Website Paradigms: Are We Creating Bad Standards, Unwillingly?

[not native english speaker speaking, ok?]

Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good posts
that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some relative
interest.

Let's make this short review. Some extremely popular websites - which I
know because I _use_ them, so if I do I can't imply they are bad in
themselves. yet, there is something to say.

Flickr: you won't get very impressed by its front page. You won't say
the palette of colours is well chosen : blue, fucsia, grey, azure,
another sahde of blue and grey.
You try http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/summer/ and you will see
navigational options on bottom: written tiny, with a grey header almost
invisible on white background (#999 on #fff isn't a legibility
lecture...)

Craigslist: a typical ad certainly isn't in an enticing setting: a few
lines of naked text, in an ocean of white.

Ebay: a giant. Palette: red green azure grey blue yellow. You need a
degree in Cryptoanalysis to find out where things are - I know it
sounds ingenerous, but its complexity seems to have run out of control.
If you browse the categroies then, you find the strangest colours
included things like #d989a9 #6bd6ad #dddd33 or bg #7d81d7 with #0000cc
on fg

Myspace. I like it and most of is detractors judge it on contents that
are user made. However, you still find things like picture commands
dispersed rather than grouped in one area where one would logically
expcet them, and color palettes that you won't call well studied.
Same thing for Hi5.

Delicious: you find font 9 on bg white and text colour #888888

Match.com: palette is #99cc00 #cccccc #d568a7 #c52481 #375092 #788dc4
#ec008c #d6d6d6 #284b9e, nmavigational menus on bottom as tiny as they
can be

Monster com, palette: #663399 #a1b934 #c7d582 #330066 #875900 links on
bottom bg white text #999999 about 8px

Now, haven't we already created EXPECTATIONS in our users, if so many
GRAET sites adopt these solutions that, thus, become a standard? BY
standard I mean the expectations that the ongoing experience of surfers
may instill in the surfers themselves.

1) Texts should be small - fearing wasting paper I argue lol
2) texts can be light gray, small, on white background
3) options shouldn't be grouped
4) colors must go as wild as possible. matching brown with purple as if
it were a great combination
5) commands should not be immediately apparent: they must be looked for
and chased in a clustered interface, or must be semi transparent to
make sure you won't find them too easily.

I am interested in this because I developed a site, whose address i
will NOT print here because it is not my concern to advertise it but to
see if my thoughts can make any sense to some among you, where I use:

1) big TEXT
2) 1 colour: blue - background white text black
3) big buttons to make commands immediately apparent.
4) xhtml strict valid

Do you know what? SOME users get disconcerted: they say text is too
big, blocks of commands strike too much the eye, the interface
intimidates them as if it were howling its commands to them.
Maybe: but how much of it is due to objective criticism, and how much
of it is due to the fact we have educated our users that commands must
be looked for until you remember where they are, and texts can be as
small as possible, and colors run everywhere without any logic or
consistency?

We advocate standards, we advocate consistency, we advocate legibility.
Where is the last time we have found it? And anyone of you out there
has ever experienced that if you give legiblity, our surfers have been
educated to find it like an insult rather than a feature - big text as
something TOO clear?

fullposter wrote:

[not native english speaker speaking, ok?]

Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good posts
that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some relative
interest.

Let's make this short review. Some extremely popular websites - which I
know because I _use_ them, so if I do I can't imply they are bad in
themselves. yet, there is something to say.

Flickr: you won't get very impressed by its front page. You won't say
the palette of colours is well chosen : blue, fucsia, grey, azure,
another sahde of blue and grey.
You try http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/summer/ and you will see
navigational options on bottom: written tiny, with a grey header almost
invisible on white background (#999 on #fff isn't a legibility
lecture...)

Craigslist: a typical ad certainly isn't in an enticing setting: a few
lines of naked text, in an ocean of white.

Ebay: a giant. Palette: red green azure grey blue yellow. You need a
degree in Cryptoanalysis to find out where things are - I know it
sounds ingenerous, but its complexity seems to have run out of control.
If you browse the categroies then, you find the strangest colours
included things like #d989a9 #6bd6ad #dddd33 or bg #7d81d7 with #0000cc
on fg

Myspace. I like it and most of is detractors judge it on contents that
are user made. However, you still find things like picture commands
dispersed rather than grouped in one area where one would logically
expcet them, and color palettes that you won't call well studied.
Same thing for Hi5.

Delicious: you find font 9 on bg white and text colour #888888

Match.com: palette is #99cc00 #cccccc #d568a7 #c52481 #375092 #788dc4
#ec008c #d6d6d6 #284b9e, nmavigational menus on bottom as tiny as they
can be

Monster com, palette: #663399 #a1b934 #c7d582 #330066 #875900 links on
bottom bg white text #999999 about 8px

Now, haven't we already created EXPECTATIONS in our users, if so many
GRAET sites adopt these solutions that, thus, become a standard? BY
standard I mean the expectations that the ongoing experience of surfers
may instill in the surfers themselves.

1) Texts should be small - fearing wasting paper I argue lol
2) texts can be light gray, small, on white background
3) options shouldn't be grouped
4) colors must go as wild as possible. matching brown with purple as if
it were a great combination
5) commands should not be immediately apparent: they must be looked for
and chased in a clustered interface, or must be semi transparent to
make sure you won't find them too easily.

