page of your site, make that keyword be a link to the other page. This will increase the other pages PageRank and its overall link popularity.

8) Again, if the site is a commercial site, it should have a "Resource" section where you exchange links with other webmasters.

9) A 'Perfect Site" should be considered an authority site in its particular industry. To accomplish this, have a really large site with lots of keyword rich relevant content, have lots of external links using for the anchor text the main theme of your site, LINK TO other authority sites. Get listed in as many directories as possible. DMOZ, Yahoo! Directory and the Looksmart directory are three very important ones. There are other good directories as well, a "perfect site" should be listed in these also.

10) A "Perfect" site should have page one rankings on the major search engines.

11) A "Perfect" site should have good sales ability to it. That means having a good (popular) produce to sell, having a good sales pitch and a good closing pitch for why they should buy your product.

12) A "perfect" site should put out a newsletter. In this day and age of SPAM; you will want to have an email form on your site so that visitors can opt in to your newsletter. Be sure to include at the bottom of your newsletter a way for them to opt out.

13) A "perfect" site should include articles on the theme of the site. If the site is about Entertainment, then you should have articles about the Entertainment industry.

14) It's always a good idea to offer something for FREE on your website. That will make some visitors keep coming back, refer your site to a friend, bookmark your site, etc. You can offer everything from free software to free screensavers, etc.

15) A perfect site should have ALL of the site pages fully optimized and validated - not just the home page.

16) Last a "perfect" site is a TON of work and is NEVER really done.
  • gsv2com
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 776
  • Loc: Nippon

Post 3+ Months Ago

A perfect site is not made entirely in flash
A perfect site doesn't use 16kb of javascript for stupid stuff
A perfect site actually has a purpose
A perfect shopping site actually generates sales
A perfect site can be used by blind people and others with dissabilities.
(A perfect web designer actually takes into account that handicapped people DO use the internet)

Content, content, content. Much more important than flash and pizzaz--though fifty-seven would disagree. The internet is not tv. Nor is it the movies. The internet was built for easy access to information.
  • Mas Sehguh
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1852

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?
  • 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: 5146
  • 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: 5146
  • 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: 1852

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: 1852

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: 1852

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: 2193
  • 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 18 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
 
 

© 1998-2016. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.