Hi Lori,

I've been following this thread with much interest. Fascinating 
conversation going on. But only now did I have time to post a=
 reply (god 
bless weekends). So, instead of just giving my feedback on your=
 site, I 
prefer to do it and also follow on the current topics.

>Basicly, most of the reasons for my push towards less technology=
 is that I
>keep up on all the major search engine newsletters and try to=
 design my
>sites according to what will be accepted by them and I have=
 concluded that
>what is needed is less technology--too many search engines won't=
 even list
>sites with Dynamic HTML. I had a client with a DHTML site=
 recently and I
>tried for months to get him listed to no avail.

This is mostly true. But, unfortunately we tend to accept hype in=
 much the 
same way as we used to accept new toys when we where kids. That=
 is, we now 
only want to play with it and nothing else. People tend to=
 develop entire 
websites with nothing more than DHTML or entire webpages filled=
 with Flash. 
And when all the way we look we see this, we tend to forget that=
 in fact a 
nice and clean website can be made with the "new" technology=
 embed on a 
more "traditional" html structure.

The bottom line here is to develop our sites with CSS/HTML.=
 DHTML, Flash 
and whatever else we may want to add to please the visitor eye,=
 we should 
add to the website with a grain of salt and in a way to not=
 interfere with 
search engines, web standards and acessibility standards. The=
 bottom line 
is also that this is possible to do.
 
>I live out in the country and I know that you cannot use a 58K=
 or faster
>modem out here as it still only operates at 28K or slower.

This is also true. But here I have a less apologetic view of the=
 whole 
issue. Fact is if we always wanted to design with slow=
 connections in mind, 
technology would not even have reached the animated gif stage=
 (pardon the 
overstatement). There has to be (and there is) a line that=
 constitutes what 
we can call the average user. And that line is around the 56k=
 modem user.

Since average means there will always be someone above it and=
 someone below 
it, we should then evaluate the rest of our work towards what the=
 target 
audience of our website will be and use technology accordingly.

For a web designer like yourself that wants to be at both sides=
 of the 
spectrum this may seem a difficult task. But is not. You just=
 have to 
design your website so that at the very first page(s) you can=
 instruct your 
potential customers of your abilities to design both pure=
 HTML/CSS and full 
blown DHTML. Maybe by guiding visitors to different areas of your=
 website 
where you discuss these issues in more detail.

Again the bottom line is that a web designer website doesn't need=
 to claim 
your abilities on the very first page. Stick to a good design but=
 allow 
yourself some breathing space so that you guarantee that your=
 potential 
client goes where you want him to go.

>Are you saying you surf with 1280 resolution?
>
>It is my understanding that most surfers are still using 800x600=
 and I
>have designed my sites for that resolution. I do a lot of=
 surfing myself
>because I am a researcher on a lot of topics and when you get up=
 to 1280
>resolution the print gets too small on lots of sites so I don't=
 use it
>when surfing myself.

The average here is 800x600. Being 1024x768 a somewhat close=
 competitor. 
1280x1024 is really far behind. Forget it.

However I agree. Absolutely no website should be developed with=
 resolutions 
above 800x600 in mind. Unless you are on a controlled environment=
 (like an 
Intranet) where you know visitors will have this resolution.

Far worst than having small letters on the screen, is the fact=
 that lower 
resolution visitors will now have an horizontal scrollbar. And=
 this is 
terribly ugly and a pain to scroll. Just consider that an average=
 reader 
can read a full line in about 4 seconds. He would have to scroll=
 
horizontally every 4 seconds to read the end of that line and=
 immediatly 
after scroll again to read the next line. So, on a 50+ line=
 page... Urgh!

>>is more
>>sophisticated, but that's not the way most do it. Therefore,=
 the % width
>>tables stretch all over the place at over 1280 res and better=
 on large
>>monitors at full screen, leaving Web elements not placed where=
 they were
>>designed..

I do not agree with Craig on this one. Altough I have to concede=
 this is 
mostly a matter of style. I can at most design tables to be=
 positioned 
having the current resolution and maybe the next one in line. So,=
 If I 
design for 800x600 I can take steps so that elements get=
 stretched to 
1024x768 and shrinked to 640x 480. But that is as far as I go.=
 And I may 
not even want to go that far in most cases.

As soon as one starts coding with CSS and especially using CSS=
 for 
positioning, table tags should be left to be what they always=
 where meant 
to be, a means to present information in an organized manner. I'm=
 aware I'm 
contradicting W3C tables rationale on this one 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#notes-tables).=
 But fact is 
If I allow my tables to stretch to the whole screen width I may=
 end up 
presenting an hard to read table (consider a 6 column table being=
 one of 
those columns filled with just one character lenght string).=
 Whilst, 
locking my cells in place I will no doubt guarantee an easy to=
 read table 
on any screen resolution.

>>for example, supposedly centered bottom menus and such as well=
 as
>>huge width side bars and such. 17": to 19" monitors are now the=
 standard
>>instead of the exception and 21 and over inch monitors are=
 common.

21'' monitors are not common, Craig. In fact very rare and used=
 only be 
designers, software developers and freak computer gamers. The=
 major surfers 
are people at home and people at the office. These have something=
 between 
14'' and 17''. 19'' is being pushed at lower prices, but still=
 definitely 
not common.

>BASICALLY, most of my focus is on those who are not high income.=
 I try to
>make my sites accessible for all those folks who cannot utilize=
 todays
>higher technology--which most search engines won't accept=
 anyway. That is
>probably hurting my chances at clients who want those fancy=
 wingdings but
>I just need to be creative and find other ways to get around=
 this--and
>thus my asking for help on this list.

Ok, Lori. That is not difficult to achieve. Take a look at my=
 website at 
http://www.marfig.com/en_index.htm
That is an example of a pure HTML/CSS with no hype technology=
 behind. 
Notice it doesn't make any effort to look modern. So, my website=
 is not 
what you want. (I'm making a point here, bear with me...)

Now, take a look at http://www.w3schools.com/
Another (almost) pure HTML/CSS. Only this time it looks more=
 "modern". Why 
is that? Because the authour choose to draw lines, separate=
 content in 
boxes and choose to use a color set that although consistent, is=
 clearly... 
colorful. This is still not what you want (the website actually=
 has some 
design mistake in my opinion)... but we are getting closer.

Finally take a look at http://www.twothirty.com/
Forget about the effects you have when hovering some of the=
 links. Look at 
the website just as it shows when you don't have your mouse over=
 any of the 
links. Doesn't it look professional? And yet, it's made=
 exclusively of 
HTML/CSS.

What's the trick? What differentiates these websites? Clearly the=
 use of 
boxes, lines, differentiated backgrounds, a colorset made of 4 or=
 5 
consistent and good looking colors. And clever positioning.=
 Notice that on 
this last website the real menu is no more than a line at the top=
 of the 
screen. Clearly the author wants you to navigate through the main=
 content 
area. Notice also how he sets up those boxes and uses 1px lines=
 around 
them. Although not the only possible solution, this is a way to=
 separate 
content between itself and lend it more or less meaning,=
 acordindly.

This last website serves only as an example of what you may want=
 to do. It 
is certainly not the only way to look at it.
Check out http://www.textbased.com/~minimalist/ for some good and=
 not so 
good ideas.

Best Regards,
Mario Figueiredo
http://www.marfig.com  (portuguese speakers)
http://www.marfig.com/en_index.htm (english speakers)
admin(at)marfig.com

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA