Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne I'm not a designer (quit laughing!) but I do think that page layout has a lot more to do with design than just pretty images. Good layout design AND pretty images EQUALS kick-*** graphic design.
I agree. I see design more as problem solving than visual prettiness. I'm uncomfortable with restricting the possibilities right from the start - and that includes things like frames and pop-up windows. Each project will have its own constraints and minimal graphics may or may not be a part of that. That's why I say "maybe" to graphic-less sites.
I think that many of the "graphic-less" sites that have been mentioned here aren't really graphpic-less at all. They may not use images for layout, but the better looking ones do have some here and there that help to soften up an otherwise boxy effect (lots of illustrations and a patterned background on opera.com, nav graphics and article headers on A List Apart.) They are using graphics in a different way maybe, which is interesting.
About not noticing images. I believe that people may not consciously notice images right away in some cases, but I do think that they have an effect on the look and feel factor. I also think that most regular people probably don't have a clear idea of what's an image and what's not. It would depend on how they defined "image" in their study. Seems like they're mainly talking in terms of advertising.
I'm not a designer (quit laughing!) but I do think that page layout has a lot more to do with design than just pretty images. Good layout design AND pretty images EQUALS kick-*** graphic design.
Marrying K-AGD with good accessibility, good usability and good typography and whoa, nellie, you have something golden.
Add good content to that and we have nirvana! heh.
I agree, although I think Opera's site looks nice (but they do tend to use a lot of illustration graphics, which tends to break things up). When SVG comes along it may not be such a huge problem, but right now the thought of doing away with layout graphics feels very limiting. As a designer it's a rather scary thought.
I tried my hand at a graphicless site the other day. Doesn't look half bad, if I do say so myself. Though with graphics it could be improved a little, like a better logo. You can see it Here.
[/end shameless plug]
I usually go the graphical way, even if I do suck. Like Meagan said, it adds more depth. But if you're doing a simple site that you don't want distractions on graphicless can be a plus.
A lot of sites are going this way, using graphics for examples or products mostly, places like opera.com, zend.com, alistapart.com, w3c.com, hotscripts.com, google ... compare them with msn.com
but like I said before the content has a lot to do with it, the above are mostly information sites and don't require much in the way of graphic layouts.
Suzanne posted this at 00:57 — 30th November 2002.
Anything linked will increase CPU usage -- there are a number of ways around that, but I don't think a well written CSS page will be slower to render than it's table-based equal. (For a heavy graphics and table based site, check out dilbert.com -- ouch even on dsl).
Depends, as usual, on the efficiency of the code as well as the server response time.
I use includes and other bits that crank up CPU usage, so the CSS isn't much of an increase, if any. The difference browser side is that it must download and then interpret the "rule list", instead of rendering on the fly. I think the load time changes are perceptual, not actual, since the user doesn't get line by line rendering (hopping images in IE anyone?) but rather the content and then the CSS.
*whoosh* no more coffee for me!
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 23:44 — 29th November 2002.
Depending almost entirely on CSS/SVG/SMIL will require a lot more processing by the browser and the CPU. I find that most "CSS pages" I visit tend to take longer to render and kick up processor usage a lot more.
But that's not so bad, compared to download times on 56k.
Jack Michaelson posted this at 22:28 — 29th November 2002.
I only use graphics for fancy fonts and stuff, like Julia. The rest I mostly do with CSS. Like to see what the future will bring... standardization of SVG and SMIL??
FYI Busy, here in Europe (that is at least in the Netherlands) the size/connection thing isn't really an issue anymore. Most connections are good enough now. Hope to see that happen globally
Say layers etc were well supported, something like this forum could be recreated without graphics, the logo arrows would have to be big C's thou.
I think less graphics will be used as we go on, xml etc will allow us to get more creative, php even now allows to create "images" on the fly.
I agree graphics will always be around, esp logos and stuff but depending on the sites content, less can be more.
