Too complex is bad

[Richard Waller]

A warning to all web designers who crave flashy things.

http://www.remitconsulting.com/ is designed by a professional print designer with input from three assertive partners. It is hosted on a LINUX server (free) and the whole thing is CSS and flash programmed by an expert sub-contractor.

The only problem is that unless you use IE it does not seem to work too well. On an Apple the links across the top appear down the side. On the new Yahoo browser it all slips out of vertical. There are a dozen other browsers out there which do not let the site work too well, and many people have flash and pop-ups turned off anyway

I have to do a change of mental gear every time I make a mod, since my Internet faith decrees that it should be simple and rely purely on the content to attract visitors.

Now the owner wants to use content management so that several people can make their own mods rather than employing me at vaste cost.
http://www.itforpropertypeople.com/ uses this. But this means them giving up all the flashy stuff. Which would be excellent, and I would always vote to make it simple, but I can see that on a large site this is going to get out of hand.

Lesson? Have only one site designer and make sure that it is me.

[Kelvyn]

Dick

I understand your dilema. Looking at the home page of the site in question it looks like it has been built by a designer using an old script for dropdown menus. Perhaps you should point out that very few people use Netscape 3 now.....

As to your comments about CMS, a server based content management system is an important part of just about every site I develop these days, ranging from a full CMS system for which I use Joomla! (http://www.joomla.org/), or a simpler system where the client can just alter the content of individual pages, for which I use Snippetmaster (http://www.snippetmaster.com). You can use Flash objects with Joomla! but I advise clients against, as it is not good for accessibility. Explaining a little about the Disabilities Discrimination Act works wonders in getting them to accept that Flash is a no-no. The key from a design point of view is to create the page template so that it is relatively simple and attractive and use a central CSS to set font faces, size etc.. The CMS systems put content into that template, and you will find that if one of a team adds content that looks silly or out of place then co-workers will point this out.

An alternative is for the client(s) to use Macromedia Contribute to update the pages. Again, you can develop the template and restrict editing to just certain areas, but with this you will find that come clients think it is wonderful to be able to overide your carefully set up styles and use puurple Comic Sans at 72pt on the pages.............

The big advantage with CMS is that you don't have to spend all your days making minor alterations to text or prices for clients.

[annc]

On my Mac, the dropdown menus work properly in IE 5.2.3, Opera 8.5 and Safari 1.3.1, but in Firefox 1.5, nothing happens when I pass the mouse over the menus that don't have dropdowns. In IE, Opera and Safari, the text appears in the right-hand large box, which I gather is what is supposed to happen.

In IE on the Mac, there is a right-hand scroll that goes forever, and the text in the grey box is offset to the right, just out of the box.

That's just the home page.

[ktinkel]

On an Apple the links across the top appear down the side. Don’t disagree with your principle (KISS is a good rule!), thought I should add to your comment about the Mac.

I use OS X (Tiger) 10.4.3.

Using Firefox 1.5 ), the page looks logical. However, the Flash to the right (pile of bricks) does not work at all.

In Opera 8 it looks right and the Flash thingie works, displaying text in blue panels when I hover over the last four menu boxes.

In Safari 2.0.2, the Flash works fine, but until I reduce the magnification (the type was very large) or widen the browser window, the last menu box does drop down (beneath the first).

OmniWeb 5 (another Mac browser) seems to work perfectly.

MSIE 5.2.2 is pretty much okay, except there is no margin — text and image crowd left and right sides.

What Mac browser did you test with?

[Richard Waller]

What Mac browser did you test with?

This is an ongoing problem for me cos I do not have access to a Mac. I think my solution is to bully the client to go for a KISS

[ktinkel]

This is an ongoing problem for me cos I do not have access to a Mac. I think my solution is to bully the client to go for a KISSThat’s okay — I don’t have personal access to any Windows machines so cannot test on MSIE 6. Fortunately I can rely on friends (and simulators somewhat help).

