Hey folks,

So I have been dinking around today... well really I am in non thought mode (how I achieve my "ah HA!" moments)

And looking over some of the sites offered here for both feedback and assistance, and looking at Roma's corner, I wanted to ask a few questions.

I have been doing web design for about 5 years now... over all the basics are the basics. Make presentation pleasing to the eye, understandable and coherent, make navigation intuitive (if not outright blatantly obvious), keep info compact and concise.

As technology evolves the way we need to do those things adapts. Often our need to conform to tech conflicts with usability. (Iframes... SEO hassle vs compact, easy view info)

So here is my question... Do you still find yourself creating long scrolling web pages or is it better design to click through? Is 12pt or 14pt Comic Sans really a good presentation for business site? Are Flash sites optimal over HTML despite load times and additional plugins or players?

At the rate monitor envy is progressing we are all going to have these huge spaces to fill with info and will eventually end up making large print editions of our sites so that Joe Doe can actually read the text on his 42 inch plasma from across the room.

How do we do it and still make it effective.. and OH SO PRETTY!?

Ok.. discuss! LOL

When building a site, you have to think like a visitor -- what do they want from your site? Decide that and then give it to them as quickly and easily as possible.

They may be impressed by lots of gratuitous Flash -- if so give it to them. But I think in most cases Simple is Better.

For my part, the only time I would use Flash is if it adds to the information content. For example a Music tutorial site could have Flash illustrating fingering as one of our members, Bailey has done on http://learn2playmusic.com/

I don't know about others, but I hate sites that play music I don't want to hear, talk at me (yukkk!) Flash things at me I don't want to see, and use up my bandwidth downloading video that I don't want.

I agree with the you on the music and flash bits...

I have recently been looking at sites owned by cat and dog breeders and OH DEAR LORD.... music, cursor trailers, glitter graphics galore. It is more like wandering through a midway than looking at a site!

Interesting topic Wytchcat

Whilst there are some amazing sites to be found, with all manner of fancy animations, sound, etc., I agree with Bruce..'Simple is Better'

Having said that, the flash and audio/video tools available to us today, can be hugely useful, but only when they are totally relevant to the content.

So many sites use all the glitz and glitter, just because they can, and not necessarily to improve delivery of the information.

Before the Internet, newspapers, books and magazines, were the only 'websites', and information had to be presented in a clear, concise, and easily digestible way.

Links were: 'Turn to page four', and we didn't get an unexpected blast of 'Fur Elise' upon opening a newspaper
Maybe we need to sometimes think along those lines.

Just my thoughts

Yet we do like our colored comics and our slick page magazines. And I'm sure that the scratch-n-sniff pages sold a few bottles of perfume. And every year Hallmark delivers yet another tacky Christmas ornament that plays a tune.

So glitz isn't all bad.

LOL... having a couple of "Easter Egg" sites under my belt, I understand.

But they never make my portfolio

As a newbie, there seems to be something in addition to website aesthetics that is not talked about: To additionally design for others to perceive what we want them to. Images that incorporate aesthetics within the message. If we are an old brick university; a high turnover cost cutting retailer; an online casino; a sports institute; a hospital etc we want an underlying message (e.g reassurance, credibility, quality, best buy and so on). So we want them to see what will meet both our and their needs. The framing and reframing of perception for mutual benefit. Kinda like The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard (shows my age having read that book). Byways

Certainly... but isn't that where our skills as designers come into play?

Creating, with our new tools, new ways of seeing and associating those concepts?

I tend to think that what you are describing here is the heart of what we do... otherwise it is just so much visual noise.

I think we are sorta saying the same thing, but the Anais Nin quote is not the full answer so I'm not sure. Yes there are ever more different and technical tools and this can cause just visual noise. They become relevant and attractive if managed within aesthetic boundaries, and if they and the aesthetics used speak to us: send us a coherent underlying message. Its Easter (images of cards, furry easter bunnies and eggs or of church and community and salvation etc). So, "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.." because we live by and through our perceptions. When we build a web site we build a message representing perceptions we want others to understand: We want to build a website with a message (not the aesthetics or techniques per se)that says their needs and hopes are or will be met. So "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we hope or need them to be..." lol
Byways

LOL.. sorry about that.. the Anais Nin quote is just my signature.. not part of the message.

But made for a great added element in what was more a discussion of how the look and feel of websites has changed.

So does that mean you'll be changing your signature? lol
Byways

Probably not...

It is one of my favorite quotes..