Rules of what defines a good website nowadays.

[&nbsp]

So im at the office, not doing squat, just a slow day, sometimes i bust my $6#, sometimes i dont, today is one of those days. So I decided to bring up the topic of what defines a website nowadays. Ive noticed since the beginning that css is all the rage, being used to pretty much structure everything within the site. I know it has been used since forever, but it seems just like within the past few years, its an essential for web design. And also, knowledge of html, and css is not enough, people want to interact, and with that you need some programming experience, to be able to communicate with others. And designs, yeup, im seeing more of this kind of site, where everything seems to be centered within a container, and then that is divided within another div. Oh, and tables are here to stay it seems, or it might just be list(e.g ul, il, with css editing to help it look like tables), and I think frames are now fossils(would like someone to prove me wrong). Well I could keep going on and on, anyone else have any ideas? :D This is just me, but i might be completely wrong as far as web-design goes, haha.

[Declan1991]

I suppose that it depends on what is "good". Tables should be used for tabular data all the time, it makes no sense to make a list look like a table, that is bad. Instead us a table. A table shouldn't be used for laying out the site.

Personally I think that a good website is one that is accessible to all, regardless of the technology used to access it. Saying that, an even better website is one that fulfills the first requirement, and uses some JavaScript to create a bit of interactivity for those with better browsers.

[xvszero]

As one of like 8 people on the planet still on 56k at home, I pretty much despise any site that loads itself with graphics and sounds and videos, thereby making it inaccessible by myself.

Pretty, yet simple... makes sense to me.

But I know I'm in the ever-shrinking minority with 56k.

[svidgen]

The first thing you're "taught" in an algorithms class is that good, better, and best are relative to the author's intent. If the author's intent is to create a fully accessible site, they should be avoiding tables, frames, graphics, sounds, and JavaScript. If their intention is to quickly create a site that's visible to most users, whatever methods that author is most familiar with are the "best."

And yes, that allows him/her to use tables for positioning things if the layout fits naturally into a table. But, if it doesn't, a table isn't really the fastest method, now is it. If he/she wants to add a hint of accessibility (but really not much), he/she should avoid tables for layout purposes.

Frames? ... Most folks avoid "regular" frames because they're mostly useless in an AJAX-enabled world, and they're a SEO issue. But, if a design requires a frame, a frame is the "best" solution.

Iframes, on the other hand, are in wide use for a lot of "AJAXy" types of things. And in many cases, using an iframe instead of "real" AJAX when possible is more cross-browser compliant and "better." With iframes, you can actually do some things for non-JavaScript users that seem like "real" AJAX without actually using any JavaScript. If that's the goal, using a lot of iframes is "good" or even "best."

So, what do you mean by good? What's our hypothetical web author's goal?

[KDLA]

Geez, I can't believe no one mentioned interesting/well-written content.

[svidgen]

I mentioned it implicitly: The first thing you're "taught" in an algorithms class is that good, better, and best are relative to the author's intent.
:cool:

[drhowarddrfine]

Once you guys have figured this out, let me know how you define good art.

[Declan1991]

Once you guys have figured this out, let me know how you define good art.

Can I say that I think that is a simplistic and incorrect view. Art is purely subjective (people pay millions for modern art, I'll never understand that), while a website is a method of conveying information on a computer. A good website will get it's message across to the largest audience as clearly as possible, and while some of that is subjective, there are definite "rules" that a website must fulfill (in my opinion accessibility) it is not an unanswerable question.

[svidgen]

there are definite "rules" that a website must fulfill (in my opinion accessibility) it is not an unanswerable question.
I agree with that--plus or minus accessibility. Though, I think the "rules" for a website are pretty minimal. If my intention is to create a site that consists of a single page with the sole purpose of making a small amount of information publicly accessible, the rules that govern whether my site is "good" are probably something like this:


The site is accessible to anyone connected to the global internet who is not impeded by something beyond my control (ISP, government, power outage, etc.)
The HTML document contains the intended information.
The document structure and styling (not necessarily CSS) allows all potential users to view the information without any special requirements which are not prepackaged and necessarily enabled in recent browser editions.
The URL is linked to or listed in the necessary external sources to make the site/page available to the intended audience, should they choose to seek it out.
The time required to create the site does not outweigh the benefit (to my ego, society, etc.).


So, my page (and entire site) would probably look like this:
<html>
<head>
<title>Title of information</title>
</head>
<body>Public information goes here</body>
</html>
As long as this document is on a public server and I've listed the URL in at least one major search engine or directory, my goals have been met and the site is "good."

Of course, I don't imagine most projects will come with such humble intentions. I would also think that art has some basic rules as well. Though, I'm not too interested in exploring those at the moment--I'd rather cede the point than debate that one ...

[drhowarddrfine]

A good website will get it's message across to the largest audience as clearly as possible, and while some of that is subjective, there are definite "rules" that a website must fulfill (in my opinion accessibility) it is not an unanswerable question.If there is a definite set of rules then they must be published and a standard of some sort must exist. Please supply this with a link. Yes, I know you can't.

