This may not exactly be the most gripping topic for a Friday night discussion, but I’ve got some time to kill before I get off work.
I’d like y’all to weigh in with your opinion of the state of web design. Over the past couple of years, I’ve noticed a tendancy among people who make websites (not just “web designers”) to use rather boring, business-like templates, rather than giving each page on a given site a unique look. I understand how this could be necessary on high-traffic, information centered sites, but seeing the same verdana-tables-with-rounded-corners-type design on even the small, otherwise idiosyncratic personal pages I stumble across can make surfing seem much more tedious than it used to be.
I run a fairly busy (500-600 hits/day, which is a lot for what it is) site that focuses on the local punk scene. I try to make every individual html page a little different from the others… the only thing they really have in common is a stylesheet and an over-use of Arial size 2. It make take a little while longer to publish, but since I do this as a hobby, I prefer to make the experience a little more enjoyable than copying and pasting stuff to a template.
So whaddya think? Does eschewing a uniform design make a site look unprofessional, or do you like to mix things up a bit?
I prefer a uniform design myself, because it ties the pages together thematically. If I was doing a page (or a set of pages) that I wanted to really set apart from the others, then I’ll make them very distinct from the base set. But most of the time, I prefer to have a consistent look and style.
I try to stay internally consistant on a site, or at least change the looks for a reason (on one of my sites right now, serious pages are light purple text on black, while fun pages are dark green on white). But my different sites are all… well… different, or as different as I can make them without destroying functionality and with my skills as they are.
I do think too many sites all look the same, though. Especially with Microsoft Frontpage being used by everyone and their sister. Still, what really matters in a page is content. Unless a site is really obnoxious, with an animated gif background and impossible to read text and little things chasing my damn mouse (grr), I’ll like any site with content. Even if it’s just another ‘clone page.’
How about a compromise? On a site where it is appropriate to have a variety of page designs (doesn’t apply to all sites), include one consistent element across all pages to assure the visitor that he/she’s still at the same site.
Internal consistency is a must - a prerequisite. You start dicking around with basic functionality and accessability like that, you’ll alienate the audience.
But I don’t think that was the point of the OP - you mean do we churn out sites that are template-based in design: a coloured menu bar down the left, a logo across the top, and text below.
The truth is, you do what the client wants, and if the client insists on something that looks like another site, then you have to do it (well, you are usually allowed a bit of freedom for variety, but not a huge amount).
A lot of the time, menu bars down the left are good because everyone has the same left margin. Logos across the top are good as that’s what gets downloaded and viewed first. Content with no animated gifs or javascript clicky stuff gets the information across. Arial or Verdana fonts are on most people’s computers by default. All good important stuff.
I’m not a fancy clever zippy-zappy designer. I’m good at making a site look nice and clean and professional, but not so great with flashy tricks and cute accessories. The good thing about that is, that’s what a lot of the small clients want anyway, they find most flashy tricks to get in the way of content. I tend to agree with them.
Though some clever looking things can be pretty damn cool.
I understand the whole thematic unity argument, but I dunno… maybe I’m taking a more traditional aproach. I tend to view the seperate sections of the site I run as seperate articles in a traditional [music] magazine. In other words, the design of an html page should have thematic unity with the content of the page itself, rather than with the site as a whole. I stick to K.I.S.S. whenever possible, and try to avoid excess javascript flashiness whenever I can.
I don’t like to use html editing programs… I do most of my work in editpad. Belive it or not, I enjoy the act of typing in tags to make the page fit my personal vision of what it should look like. Maybe it stems from my experience in the xerox-and-rubber-cement-world of punk rock publishing… in any case, I’m a history major, not a graphic design major, so perhaps I’m talkin outta my ass…
Ah! Someone else who uses EditPad (the postcardware software!)
I have tried all sorts of software, starting with FrontPage (I used to love the themes, now I weary of them.) Also, Homesite, Editpad, and now Dreamweaver. I vote for a uniform look, at least for the most part. I do have several domains, and some of them are seperated into different directories, which do have a different look. For instance, my “Family Home Page” domain all has a uniform look - except for the “Crappy laptop” section, which has a completely different look. I don’t even link the laptop page to the home page. That’s just me.
I am all for the look of the site not fitting into the cookie-cutter template, though. Not that I don’t adhere to some standards myself. (My yosemitebabe site isn’t a really good example of this, though - it’s weird and needs to be updated.) One thing I like to do is create all my own web graphics, and I try to make them at least a little unique.
There’s nothing wrong with individual design, as long as you don’t violate the major rules regarding usability. And generally, this means no patterned backgrounds, no flash animations (I HATE those, and being forced to view one is almost a guarantee that I’m gone before the thing is finished), no MIDI background music, no screwy fonts, easy navigation, etc.
This generally puts enough constraints on your design that it will wind up looking fairly similar to other designs out there.
As for editors, I’m a professional web designer for a fortune 500 company. And I do all my work in either Homesite or Visual Interdev. I can’t stand WYSIWYG editors, because I’m a programmer first and long ago learned the value of consistent source code formatting. The worst WYSIWYG editors out there will totally re-format your entire source if you make one simple change. The best ones may not screw up your source, but the stuff they add won’t match your format and you wind up hand-editing it anyway.
Sam Stone! Oh my gosh! I had no idea you were a professional web designer! I wish I could pick your brain for you wisdom!
Pray tell, which WYSIWYG programs are the worst, and best for code? I have a love-hate thing with FrontPage (but don’t use it much these days.) I have heard Dreamweaver is the best among the WYSIWYGs, and since I respect code (but will NEVER be a hard core coder) I am using Dreamweaver mostly, with a little HomeSite and BBEdit. I want to learn more about coding, but I am not kidding myself. I’ll never be really good at it. I have enough on my plate trying to master Photoshop (and since I come from a traditional art background, I figure that is my strength anyway.)
Sorry, rambling. I agree about the usability of design. I am by no means perfect, but I try to use a readable font (Georgia is a favorite) and I HATE midi music and Flash intros! And I want to use a background that makes the font color readable, that kind of thing. All you can do is learn along the way, and try. I’m a newbie still, of course. But these are the kind of things I picked up from newsgroups, books, and just from my own common sense, so I try to stick with them.
Actually, I’m mostly a C/C++ programmer, but when I started with the company the Intranet was a complete mess, so I re-designed it. Since then, they’ve been putting more and more Intranet/web design projects on me, and it’s become pretty much my full-time work for the last year. But I don’t do a lot of page layout and design now, but more server-side design, using ASP, COM, JAVA, etc.
(navigation bar, etc)