Websites - how to look professional cheaply

[Kalorlo]

I suppose if you wanted to shell out £10k for a professionally written site, you could get one that sized itself to the screen resolution of the pc it was being accessed on and new whether the user liked fixed width screens or dynamic screens and could decide how many products to show in a column based on that info or whatever. I don't even know if that's physically possible.

What you caaaan do is have a CSS switcher at the top of your page, this would let the user choose from different 'skins' for the website, and some could be fixed-width and some not. But of course you're not very likely to have something like that in a pre-built package designed to be easy to set up. (A CSS switcher in itself is really simple, but you'd need technical knowledge to write the layouts, or else the package builders would have to create an interface to let you do that without code... and that is not simple). Most people only want to worry about creating one design for their website, not many!

I also have to scroll sideways a little on MrSite pages: I do run at 1024x768, but I like my browser window to be an inch or two less than the width of my screen. The way MrSite calls pages page1.html and so on also really irritates me when just browsing! So I think I won't go with them for creating a site. I am able to code my own, though, and am not in any particular hurry for my site to be finished. Most people don't have that luxury.

[jetlag]

What you caaaan do is have a CSS switcher at the top of your page, this would let the user choose from different 'skins' for the website, and some could be fixed-width and some not. But of course you're not very likely to have something like that in a pre-built package designed to be easy to set up. (A CSS switcher in itself is really simple, but you'd need technical knowledge to write the layouts, or else the package builders would have to create an interface to let you do that without code... and that is not simple). Most people only want to worry about creating one design for their website, not many!

Can you? Now THAT is interesting! Sort of like they have for some forums? What a clever idea! That would definitely solve the sort of problem that Boo experiences in a neat and efficient way.

I'm guessing you'd have a drop down box with a couple of choices (one, say, optimized for 800x600 viewing) and that would change your table widths (yes, I still use tables!) and number of columns and whatnot?

Tidy!

[Kalorlo]

Can you? Now THAT is interesting! Sort of like they have for some forums? What a clever idea! That would definitely solve the sort of problem that Boo experiences in a neat and efficient way.

I'm guessing you'd have a drop down box with a couple of choices (one, say, optimized for 800x600 viewing) and that would change your table widths (yes, I still use tables!) and number of columns and whatnot?

Tidy!

You can change layouts, yup. Though if you're using CSS you should only be using tables for actual tabulated data... Other things are controlled by divs. Have a look at CSS Zen Garden - that's a design site that shows the kind of things you can do if you want to. The html for the page stays exactly the same, and if you choose designs from the menu the CSS is changed. (You can also use CSS to serve lighter versions of pages to mobile phones, for example).

[snow_imp]

You can change layouts, yup. Though if you're using CSS you should only be using tables for actual tabulated data... Other things are controlled by divs. Have a look at CSS Zen Garden - that's a design site that shows the kind of things you can do if you want to. The html for the page stays exactly the same, and if you choose designs from the menu the CSS is changed. (You can also use CSS to serve lighter versions of pages to mobile phones, for example).

Wow, I've heard of CSS but never seen it used in such a well shown way before. Thanks for sharing.

[Boo]

(sorry, I started typing and got interrupted, so it refers to posts earlier in the thread.)

It doesn't even need to be that complicated many times. Something as simple as changing 'px' to '%' in style sheets goes a huge way to making web pages flexible - in this instance I do mean in a re-sizing sense.

Many of the problems with web pages that want to force the viewer to look at the page in a rigid design layout could be very easily overcome by simply not insisting on fixed dimensions and using relative ones instead. On pages I design entirely, I specify most layout elements as percentages of the page width, not absolute dimensions. Small non-important elements like padding between items and borders round photos would be specified in pixels, but column widths wouldn't.

I rarely hard specify font/size for example. **** The master font/size on the page is usually whatever the viewer has set in their browser preferences - so if they need to view 14 point bold text on a yellow background due to a visual impairment (as a friend of mine does) - then that's what they'll see. Sure, some might think that looked pretty ugly, but if it means they can see to type their order and credit card number, I really don't care. I want my visitors to be able to use the site - it looking nice for others is a secondary consideration.

**** My jewellery shop isn't perhaps as good an example of my own design policy as I'd like, as I'm using a standard cart system that I've modded as much as I can, but does have limits beyond my ability to adjust it. But it does meet with the inexpensive criteria under discussion.

[Kalorlo]

Boo - yeah, I agree. Web design isn't print design! Pixel-perfection shouldn't be the aim.

[jetlag]

You can change layouts, yup. Though if you're using CSS you should only be using tables for actual tabulated data... Other things are controlled by divs. Have a look at CSS Zen Garden - that's a design site that shows the kind of things you can do if you want to. The html for the page stays exactly the same, and if you choose designs from the menu the CSS is changed. (You can also use CSS to serve lighter versions of pages to mobile phones, for example).

That's a great site, thanks for the link

[geti-titanium]

Accessibility seems to becoming an outmoded concern for designers and it really shouldn't be

Accessibility is important but then it takes second place to making a sale as far as I'm concerned. If a surfer bounces off your site because they can't be bothered to scroll left and right (and they will), then that is your lost revenue, and sales are what most are aiming for with a website.

My website stats show that the most popular screen resolution at the moment is 1024 x 768 with 1280 x 1024 a very close second - 800 x 600 doesn't get a look in and websites shouldn't be built around this size anymore.

You tend to find that surfers with sight disabilities have their computers setup for their own use anyway, all it takes, with Windows at least, is to put the magnification up in the bottom right hand corner of the browser.

You need to maximise every trick in the book to get sales through a website.

[geti-titanium]

This should throw a spanner in the works

Elegant web design is not just about colour schemes and imagery - it's about function and flexibility too.

Yes, also though, elegant web design to me is about websites that never get found in search engines - Elegant web designers manage to earn a living by creating beautiful, attractive websites that appeal to people who have no concept of what is needed from a website to rank highly on google - if you want a good all round performing website, ignore the designer and listen to the marketer - they usually have wildly conflicting views.

[Boo]

800 x 600 doesn't get a look in and websites shouldn't be built around this size anymore.

In that case, you've completely missed my point. I have an 800 x 600 screen res. My choice, end of. It's not important or relevant to anyone other than me. I haven't ever said that web sites should be designed for this resolution or any other - my other machines have different screen shapes and resolutions. Just because a system has a particular screen res. doesn't mean the user keeps their browser full width - it's their prerogative to view just however they want.

I don't expect or want sites to be designed for my personal convenience, what I would prefer is that the very flexibility available to designers and inherent in web technology, isn't actually designed out. Designers have to consciously choose to cater for a particular size - if they just left well alone, pages would just adapt to whatever environment is used to browse - including my 800x600 screen. Even on my larger screens, I prefer to keep my browser narrower to keep lines of text shorter for ease of reading.

You tend to find that surfers with sight disabilities have they're computers setup for their own use anyway, all it takes, with Windows at least, is to put the magnification up in the bottom right hand corner of the browser.

There's a bit more to visual accessibility than just enlarging the page content.

You need to maximise every trick in the book to get sales through a website.

And looking after your customers and not excluding them - or making them feel excluded, is just one of them. If a potential customer 'bounces off' your site purely because of design irritations, then your site let you down - getting them to visit in the first place is the hard bit, you don't want to lose them again through something avoidable.

P.S. I said elegant design was about function and I would see search engine placement as an important function of a site.