Balance between good and fast...

[ColdSteel]

This is more of a computer "thinking" question than an actual problem, but I was wondering about others opinion: What is your opinion on making graphics in webpages cool and snazzy with larger file sizes as opposed to making pages load faster for those unfortunate ones on broadband? I know there must be a balance as more and more people switch to broadband, sites can be more dynamic, snazzy, and in most ways better.....just wondering....

[AdamGundry]

Why does your page need to be image dependent? Why not use fully compliant (X)HTML and CSS, then your pages can load and render in a few kb of text. The images may load more slowly, but if your basic layout is already useable it matters less.

Adam

[MotherNatrsSon]

I have to disagree there. If you have basically text on a colored background, that is a letter or "document. I have a business site and "image" is what sells and comprises the largest use of the internet, commerce. If the "geeks" want to read documents let them, but the average user likes something to look at besides the text.

Study any design? Take any marketing classes? Image in every context of the word sells. Make it bland and boring and users will go someplace else fast.

If you have a good graphics program, compressing file sizes down is usually not a problem.

MNS

[ColdSteel]

I wasn't taking sides...I was just asking opinion...I'm all for images on sites...I agree with you totally about people not liking boring sites...it's just a fact of life that something that catches your eye has more potential than a "blah" site. If you do want my opinion, I REALLY don't like text only sites...there like boring, and are just asking you to press the "back" button. If anyone else has an opinion, I'd love to hear it...

[Jordan]

It is important to have a cool design. Otherwise customers will click onto another site.

www.designers-4-web.com (see portfolio page for cool designs):D

[AdamGundry]

I didn't suggest a text-only site, I suggested a standards-compliant site. To see what can be done with CSS, check out this site: http://www.csszengarden.com/.

Adam

[havik]

You have to find a balance. Obviously, a text-only page isn't too attractive. It is highly effective though in getting out your message, as there is nothing to distract the user from reading your content. However, a page loaded with images (unless it is an image-based page) won't get the job done either. You'd have to avoid this (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail51.html) mentality (sarcastic, but helps prove a point).

Depending, everything is depending, on the page or site in question, images should not take away from the content.

Havik

[ColdSteel]

Adam, I agree with what you say about standards since, well, if there aren't any standards it just makes the job of a webdeveloper even more of a nightmare...sorry, thought that you were saying text-only sites were rad or something...and havik, like your input....So what are people's opinion on when to do text-only, if ever? Is there ever a situation that warrants a text-only site? I know there are those text-only die-hards out there that are acting like there stuck in the early 90's, but obviously, as others have said, image sells. So what are everyone else's thoughts?

[DaveSW]

Text only sites are usually for sites where it is difficult to find photos... Like the W3C.org, although they do have some background effects there now for some things.

Images do a lot for catalogs and brochures, so if you're presenting a company image you'll pretty much need pictures.

Regarding the question of 'How many pictures?', I don't like the sites made of a massive image, carved up and served with an image map!
Some sites - like film sites etc can use large graphics acceptably, but in most situations I reckon less graphics is better.

Text only could also be a good idea for websites of specific interest to disabled people, (depending how they are disabled ofcourse) , or just as an alternative for your own site.

[MotherNatrsSon]

If you want to be accessibility compliant and get an instant AAA accessibility rating, link to a text only version of your site in your site map and from your home page. Other than that text only sites are NEVER necessary, just tolerated.....

MNS

[Daria]

Havik! I needed a good laugh! Thanks for the link!!!!!!!!!!

Functionality always outweighs the looks, unless you are in the looks business.

"cool" doesn't necessarily mean "big"
the rest is a matter of a priorities.

[Jona]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
If you want to be accessibility compliant and get an instant AAA accessibility rating, link to a text only version of your site in your site map and from your home page. Other than that text only sites are NEVER necessary, just tolerated.....

A site can look very nice and still meet at least level AA. Granted, level AAA is difficult to achieve and still have a nice site, but it is possible. According to Robert Wellock, this site (http://sonoracabinets.com/) is almost level AA (a few things I haven't had the time to fix on it), and he helped me make it AAA, but I haven't put the AAA version online yet. Designing for the disabled can be difficult, but the joy that comes from the result is amazingly satisfying. My favorite part is when I get an email from a disabled person, saying how they were glad they could use my site easily... Notice that the afforementioned site has few graphics; check out my site - it is at least level A compliant and valid HTML and CSS. I'm soon going to port it over to XHTML 1.1 and make it level AA...

[J]ona

[ColdSteel]

Then do you have a link to text-only, in a sense, only if their is a possibility that the viewers are disabled? I know that it must be great for them...I can understand their dilemma...but what if the situation is, let's say, making a site for webdevelopers, when most, if not all of viewers are going to have good enough vision to read a site with more images...I guess that raises the question whether or not a webdeveloper can have bad-eyesight and still be in the business (lol)...but what are people's opinion on figuring out your audience more?

[pyro]

IMO, you'll never really be able to figure your audience that well. What if a blind person is just interested in web development, and uses a screen reader to try to access your site? Think of it this way, on any (or nearly any) page/site on the internet, users are going to use a traditional browser to view the page, but there will always be users accessing them without that.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Jona

I would consider that site, being only 3 pages, to be an etremely simple site to begin with. Images do not equal inaccessibility provided the guidelins are followed when you do use images ie; basic alt attributes and/or long descriptions....

I do applaud you for taking accessibility into account on any site. It is required by law already, just that people are not getting sued for it YET.

As a site designer, if someone happens to sue the owner of a site you designed, like the architect of a building or the general contractor that built it, you might be liable for damages as well. It is good to get into the practice before sh*t hits the fan....LOL

There have been a couple businesses that have had lawsuits brought against them because their sites were inaccessible. I do not know the outcome of the cases but think it will be happening more and more frequently.

MNS

[pyro]

Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon
I do applaud you for taking accessibility into account on any site. It is required by law already...Not sure where you're from, but here in the US, only a very select few sites are legally required to be accessable... Government sites, etc... I'm not saying it is any excuse to not create accessable sites, just that it isn't "law alread".

[MotherNatrsSon]

My mistake but I thought 508 accessibility guidelines applied to businesses as well???

MNS

[pyro]

Not positive, I'd have to check. But, if so, I think it only applies to companies with over a certian number of employees.

[Daria]

508: last I've checked it was federal organizations.

[pyro]

From Section 508, Subpart B (1194.22) (the summary, as the 508 standards seem to be down):

The standards apply to Federal web sites but not to private sector web sites (unless a site is provided under contract to a Federal agency, in which case only that web site or portion covered by the contract would have to comply).

[Jona]

I believe that it is illegal to make inaccessible sites in the UK, but I do not believe it is illegal in the U.S.A. as of yet. However, possibly and hopefully soon, this law will be passed. I guess I'm just a nice a guy - I really do pitty those who were born with disabilities, and although I do not believe it is right to "baby" them or do everything for them, I believe that making their life easier is the least I can do for them, and since this is what I do (or will do) for a living, I want more and more that the disabled have the priviledges of modern technology, as we do. :)

[J]ona

[ColdSteel]

Then does that mean that it's a good idea to have a text link to a text-only version of your site?

[pyro]

Unless you just make your current pages accessable, yes.