iMarc | Interactive Media Architects
  • Portfolio
  • Process
  • About
  • Communiqué
  • Contact
  • Support
  • Search

The Push Back

by Fred LeBlanc - November 1, 2005 / 11:25am View more articles

I've done a great deal of reading, studying, and discussing usability for the Web, and while I've adapted a lot of my design and code practices to accommodate what people tell me is best, I have to draw the line somewhere.

This is the beginning of the resistance.
Welcome to the Fred Rebellion.

1. 800 x 600
The belief that most of the people in the world have at least this as their screen resolution, and using the principles of lowest common denominator, every site should be designed to fit this size.

According to the Fred Rebellion: Attention 800 x 600'ers, your time is over. Assuming that people that hit our Website are current clients, potential clients, family or friends, our stats over the last two months are good a base of information to look at:

% of 800+ px wide: 99.98%
% of 1024+ px wide: 93.76%

'Nuf said here, the time for 1024 is upon us. When Flash was appearing on 94% of the machines worldwide there were more than enough people claiming that Flash has become a standard that could be used, where are those people now?

Additionally, I've noticed that since I started using a resolution higher than 1024 x 768, I've stopped looking at browser screens maximized. This leads to the argument that people naturally keep their browser windows to fit 800 x 600 (as was the case of a recent discussion here at iMarc). I don't believe this to be true, I think the user just widens the screen to be about 100 pixels greater than whatever the site is currently set to be, so a browser window 'naturally sized' to fit sites is just a by-product of archaic coding.

By the way, there was 1 visitor to iMarc in the past two months that was on a 640 x 480 resolution. Notice how no one cares about them.

2. 100% Width Sites
The belief that for maximum flexibility, a Website should stretch itself to 100% of the screensize.

According to the Fred Rebellion: No, never. This can completely ruin the design of any site, and by coding at 100% width, standards will never move forward. There will never be a push to code for ANY resolution, let alone the 1024 x 768 that I want. Additionally, with the incorporation of more and more CSS, this becomes harder to accomplish. I've seen a number of cool things that CSS can do, but I code for whatever is the cleanest to read, the simplest concept to understand, and the easiest to get to work. If I'm spending time positioning a million div's when a quick table will do just fine, all I lose in the end is time.

(And I hear that time == money.)

Useless Links are... Useless 3. "Just Add Another Link"
Another discussion that came up recently was about the blurb on our home page. I've taken a screenshot for you (right) so you can see the argument. The thoughts were basically: add a link that goes to the main blog page, and move the "read more" link to be inline with the text. I said that the read more link was already not necessary, since (as I've always been told for anything I build here) that "most people will try to click on the title first," to which the response came, "why not just have both?"

According to the Fred Rebellion: The answer is simple: because having both is unnecessary clutter. If you need to have two ways to do something, the first way isn't clear enough for the user. The titles being the same blue that we use for most of our links is visually key enough that we don't need a 'read more link.' I think a lot of designs lately have lost the use of good white-space, and I think that it's this attitude towards things that is one of the culprits.

4. HTML Title Stuffing
The recent belief that putting full descriptions into HTML titles will improve your Google ranking. Below is a recent site that we did that does this.

Title Stuffing is Gross According to the Fred Rebellion: This is ugly and unprofessional looking. A title should be something short, concise and exact, and I cannot for the life of me think that this truly matters to Google. I've taken a look at a lot of sites (Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!) and what is in their titles? One or two words, that's it. You get to the top by having the best and most useful content, which is what Google intends. These lame hacks to bump yourself up a couple notches are for the insecure and lazy.

Make something worthwhile and the people will come.
Have good content, layout and design and Google will do the rest.
And have you seen what this does to my bookmark/link bar if I save it?

Oh Man, Fred, That IS Disgusting I'd like to save more than one link.

(As an additional note, I also checked out Amazon to find that they too are doing this title stuffing nonsense, but with their 100% width antics, this doesn't surprise me. Stop ruining my user experience!)

I think I'll continue to post more of these blogs on the Fred Rebellion, since there are many more things out there than just this that bother me.
You can either forge the path forward or wait for someone else to do it. The Fred Rebellion has got out its machetes, are you coming with us?
More Articles Get the RSS Feed Post A Comment

9 Comments

by Will Bond   #
on November 1, 2005 / 11:47am
You are a heretic, and I love it! Nice job.
by Robert Mohns   #
on November 1, 2005 / 6:24pm
Related: Don't use the statistics defence as a reason to exclude people from your content
by Fred LeBlanc   #
on November 1, 2005 / 9:18pm
Right, exactly my point, Rob. That link is saying that the goal should be to make your information as accessable as possible.

From that:
"In relation to the particular case of Netscape 4, it is legitimate to ask users to upgrade so that they get both the content and the good design - but not legitimate to argue that they won't get the content if they don't upgrade."

Same thing here. We're not "excluding" anyone. The content is still perfectly available to all (even those at resolutions less than 800 x 600). We've been building in XHTML 1.0 Strict lately for most of our project, INCLUDING validated code AND CSS.

Something else from that:
An example of that 'bad defense' (which really isn't as bad as they make it out to be):
"We design our site to work on 600 * 800 because that's what most people use."