Size does matter for 56k users, not all 56k users connect at 56k, i connect pretty close to it, but a friend of mine that lives about 20 mins away can only connect at 48k on a good day. and I was reading somewhere dialup outnumber any other connection and will be at least another 5 years before dialups are out numbered.
Renegade posted this at 22:13 — 29th November 2002.
right -- the industry is maturing, but not that quickly, we still have a great deal of change coming before all the major kinks have been worked out. It's a good idea, I find, to keep an ear out for the things that are in development and help them along (by having experimental sites, for instance, demonstrating what can be done right now -- that's something I didn't really think about before, but these experiments really help illustrate some dry concepts).
And, hey, opinions on graphics being used on websites! What kind of graphics are appropriate, where, and can you envision a graphicless web (kind of going backwards, no? lol... ASCII art anyone?)
So, baiscally it's like SMIL. There is some support for it via plug-ins (Real supports SMIL) or rare browsers, so you could theoretically use it if you wanted to, but that depends on people having the right equipment (Real might support SVG too - not sure about that) Realistically we're not going to be able to replace graphics with SVG until everyone is using a 7th generation browser (or higher). How long will that take? (rhetorial question).
Sigh... it's always something, isn't it? If only the browsers supported it.. if only people could updgrade... someday things will be better...
P.S. SMIL = Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language. I think IE has some support for SMIL, or is working on it anyway.
Scalable vector graphics. I'm not sure when the w3c adopted this recommendation but I first remember hearing about it several years ago (unless I'm experiencing memory failure again). It's been a long time and none of the browsers support it yet. So, it's going to be a long time before we'll be able to actually use them. I haven't read the spec or antyhing but I gather that they will work similar to drawing vector images in any vector design program (Flash, Illustrator etc.) - crisp edges, easily scalable etc.
Quote: From the w3cSVG is a language for describing two-dimensional graphics in XML. SVG allows for three types of graphic objects: vector graphic shapes (e.g., paths consisting of straight lines and curves), images and text. Graphical objects can be grouped, styled, transformed and composited into previously rendered objects. Text can be in any XML namespace suitable to the appplication, which enhances searchability and accessibility of the SVG graphics. The feature set includes nested transformations, clipping paths, alpha masks, filter effects, template objects and extensibility.
Sounds a lot like a simple vector drawing system, with xml built-in for accessibility and integration.
I definitely agree about the little things, although I never was one for doing that sort of thing with graphics anyway. I do like to do a lot of table backgrounds to add depth and such though. Navigation is one thing that can often be replaced with text & CSS - it's easy to make decent looking navbars with CSS.
SVG will be wonderful if and when it ever gets supported (waiting... waiting...) Web designing will be more like drawing print layouts in Quark or Illustrator (of course, with the proper coding attached!). Much less reliance on graphic editors. I'm looking forward to that!
Yes CSS can help a lot with certain aspects of design layout but with fonts still being limited to what's on the viewers system if you want to use fancy fonts for headings or such you need to do them as graphics. Also if you want the page to feel more structured and 3D you need to do that with graphics as well.
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
Suzanne posted this at 14:42 — 29th November 2002.
Graphics to replace text, add lines and dots and such -- I think most of that can be easily and better replaced with CSS.
Graphics such as logos, illustrations, photos? No!
SVG can really help with those inbetween ones, and I think is the wave of the future. It will also help logos and illustrations be free from width/height and platform contraints, but I think jpeg is still the way to go for now for photos. (Whatever happened to JPG2000?)
As always, the type of content and the audience should be the deciding factors, I think.
What does everyone else think?
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.
Megan posted this at 03:29 — 3rd December 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I agree. I see design more as problem solving than visual prettiness. I'm uncomfortable with restricting the possibilities right from the start - and that includes things like frames and pop-up windows. Each project will have its own constraints and minimal graphics may or may not be a part of that. That's why I say "maybe" to graphic-less sites.
I think that many of the "graphic-less" sites that have been mentioned here aren't really graphpic-less at all. They may not use images for layout, but the better looking ones do have some here and there that help to soften up an otherwise boxy effect (lots of illustrations and a patterned background on opera.com, nav graphics and article headers on A List Apart.) They are using graphics in a different way maybe, which is interesting.
