Bland in the New Millennium???

I have noticed that in reviewing the sites here on alt.html.critique that
the new code-first dogma is making websites look less visually interesting
and appealing. Is it just the way things are going or are coders just not
designers and it is possible to be a designer with good clean accessible
code?

What do you all think?

Jay

Jay Gilmore wrote:

I have noticed that in reviewing the sites here on alt.html.critique that
the new code-first dogma is making websites look less visually interesting
and appealing. Is it just the way things are going or are coders just not
designers and it is possible to be a designer with good clean accessible
code?

What do you all think?
Too general.

Try critiqueing some specific 'bland' sites and see the responses you get.
Otherwise, we'll just be whipping another of those poor straw men.

"Jay Gilmore" <fakeadress (AT) noemailaccountbythisname (DOT) ca> wrote:

Is it just the way things are going

No

or are coders just not
designers

Usually true

and it is possible to be a designer with good clean accessible
code?

Yes

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

brucie <shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info> wrote:

mommy! its a troll, can i keep him? i'll feed him i promise!

Welll, okay, but ask your father.

(... somebody, PLEASE ask Brucie the obvious .... heehee ...)

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

"Jay Gilmore" wrote in message ...

I have noticed that in reviewing the sites here on alt.html.critique that
the new code-first dogma is making websites look less visually interesting
and appealing. Is it just the way things are going or are coders just not
designers and it is possible to be a designer with good clean accessible
code?

What do you all think?

I think this is a great question, I've been thinking about it myself lately.
I'm a designer that is well aware of the "code-first" practise, and with
each project I push myself further on both levels. Whether my current
designs are bland or not, I guess is opinion based....

http://www.lauralicious.com/
http://www.ailsapage.com.au/
http://www.mertonshinnick.com/
http://www.strategicdata.com.au/

Helen Smell'n

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:04:51 +1000, brucie <shit (AT) usenetshit (DOT) info> wrote:

In alt.html.critique Jay Gilmore said:

the new code-first dogma is making websites look less visually
interesting
and appealing.

mommy! its a troll, can i keep him? i'll feed him i promise!

Do you remember what happened with the last troll? You nibbled his head
off.

"lime" <nuthin (AT) here (DOT) com> wrote:

I think this is a great question, I've been thinking about it myself lately.
I'm a designer that is well aware of the "code-first" practise, and with
each project I push myself further on both levels. Whether my current
designs are bland or not, I guess is opinion based....

http://www.lauralicious.com/

Microfonts, 1996 transitional coding, tables used for layout, incorrect
usage of alt content, some moronically large image measuring .5Mb
started loading, when it finished nothing showed, inline css, &nbsp;'s
used for presentation, etc. etc.

http://www.ailsapage.com.au/

A quick look showed the same problems.

http://www.mertonshinnick.com/
http://www.strategicdata.com.au/

I didn't bother with these.

--
Spartanicus

snip> Microfonts

What is a microfont? For the most part I am not sure why all pages require
that they have base fonts at 100% or 1 em. That is the equivalent of all
newspaper articles being written in 14pt. I find that there is something to
be said about having the main body of an article or content being readable.

I would assume and maybe this is naive or uninformed (insert obligatory jab
here) that people with accessibility issues for visual impairment are using
magnifiers or have the font size increased on their browsers.

If you take a look at the large majority of commercial content sites and
news sites your font size is usually fixed at less than 12pt. Because of
this you would almost have to, as a visually impaired person use a magnifier
or a boosted browser font anyway so when people get to your site they are
not looking at 10 words per screen. That is not to say that if you are
aiming your project at a market that has special needs or to make the site
more readable that you work with scalable fonts at a base of 100%. I
actually think that sometimes it is ok to use fonts that are smaller.

It is kind of like making a TV show louder than almost all other shows for
the benefit of the hard of hearing when the hearing impaired person has
either got the closed captioning on or has the volume turned up anyway.

On using CSS for layout... tables are for data. (I have been behind the
times on this myself)
On using correctly marked alt tags...it is a must. ( I have realised this
after being lazy with MMDW)
On using optimised images...Aim the content for dialup unless you are coding
for internal sites the pics are not the message. If you think they are,
become a photographer.

I really feel that there ought to be a way to have a universal font
embedding scheme that could be developed open source and in conjunction with
W3C. The reason that designers, especially those who have come from a
graphic design background use small fonts is for contrast. If all your fonts
are the same size you end up with visually stale looking design. Bolding
faces is not the solution and neither is 40pt equivalent %'s. I want to make
a site that will look nearly identical to most browsers within certain
limits. I think if there were more websafe fonts that would be a start to
being able to have contrast without resorting to sizing all the time.


"Spartanicus" <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote

"lime" <nuthin (AT) here (DOT) com> wrote:

I think this is a great question, I've been thinking about it myself
lately.
I'm a designer that is well aware of the "code-first" practise, and with
each project I push myself further on both levels. Whether my current
designs are bland or not, I guess is opinion based....

http://www.lauralicious.com/

Microfonts, 1996 transitional coding, tables used for layout, incorrect
usage of alt content, some moronically large image measuring .5Mb
started loading, when it finished nothing showed, inline css, &nbsp;'s
used for presentation, etc. etc.

http://www.ailsapage.com.au/

A quick look showed the same problems.

http://www.mertonshinnick.com/
http://www.strategicdata.com.au/

I didn't bother with these.

--
Spartanicus

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:29:40 GMT in alt.html.critique, Jay Gilmore
wrote:

If you take a look at the large majority of commercial content sites
and news sites your font size is usually fixed at less than 12pt.

And that is why on practically all of them I have to enlarge the font in
order to read them. That is a pain. I should not have to do that.

--
"You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call
failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down." -- Mary Pickford
Rick Pasotto rick (AT) niof (DOT) net http://www.niof.net

"Jay Gilmore" <fakeadress (AT) noemailaccountbythisname (DOT) ca> wrote:

Top posting is not appreciated here, snipping is.

What is a microfont?

A font encountered on a web site to small to read, despite having
configured a font and size in one's browser that is comfortable to read.

For the most part I am not sure why all pages require
that they have base fonts at 100% or 1 em. That is the equivalent of all
newspaper articles being written in 14pt.

The web differs from print media, it's used differently and consequently
it requires a different approach.

I find that there is something to
be said about having the main body of an article or content being readable.

How considerate of you, non main body text shouldn't be readable I
gather?

I would assume and maybe this is naive or uninformed (insert obligatory jab
here) that people with accessibility issues for visual impairment are using
magnifiers or have the font size increased on their browsers.

I don't have any accessibility issues (aside from accessibility to
girls), yet I can't comfortably read the text on the aforementioned
sites. It's up to the content provider to ensure that the font size that
I've configured as being comfortable to read is not reduced to something
I can't read. If a site fails to do that I leave, that's the beauty of
the web: quick and easy access to similar content.

I actually think that sometimes it is ok to use fonts that are smaller.

Most of us do, but we leave the main body font size alone and we use
relative sizing.

I really feel that there ought to be a way to have a universal font
embedding scheme that could be developed open source and in conjunction with
W3C.

Copyright issues galore, and no user gives a flying monkey about what
font family the content displays in, dezigners commonly do. Since the
problem lies 100% with the dezigner, the dezigner should be fixed.

--
Spartanicus