I am interested in this because I developed a site, whose address i
will NOT print here because it is not my concern to advertise it but to
see if my thoughts can make any sense to some among you, where I use:

1) big TEXT
2) 1 colour: blue - background white text black
3) big buttons to make commands immediately apparent.
4) xhtml strict valid

Do you know what? SOME users get disconcerted: they say text is too
big, blocks of commands strike too much the eye, the interface
intimidates them as if it were howling its commands to them.
Maybe: but how much of it is due to objective criticism, and how much
of it is due to the fact we have educated our users that commands must
be looked for until you remember where they are, and texts can be as
small as possible, and colors run everywhere without any logic or
consistency?

We advocate standards, we advocate consistency, we advocate legibility.
Where is the last time we have found it? And anyone of you out there
has ever experienced that if you give legiblity, our surfers have been
educated to find it like an insult rather than a feature - big text as
something TOO clear?

I agree. Although as a web developer you can (and should) implement
features that aid accessibility, there's also the client and largest
segment of users who may have different ideas. While I always educate
my clients about potential problems, ultimately they are the ones that
send me my pay cheques. Thus, if friendly advice is ignored, I will
simply go ahead and do as requested. I do not have time for extended
persuasive dialogue - I have deadlines to meet.

I do web development to feed my family, support my wife's online
shopping addiction, and to maintain a steady alcohol intake - not to
change the world. Striving for an accessible web is wonderful, but the
fanaticism I sometimes come across does IMHO not reflect the real world.

Ed

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

hear hear.
clients pay the bills at the end of the day - you can recommend and
influence only a certain amount.
as for big text i try and use 12px i find it is easy to read - actually
better than 14px - strange i know.

Ed wrote:

fullposter wrote:
[not native english speaker speaking, ok?]

Although it may appear speculative, and although i do not put any
particular trust in newsgroups (meaning that most of the times the
quality is not very high, but of course one goes for the few good posts
that may be there), I have a topic that maybe could be of some relative
interest.

Let's make this short review. Some extremely popular websites - which I
know because I _use_ them, so if I do I can't imply they are bad in
themselves. yet, there is something to say.

Flickr: you won't get very impressed by its front page. You won't say
the palette of colours is well chosen : blue, fucsia, grey, azure,
another sahde of blue and grey.
You try http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/summer/ and you will see
navigational options on bottom: written tiny, with a grey header almost
invisible on white background (#999 on #fff isn't a legibility
lecture...)

Craigslist: a typical ad certainly isn't in an enticing setting: a few
lines of naked text, in an ocean of white.

Ebay: a giant. Palette: red green azure grey blue yellow. You need a
degree in Cryptoanalysis to find out where things are - I know it
sounds ingenerous, but its complexity seems to have run out of control.
If you browse the categroies then, you find the strangest colours
included things like #d989a9 #6bd6ad #dddd33 or bg #7d81d7 with #0000cc
on fg

Myspace. I like it and most of is detractors judge it on contents that
are user made. However, you still find things like picture commands
dispersed rather than grouped in one area where one would logically
expcet them, and color palettes that you won't call well studied.
Same thing for Hi5.

Delicious: you find font 9 on bg white and text colour #888888

Match.com: palette is #99cc00 #cccccc #d568a7 #c52481 #375092 #788dc4
#ec008c #d6d6d6 #284b9e, nmavigational menus on bottom as tiny as they
can be

Monster com, palette: #663399 #a1b934 #c7d582 #330066 #875900 links on
bottom bg white text #999999 about 8px

Now, haven't we already created EXPECTATIONS in our users, if so many
GRAET sites adopt these solutions that, thus, become a standard? BY
standard I mean the expectations that the ongoing experience of surfers
may instill in the surfers themselves.

1) Texts should be small - fearing wasting paper I argue lol
2) texts can be light gray, small, on white background
3) options shouldn't be grouped
4) colors must go as wild as possible. matching brown with purple as if
it were a great combination
5) commands should not be immediately apparent: they must be looked for
and chased in a clustered interface, or must be semi transparent to
make sure you won't find them too easily.

I am interested in this because I developed a site, whose address i
will NOT print here because it is not my concern to advertise it but to
see if my thoughts can make any sense to some among you, where I use:

1) big TEXT
2) 1 colour: blue - background white text black
3) big buttons to make commands immediately apparent.
4) xhtml strict valid

Do you know what? SOME users get disconcerted: they say text is too
big, blocks of commands strike too much the eye, the interface
intimidates them as if it were howling its commands to them.
Maybe: but how much of it is due to objective criticism, and how much
of it is due to the fact we have educated our users that commands must
be looked for until you remember where they are, and texts can be as
small as possible, and colors run everywhere without any logic or
consistency?

We advocate standards, we advocate consistency, we advocate legibility.
Where is the last time we have found it? And anyone of you out there
has ever experienced that if you give legiblity, our surfers have been
educated to find it like an insult rather than a feature - big text as
something TOO clear?

I agree. Although as a web developer you can (and should) implement
features that aid accessibility, there's also the client and largest
segment of users who may have different ideas. While I always educate
my clients about potential problems, ultimately they are the ones that
send me my pay cheques. Thus, if friendly advice is ignored, I will
simply go ahead and do as requested. I do not have time for extended
persuasive dialogue - I have deadlines to meet.

I do web development to feed my family, support my wife's online
shopping addiction, and to maintain a steady alcohol intake - not to
change the world. Striving for an accessible web is wonderful, but the
fanaticism I sometimes come across does IMHO not reflect the real world.

Ed

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----