Long live the Fred Rebellion.
by Bill Bushee   #
on November 2, 2005 / 10:30am
While I agree that a site design should not exclude anyone (and we've always strived to build sites that are accessible to everyone) the "statistics defense" argument in favor of designing to the lowest common demominator is a bit absurd. Taken to extremes, we'd still be designing sites at 640 x 480 using a 216 color palate and optimizing file sizes for 14.4k dial up connections.

I think you need to look at the site's purpose and it's audience. For an e-commerce site, making the user experience as simple as possible is critical. Forcing them to scroll side to side in order to see a featured sales item or find the checkout button would be a huge mistake.

On the other hand, for a brochure/informational site (computer game, estaurant, hotel, etc), a really great design can drive off-line sales. Advertising is as much (or more) about conveying an image and an emotion as it is about listing product statistics. Sales gained by a strong product message can far exceed the sales lost by forcing a small percentage of users to scroll a bit to the side to see everything. In such a case, designing for the lowest common denominator might be nice, but it's secondary to conveying the sales message.
by Dave Tufts   #
on November 2, 2005 / 2:14pm
My personal site IS designed for 640, and only uses 5 colors.

...the rest of the world will eventually catch up to me :)

by Will Bond   #
on November 2, 2005 / 4:54pm
My personal site wins hands down. 1 color, optimized for 172x129 resolution. Everyone reading this on their cell phone will love it.


I think you have some catching up to do Dave. :P
by Steve Wojcik   #
on November 5, 2005 / 3:32am
At the risk of opening a can of worms, how does item two apply to Flash-only sites?

Also, what do you think about sites that dynamically detect and build the site based on user limitations? This can be extremely effective in media-rich situations, when the target audience may have a variety of access methods.
by Fred LeBlanc   #
on November 7, 2005 / 2:15pm
I don't think that 100% width is ever acceptable for a 'normal' Website. I say normal because this obviously wouldn't apply to pop-up windows and the like (although sites that have a load page with a pop-up Flash window are also sins against the Rebellion).

Also, I generally don't mind if a site is dynamically detecting what I have and what I can see, but the limit goes as far as technologies on the Web go. Detecting 800px width versus 1024px width is not an acceptable use of this practice, but determining if I have a recent enough version of Flash is welcomed.

Additionally, anything that is detected as 'missing' should be replaced with something equivalent. For example, on Bikeworx, if you do not have Flash the movie gets replaced with a still image that you can display. Macromedia's actual site does this as well for their main menu. If you don't have Flash, they made a Javascript-type replacement.

I have been gathering a couple more annoyances. Once some other people post things I think I'll do a part two of this.
by Warsaw Apartments   #
on August 15, 2007 / 6:00am
by Fred LeBlanc -
> November 1, 2005 / 11:25am
I do not agree. Go to http://apartments.waw.pl

Comments have been turned off on this blog.
Read something more recent.

Statements and opinions expressed in this blog and any comments made are the private opinions of the respective poster, and, as such, iMarc LLC is neither responsible nor liable for such content.

iMarc

iMarc is a web development company in Newburyport, MA. This is our blog.
View all blogs or learn more about iMarc.

About the Author

Fred's Head Fred LeBlanc, Project Manager
Fred manages projects, plays trivia, runs a local frolf league, watches TV and writes stories.
More blogs by Fred

Search Our Blog

Recent Communiqués

  • Inc. 5000
  • Say Hello to our new Sys Admin
  • "Not Invented Here" for a Triple Word Score
  • ca·coph·o·ny
  • Clank
  • Year in Quotes (volume 2)
  • Gunslinging Rockstar Ninjas
  • Now Hiring: Junior Interactive/Web Designer
  • Photoshop: Create Your Own Glossy Icons
  • They only come out at night
  • Context switches are expensive
  • <i> is not evil.
  • Schooled.
  • Full-screen branding
  • Summer Job, iMarc Style

Popular Communiqués

  • Now Hiring: Junior Interactive/Web Designer
  • Photoshop: Create Your Own Glossy Icons
  • Say Hello to our new Sys Admin
  • "Not Invented Here" for a Triple Word Score
  • ca·coph·o·ny
  • Custom Away Messages are Overrated
  • Schooled.
  • Summer Job, iMarc Style
  • Year in Quotes (volume 2)

Recent Comments

  • Inc. 5000

    By Nick: Congrats.

  • Inc. 5000

    By Craig Henry: WOOWOOOO

  • Inc. 5000

    By Jeff Turcotte: wow!!

  • Photoshop: Create Your Own Glossy Icons

    By nicole: thats cool ,but can u make it a little easyer . =/…

  • Say Hello to our new Sys Admin

    By Nick: 14 days and no love. Congrats Mike.

RSS

RSS Icon Learn about RSS and get the feed for our blog.

About iMarc

  • We build custom web sites
  • In-house strategy, design, programming, hosting
  • In business since 1997
  • We’re located in Newburyport, MA
  • Call us at (978) 462-8848

© 2008 iMarc LLC, Contact Us

Links

  • Home
  • Portfolio
  • Client Support
  • Log In
  • (icon)RSS

Meet the Team

Craig's Head Craig Henry, Creative Director

Designing Media types that exemplify innovation, excitement, and growth to our industry and our clients.

Learn More | Meet the Others