Yes, you should tell your client to KISS! <g>

It is not as if they gain much with that Flash thing. It is just showing off.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

It is not as if they gain much with that Flash thing

What Flash thing? I've looked at the site with Internet Explore 6 & Firefox 1.5, and both look very attractive to me: can it be that laymen look at the overall effect, whereas experts worry to much about how it is produced?

The only thing I noticed is that IE 6 couldn't manage to get six blocks across the top (two get tucked in a second row); apparently the site is intended to suit Firefox. As I assume that property people are pretty average in their taste in platforms and browsers, I'd say that the site fully satisfies the designer's intention.

[ktinkel]

What Flash thing? What happens when you allow your cursor to hover over the last four of the menu boxes at the top? You should see the pile of bricks turn into a block of text on a blue background. That’s the “flash thing.”

The only thing I noticed is that IE 6 couldn't manage to get six blocks across the top (two get tucked in a second row); apparently the site is intended to suit Firefox.How do you get that idea? Were your Explorer and Firefox windows about the same width? Were you seeing roughly the same size type in both?

If not, what you saw is not really evidence of anything except your inconsistent browser setups!

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

a block of text on a blue background

Yes, I see it now (in IE: I haven't got Flash in Firefox); I had previously tested the two lefthand boxes only. I can't say that anyones's missing vital information if they don't see the 'Flash effect'.

How do you get that idea?

By looking at them olternately. As I said, all six menu boxes don't fit on one line in IE 6 and Windows XP, although there are no obvious differences in text size. I do report accurately, you know, although I'm probably ga-ga in your eyes: you kids in your sixties!

[terrie]

rw: and flash programmed by an expert sub-contractor.Took a look at the site using Netscape 7.2 (W2K) and there's no flash happening...additionally, the last 4 menu boxes--from "business strategy to "informations systems"--do not "activate" on the home page on mouse-over but if I go to Publications > News, then those 4 items do change on mouse-over...

Drop downs for "about us" and "publications" are fine...

Terrie

[Richard Waller]

The only thing I noticed is that IE 6 couldn't manage to get six blocks across the top (two get tucked in a second rowActually the cell-wrap you are getting is a function of the Text Size option you have decided to use on your display. We have a plan to use images for the cell contents which will in part get over this.

You are probably right in that the target audience probably use up-to-date versions of IE with a large display and do have PDF readers installed so they see it adequately. And you are right, the Flash is a added gimmick, not an essential part of the sales message.

[Michael Rowley]

Richard:

the cell-wrap you are getting is a function of the Text Size option you have decided to use on your display

If, as I think, you mean the option in IE, then it's always 'medium'. In Firefox it is apparently infinitely varable, but the variation appears to be in discrete steps.

[iamback]

Richard:

the cell-wrap you are getting is a function of the Text Size option you have decided to use on your display

If, as I think, you mean the option in IE, then it's always 'medium'. In Firefox it is apparently infinitely varable, but the variation appears to be in discrete steps. In IE you have always two steps on either side; and your default need not be "medium" either. Of course the "steps" in IE aren't the same size as those in Moz-based browsers, even if the base font size ("Medium") is the same (as expressed in points). I think it's even possible to define IE's base font size (whatever it is "Medium" stands for) but there may not be a user interface for that (certainly not in all versions) -- without actually digging now: IE's internal stylesheet is defined in the Registry; the default font size should be there somewhere. Or you can of course define a user stylesheet (under the accessibility options).

[Michael Rowley]

Marjolein:

In IE you have always two steps on either side

Well, to an IE user, that's restating the obvious: 'large' and 'larger' on one side, 'small' & 'smaller' on the other. I think that's clearer than having a plus and a minus, because it's not obvious what you're starting from. I don't see that expressing a font size in 'points' or 'pixels' is very helpful either, since on a computer monitor they're not absolute units and can't be, unless monitors had absolute dimensions; but either points or pixels can at least provide measures of relative font sizes, and I suppose site designers can keep a popular size in mind.