About not noticing images. I believe that people may not consciously notice images right away in some cases, but I do think that they have an effect on the look and feel factor. I also think that most regular people probably don't have a clear idea of what's an image and what's not. It would depend on how they defined "image" in their study. Seems like they're mainly talking in terms of advertising.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Busy posted this at 22:03 — 2nd December 2002.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I found this the other day http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/images.htm interestng stuff,
you can also use the |< button to go to the start, some real interesting stats in there
Suzanne posted this at 15:00 — 2nd December 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I'm not a designer (quit laughing!) but I do think that page layout has a lot more to do with design than just pretty images. Good layout design AND pretty images EQUALS kick-*** graphic design.
Marrying K-AGD with good accessibility, good usability and good typography and whoa, nellie, you have something golden.
Add good content to that and we have nirvana! heh.
Megan posted this at 14:48 — 2nd December 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I agree, although I think Opera's site looks nice (but they do tend to use a lot of illustration graphics, which tends to break things up). When SVG comes along it may not be such a huge problem, but right now the thought of doing away with layout graphics feels very limiting. As a designer it's a rather scary thought.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
The Webmistress posted this at 08:11 — 2nd December 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
The tendancey though with graphicless sites is that they end up just looking boxy IMO.
Renegade posted this at 07:08 — 2nd December 2002.
He has: 3,022 posts
Joined: Oct 2002
nice site necrotic,
and yeah i agree, a graphic title would have helped
necrotic posted this at 00:55 — 2nd December 2002.
He has: 296 posts
Joined: May 2002
I tried my hand at a graphicless site the other day. Doesn't look half bad, if I do say so myself. Though with graphics it could be improved a little, like a better logo. You can see it Here.
[/end shameless plug]
I usually go the graphical way, even if I do suck. Like Meagan said, it adds more depth. But if you're doing a simple site that you don't want distractions on graphicless can be a plus.
[James Logsdon]
Busy posted this at 04:34 — 30th November 2002.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
A lot of sites are going this way, using graphics for examples or products mostly, places like opera.com, zend.com, alistapart.com, w3c.com, hotscripts.com, google ... compare them with msn.com
but like I said before the content has a lot to do with it, the above are mostly information sites and don't require much in the way of graphic layouts.
Suzanne posted this at 00:57 — 30th November 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Anything linked will increase CPU usage -- there are a number of ways around that, but I don't think a well written CSS page will be slower to render than it's table-based equal. (For a heavy graphics and table based site, check out dilbert.com -- ouch even on dsl).
Depends, as usual, on the efficiency of the code as well as the server response time.
I use includes and other bits that crank up CPU usage, so the CSS isn't much of an increase, if any. The difference browser side is that it must download and then interpret the "rule list", instead of rendering on the fly. I think the load time changes are perceptual, not actual, since the user doesn't get line by line rendering (hopping images in IE anyone?) but rather the content and then the CSS.
*whoosh* no more coffee for me!
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 23:44 — 29th November 2002.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Depending almost entirely on CSS/SVG/SMIL will require a lot more processing by the browser and the CPU. I find that most "CSS pages" I visit tend to take longer to render and kick up processor usage a lot more.
But that's not so bad, compared to download times on 56k.
Jack Michaelson posted this at 22:28 — 29th November 2002.
He has: 1,733 posts
Joined: Dec 1999
I only use graphics for fancy fonts and stuff, like Julia. The rest I mostly do with CSS. Like to see what the future will bring... standardization of SVG and SMIL??
FYI Busy, here in Europe (that is at least in the Netherlands) the size/connection thing isn't really an issue anymore. Most connections are good enough now. Hope to see that happen globally
Shakespeare: onclick || !(onclick)
Busy posted this at 22:19 — 29th November 2002.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
Say layers etc were well supported, something like this forum could be recreated without graphics, the logo arrows would have to be big C's thou.
I think less graphics will be used as we go on, xml etc will allow us to get more creative, php even now allows to create "images" on the fly.