If all of Jon's rules are fulfilled, but they have very little graphics on them for the dial-up user above, does that make the web site good? In order to satisfy the dial-up user, will the broadband user complain there should have been more graphical information? If one says the text is too small but another says it's too big, does that make the site bad?

The only rules are common sense rules. The site must be readable and convey information. Both of those are subjective in themselves so there is no spoon.

[svidgen]

there is no spoon.
Right ... and it's not the spoon that bends. But, I'm curious, if the spoon doesn't bend, or a data representing the spoon doesn't indicate that it is bending, how is it that the boy--and camera for that matter--is able to see the spoon bending when it is actually Neo who is bending around the spoon?

As philosophical and deep as the concept and "no spoon line" sound, I'm not 100% sure it makes any sense. Is it meant to be a koan? Is it just supposed to convince Neo that he's not breaking any unbreakable rules by bending the [not] spoon?

Someone explain this to me, please.

[Declan1991]

There are subjective parts to a website, my point was mainly that it is possible to rule a website bad, while it is not possible to rule art bad.

[scragar]

Right ... and it's not the spoon that bends. But, I'm curious, if the spoon doesn't bend, or a data representing the spoon doesn't indicate that it is bending, how is it that the boy--and camera for that matter--is able to see the spoon bending when it is actually Neo who is bending around the spoon?

As philosophical and deep as the concept and "no spoon line" sound, I'm not 100% sure it makes any sense. Is it meant to be a koan? Is it just supposed to convince Neo that he's not breaking any unbreakable rules by bending the [not] spoon?

Someone explain this to me, please.
OK, either that metaphor is way too complex for me, or you've completely gone of the deep end and changed the subject to the matrix.
The spoon does not exist, the spoon in a visual repesentation of an object in code, the spoon has rules and properties, just like any good object in code would, on of those properites(or a combo of them) would define it's shape.
By realising that there is no spoon, the spoon is a repesentation, Neo is able to gain access to what's behind the spoon, the object in code, and from there change some of it's attributes, this makes the spoon bend, once he's distracted however the matrix realises there's a mistake in the spoon(error checking), and morphs the spoon back.

I've thought too much about the matrix, somewhere there's a whole guide explaining some of the stranger things, like, for example the need for a piece of data in the form of a phone to pull someone from the matrix that they can find and track without such requirements, I'll hunt around, see if I can find it for you if you want. PM me to keep this thread on topic.

[/offtopic]
[ontopic]

I don't know about being able to rule art as bad, lot's of modern art is good because it's bad(it challenges perception of what makes art, or something like that, I don't really follow the whole art thing).

A long time ago I found a site that claimed to be the best site in the universe, it could be accessed by a lot of people. but it was by no means accessible, it used frames, flash(a very slow to load flash), audio and some rather hard to read graphics, it would eat up 30-40% of my CPU without doing anything, just because of the way it was built, sure, it looked great, but I am convinced that it's one of the worst websites ever, mostly because of the accessibility limit's it imposed on those that used it.

[svidgen]

you've completely gone of the deep end and changed the subject to the matrix.
Indeed.

Neo is able to gain access to what's behind the spoon, the object in code, and from there change some of it's attributes, this makes the spoon bend, once he's distracted however the matrix realises there's a mistake in the spoon(error checking), and morphs the spoon back.
That makes a good deal of sense. I think I'm alright with that explanation.

[drhowarddrfine]

Wait. What?

[scragar]

Wait. What?

I think the thread got a little bit off topic :P

[svidgen]

Wait. What?
... in regards to?

[drhowarddrfine]

Irregardless.

[xvszero]

There are subjective parts to a website, my point was mainly that it is possible to rule a website bad, while it is not possible to rule art bad.

I could show you some of what I did in art school that may make you retract that statement...

I don't know about being able to rule art as bad, lot's of modern art is good because it's bad(it challenges perception of what makes art, or something like that, I don't really follow the whole art thing).

A lot of what I did in art school REALLY challenged the perceptions of what makes art. Especially the stuff I forgot was due until an hour before class started.

[Declan1991]

I could show you some of what I did in art school that may make you retract that statement...
Anything I would paint would too, but then a few weeks ago a zebra preserved in formahide (I think that's the preserving agent I'm trying to remember, but it's late) and it was classified as art.

And it's a little after the fact, but I want to reiterate, I'm not saying that a website that is accessible is good, merely that a website that doesn't is bad. I never said or implied that accessibility should be the only criterion (and I'm sorry if it came across that way), but that doesn't mean it isn't a criterion.

And note I said, "a good website will get it's [sic] message across to the largest audience as clearly as possible", and the latter half of that is highly subjective.

And I never noticed this was posted until now, and I want to mention itIf there is a definite set of rules then they must be published and a standard of some sort must exist. Please supply this with a link. Yes, I know you can't.In future, I would ask that you read my posts before commenting sarcastically on them. Never did I say there are a definite set of rules, I just pointed out that it is not a purely a subjective matter, merely a partially subjective matter.