Re: critique please

Hi Craig,

>Normally, I wouldn't mention this, but after looking around a bit, I came
>away with the impression that you were pushing less technology, less graphic
>impact, old browsers, and Macintosh equipment.

Less technology, yes. I have reduced the technology of my web design site---I took out rollovers on my menu which was Javascript based, and other fancy wingdings and hits quadrupled overnight. I found the same results with my  clients.

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.

Even though my web design site is not drawing many customers at present I do get top billing on the search engines for my top keywords, i.e., I am in the #2 spot on Google for "Spokane Web Designers. And the same happens with other keywords for myself and my clients. That part I have down pat. However, getting customers from those high ratings is why I asked for this critique.

And re less graphic impact, I do not recommend Flash/shockwave graphics because it interferes with some search engines--and most folks with older browsers and slow modems cannot access those pages.

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. So everyone who lives in the country cannot access such sites or it takes interminably long to download such pages. How many people in the USA live in the country or can't afford a fast modem? I try to design my sites so they are accessible to everyone, so all such high tech features I do not recommend.

>That's all well and good....
>and possibly you might have a point in some cases, but as a person looking
>for a Web designer, I might shy away, thinking that you didn't know how to
>use modern technology (CSS, DHTML, etc.) or that you were one of those silly
>"Mac against PC" people. In fact that's one nice thing about the Web.. it's
>fairly platform transparent.
>Now, I'm not saying that you are these things, but that your copy leaves me
>thinking that a prospective client might come away with that thought.

Thanks for your input. I can see that I need to change my wording somewhat. I believe CSS is being more accepted by browsers now, however DHTML makes it impossible for some search engines to list sites, so I only use it on a limited basis but I do know how to use them both. And I'm not anit-PC either. I just prefer the Mac myself and get real irritated when PC users use technology that prohibits the Mac user from surfing the site--so I believe the bias is on the other side.

>Secondly, in this day of IMPACT advertising I think your design, which I
>understand is an attempt to appeal to all the politically correct ideals of
>accessibility and whatnot, is somewhat bland and uninspiring compared to
>many sites these days.

I get a lot of compliments from folks praising their ability to surf my site because it's not loaded down with a lot of fancy windgings too, so it all balances out. But you're right, it is kind of bland. I need to find a way to spruce it up without using Flash/etc.

>Finally, one thing many Mac designers just don't understand is that most PC
>Web surfers surf with their browsers max screened.

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.

>I think that the concept
>running apps in less than full screen windows, as most mac users do,

Why do you believe this is just a Mac problem?

> 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 have all resolutions available on my monitor and check my sites at all resolutions before posting them, but I probably don't do it enough.

>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.

They are only the standard in computer stores and for those who can afford them--those with higher incomes. Anyone who bought their computer more than 4-5 years ago probably has a smaller screen and possibly can't afford a bigger one--and often buying a bigger monitor means you have to also buy a bigger HD--and it goes on from there--new printer--update all your programs, etc. Who can afford that except those who are well off? I can't for one. And most teachers and students in school can't either. Do you know how many teachers and students there are in this country? And most of those are on the Mac, btw.

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.

>Full
>screen surfing makes some sites look awfully screwy. Guess who might be an
>unsophisticated surfer with a high end monitor??.. You guessed it, a
>business owner with money to spend on a Website.

How about the person who is buying the product? Do we design sites for the business owner or the prospective clients????  Do all surfers have a high end machine and monitor? How much of a percentage of prospective clients can we afford to loose? I say none. And thus I try to design sites that everyone can utilize.

It's been my own personal experience with ALL my clients that they have low end equipment and know very little about the web--one of them is even on Web TV. I can't design a site they can't utilize themselves, and if they can use it I know everyone can use it. My sites do need some pizzaz, I'll admit, but I don't see how going for technology and ignoring some low end surfers needs is going to profit my clients.

I do appreciate your comments however, and those of everyone else who has tried to help.

take care
Lori Eldridge
www.loriswebs.com

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