I agree graphics will always be around, esp logos and stuff but depending on the sites content, less can be more.
Size does matter for 56k users, not all 56k users connect at 56k, i connect pretty close to it, but a friend of mine that lives about 20 mins away can only connect at 48k on a good day. and I was reading somewhere dialup outnumber any other connection and will be at least another 5 years before dialups are out numbered.
Renegade posted this at 22:13 — 29th November 2002.
He has: 3,022 posts
Joined: Oct 2002
well i'm all for a graphic less site but ilke many of u have sed, there are somethings that just can't be done without graphics,
for example abhisheks site at http://chengeu.krayup.com/abhi/sitebug/C3S/C3S.php
it looks really good for all but three pitures
(^ valid css and html pic and the print page pic)
Suzanne posted this at 16:52 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
right -- the industry is maturing, but not that quickly, we still have a great deal of change coming before all the major kinks have been worked out. It's a good idea, I find, to keep an ear out for the things that are in development and help them along (by having experimental sites, for instance, demonstrating what can be done right now -- that's something I didn't really think about before, but these experiments really help illustrate some dry concepts).
And, hey, opinions on graphics being used on websites! What kind of graphics are appropriate, where, and can you envision a graphicless web (kind of going backwards, no? lol... ASCII art anyone?)
Megan posted this at 15:19 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
So, baiscally it's like SMIL. There is some support for it via plug-ins (Real supports SMIL) or rare browsers, so you could theoretically use it if you wanted to, but that depends on people having the right equipment (Real might support SVG too - not sure about that) Realistically we're not going to be able to replace graphics with SVG until everyone is using a 7th generation browser (or higher). How long will that take? (rhetorial question).
Sigh... it's always something, isn't it? If only the browsers supported it.. if only people could updgrade... someday things will be better...
P.S. SMIL = Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language. I think IE has some support for SMIL, or is working on it anyway.
Anyway, we're getting a bit off track here
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Suzanne posted this at 15:02 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Illustrator 8+ will export in SVG, and I think N7 natively supports it. Plugins are available?
Megan posted this at 14:54 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Scalable vector graphics. I'm not sure when the w3c adopted this recommendation but I first remember hearing about it several years ago (unless I'm experiencing memory failure again). It's been a long time and none of the browsers support it yet. So, it's going to be a long time before we'll be able to actually use them. I haven't read the spec or antyhing but I gather that they will work similar to drawing vector images in any vector design program (Flash, Illustrator etc.) - crisp edges, easily scalable etc.
Sounds a lot like a simple vector drawing system, with xml built-in for accessibility and integration.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
The Webmistress posted this at 14:52 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
I am now going to make myself seem very ignorant/stupid but anyway - SVG?
Megan posted this at 14:51 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I definitely agree about the little things, although I never was one for doing that sort of thing with graphics anyway. I do like to do a lot of table backgrounds to add depth and such though. Navigation is one thing that can often be replaced with text & CSS - it's easy to make decent looking navbars with CSS.
SVG will be wonderful if and when it ever gets supported (waiting... waiting...) Web designing will be more like drawing print layouts in Quark or Illustrator (of course, with the proper coding attached!). Much less reliance on graphic editors. I'm looking forward to that!
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
The Webmistress posted this at 14:50 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Yes CSS can help a lot with certain aspects of design layout but with fonts still being limited to what's on the viewers system if you want to use fancy fonts for headings or such you need to do them as graphics. Also if you want the page to feel more structured and 3D you need to do that with graphics as well.
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
Suzanne posted this at 14:42 — 29th November 2002.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Graphics to replace text, add lines and dots and such -- I think most of that can be easily and better replaced with CSS.
Graphics such as logos, illustrations, photos? No!
SVG can really help with those inbetween ones, and I think is the wave of the future. It will also help logos and illustrations be free from width/height and platform contraints, but I think jpeg is still the way to go for now for photos. (Whatever happened to JPG2000?)
As always, the type of content and the audience should be the deciding factors, I think.
What does everyone else think?
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.