Re: web safe background

Mikael,

Your comments are good in general, but they don't really do much for
specifics. You can't make all sites fit into the round hole, not matter how
hard you try.

I have a big client whose major product is pictures and artwork. You CANNOT
dither out a full-color photograph or piece of art and expect it to look
good, which is PRECISELY what his customers come to the site for. They want
big, bold, and beautiful images, and are actually WILLING to wait for 250KB
images to download to their browser over a slow analog connection! I've got
the logs and email to prove it, too -- I've actually been asked by some of
the visitors to make the imagery BIGGER just so there would be as little
loss in quality as possible! This client also happens to be my biggest
client, the one I started with and all my other clients were referred to me
by, so it's hard for me to argue about "web-safe pallettes" and Netscape 3
compatibility with my cash cow.

As for the difference between a developer and someone who has a stake in the
business... :-) heh heh heh... I hate to sound like I'm tooting my own horn
here, but since the original format of this guy's product no longer exists,
he wouldn't be in business if not for my urging him to sell his wares via
the internet. I also do 100% of the administration of his site, and about
75% of the contact with visitors. Essentially, it's like I'm a part-owner of
the business, as if his sales drop, my income drops. I get paid not so much
on the presentation (the core technology to run the site), but on how
popular the site is and how well it does, so I do have a pretty big stake in
it's accessability.

For the average site like Amazon which tries to be everything to all people,
I agree wholeheartedly with your statements. But for a targeted niche market
like my client's, the only way it can be presented is with high-res colors.
To do any less would be a DISSERVICE to the client and the customers. The
customers EXPECT to have to access the site with TrueColor displays and
800x600 or higher screen res in MSIE 5.x, so the site is built to accomodate
this. It also happens to have a secondary version designed for older browser
technology like Netscape 4, but, based on recent logs for this site, N4
accounts for only 7.88% of the visitors. MSIE 5.x (including AOL 5 and 6)
account for 82.51% of the visitors (with nearly an identical number using
Windows98/ME/2000). And, as I mentioned, since my other clients were
acquired based on the work I did with this site, they, too, expect high-res
output and that's what they get it.

It all boils down to what the client WANTS, what his/her visitors EXPECT,
and what the webdesign "rules" CLAIM. The rules lose out almost every time.
I do not try to make my sites look like all the others out there. I do not
try to build to the lowest common denominator. If I did, I wouldn't have the
clients I have today, as they don't want carbon-copy duplicates of sites
that are seen everywhere and are, in their words, just okay. Granted, some
of these "average sites" are pretty impressive, but the LOOK has been done
to death. My clients want sites that are fresh and stun the visitors with
their gracefulness, simplicity and aesthetic appeal -- they want UNIQUE,
hand-coded, one-of-a-kind pieces of art, not cookie-cutter sites based on
someone else's design template. And in the end, it's the CLIENT, whether
they are dead-wrong when it comes to good web-design theory or not, who
knows their target audience, and they know what is right for them. At least
this is true of my clients. It might not be true of ALL clients. Of course,
I do advise them against glaringly obvious bad choices (like blinking text,
uncontrollable sound, excessive plugins, or other gaffs).

I am more of a graphic designer than a web builder, and my sites reflect
that. My clients know this too, and it's why they chose me. I spend a great
deal of time adjusting subtle hues and textures to blend together in an
appealing way. I carefully lay out elements to pixel-perfect precision. I
carefully select the primary font style and size for the site, and make sure
it fits with the look. I make full-graphical templates based on the look the
client wants. I then break the finished design template down into component
pieces and determine what can and cannot be done in the most efficient
manner, what can be done by a browser using HTML, CSS, or some form of
scripting and what MUST be done using graphics, and then I build a prototype
for the client to approve or not. Once accepted and tested with some of the
audience, I build it into a website.

If your clients are happy with 640x480 and 256 colors, then GREAT! I'm happy
for you. I really am (and I'm NOT being smarmy here, either, I'm being
sincere). But my clients expect A LOT more. Thus my comments. The rules be
damned, I build sites that reflect what my CLIENTS want. That, in the end,
is the determining factor, as it's my CLIENTS who pay my bills.

Oh yes, you said, "I guess your clients are unaware how an ugly site can
affect their sales or they don't have such a turnover that they would notice
anyway." For reference, while I know this is not HUGE, the site I refered to
over and over above gets approximately 25,000 unique browser sessions per
month, with a per-session visiting time average of about an hour, a per
session page view average of about twenty, and an average monthly income
from its visitors of about US$5000 (income is all from the website ONLY with
NO other sources). Certainly not the result of an "ugly" site with low
visitation or turnover. ;-)

Please do not construe my comments as an attack against your ethics or
values in being a web designer. As I said, your comments are very much
valid. My comments, however, are simply pointing out the fact that a number
of sites do not, cannot, and WILL NOT ever fit the mold specified in the Web
Designers' Rulebook (should such a book really exist).

Kehvan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Bystr�m" <sunergy(at)mac.com>
To: "Kehvan M. Zydhek" <kehvan(at)zydhek.net>; "hwg tech"
<hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 22:15
Subject: Re: web safe background


| Kehvan M. Zydhek kehvan(at)zydhek.net seemed to say on 3/27/01 02.01 that
| >Personally, I don't believe in a "web-safe pallette" but others do. In
| >today's age where it's very much common to find 800x600 or larger screen
| >resolutions and 24-bit color depths, I build my pages so they look good,
| >using the colors I want. If the colors dither for someone using an older
| >system, such is life.
| <snip>
| >But that's THEIR problem, not mine. Sure, it's a cavalier attitude, but
| >so long as my CLIENT is happy with the results of their site, the "rules"
| >and "theories" for proper web design and coloring can be thrown out the
| >window.
|
| I guess your clients are unaware how an ugly site can affect their sales
| or they don't have such a turnover that they would notice anyway. If they
| are aware of the time and money spent on their contractor (us) and it's
| considered less than potential losses then they are doing the right
| thing. If they are unaware, however, they are practising "False Economy".
| IMHO, it's that simple.
|
| I think this general attitude of yours (if I percieved it right) is the
| difference between a developer that takes a stake in the business side of
| the client (and get paid to do so) and one that doesn't.
| :)
|
| Best ((Vibes))
|
|
| Mikke Bystrom
| Applied Design Intelligence
| sunergy(at)mac.com
|
|

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA