Re: Design for...

OK - I'll give it a go :)

At 13:07 15/08/98 +0100, David Meadows wrote:
>Design for this... design for that... look good in x... look good in
>y... tables, layout, fonts, graphic elements... blah blah...

All good things to keep in mind - but only as a guide, not as a
hard-and-fast rule.

>Is there anyone out there who considers themselves a writer rather than
>a designer?

Now that is an interesting question.  I'd like to confuse this by saying
the new generation of websites will really only be successful if they are
dynamic.  Dynamic does not equal "static pages".  Quite often this will
require database integration or complex CGI scripting - something not
addressed in your list of things below.  

For further info on database integration check out Mike McGhan's article at:
  http://www.hwg.org/opcenter/w3c/future.html

>When I plan a web site (or any hypertext project), the three aspects I
>consider are (in order of importance):
>
>    1. The text (site content)
>    2. The links (site navigation/usability)
>    3. The visual appeal (layout, fonts, graphics)

I see where you are coming from, but I'd like to alter them slightly.
Mainly from a planning perspective.  Planning is quite often overlooked or
carried out subconsciously in the case of small websites.

1. Define the purpose of the site (this covers the information vs
advertising vs business agenda and sets the scene for further stages)
2. Define the content (not actual text at this stage, only "headings" or
concepts to be filled out later)
3. The links between these concepts (site navigation/usability - from a
site-plan view)

Once that is done, they you have:
4. The content (text/database)
5. The links (site navigation/usability - from a page-design or user
interface view)
6. The visual appeal (layout, fonts, graphics)

The order of steps 4,5,6 will be affected by the purpose, as defined in
step 1.

>>From the questions I see here, I think most of you have these point in
>an entirely different order.

That really depends on the individual.  As "web page design" gets more
complicated, designers will probably need to specialise in one or more areas.

I would expect the "programmers" to specialise in databases and
interactivity, "graphic designers" to specialise in "visual appeal and
layout" and the "technical writers" to specialise in the content.  Oops -
almost forgot the "purists" (those raving fanatics screamming "your page
does not validate" :) who will spend more time on accessibility issues and
designing the user interface.

>When I create the site, I figure on 49% of my time to create the text,
>49% to plan and implement the hypertext structure and 2% to plan and
>create the visual elements.

What if somebody said to you "here are all our documents in electronic
format"?  Wouldn't this change your time allocations?

The advantage of "the web" is that all different types of users can get
involved for all different types of purposes.  I've mentioned four
stereotypes above, but not everyone falls into those categories.
Naturally we each see problems that are more important to us or to the
purpose of the website we are designing.


Chris Higgs <c.higgs(at)landfood.unimelb.edu.au>
Institute of Land and Food Resources
University of Melbourne
http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au

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