[Pro] Layout conformity across the www

I’ve been looking into website layout a little more recently and there is obviously a great deal of conformity of layout; generally a picture and ‘heading’ at the top underneath there are a row of tab-like things, down the left are some more navigation links (often repeating the ones along the top under the heading) and on the right some more links often with some ‘advertising’ - and at the foot another run of links often repeating a lot of the others … then in the middle a jumble of stuff where some kind of creativity is attempted.

The rigidity of this design is often, at it’s best, clumsy and at it’s worst a complete confusing mess.

Just how rigid is this layout ? have all the web design chaps read the same book ? I must say I’ve more or less followed it with the few sites I’ve designed but tried to break the mould a little and I know ‘speed of loading’ is paramount …

Would be really interested in hearing your thoughts 'cause you’re all so wise and know more about web design than I’ll ever know … that’s if you’ve been patient enough to read all of this …

Best Roger


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Much of what you see is based on a logical order of where site visitors expect to find navigational elements, the way in which sites have evolved from very simple text based originals and the restrictions of an underlying structure that, unlike print, is demanding of a virtual grid system - and often the use of standardised templates.

However, almost any design is possible and as the underlying code and browser capability has advanced, much more freedom is allowed in the visual effect you can produce. Nevertheless, bear in mind that even the most aesthetically pleasing design must also be functional. The content must be readable by search engines as well as the visitor (so avoid graphic type as much as possible) and introduce a semantic construction the has a clear heading, logical sequence of text and clear means of navigation.

As regards speed of loading, HTML and CSS used for the structure aren’t the problem, it is the graphics and images that slow a site down. Learn how to optimise these (and Freeway does a very good job itself, most times) so that the smallest files sizes are uploaded to your server and the pages of the web site, therefore, become faster to download.

HTH Colin

On 10 Mar 2011, at 08:37, Roger Burton wrote:

I’ve been looking into website layout a little more recently and there is obviously a great deal of conformity of layout; generally a picture and ‘heading’ at the top underneath there are a row of tab-like things, down the left are some more navigation links (often repeating the ones along the top under the heading) and on the right some more links often with some ‘advertising’ - and at the foot another run of links often repeating a lot of the others … then in the middle a jumble of stuff where some kind of creativity is attempted.

The rigidity of this design is often, at it’s best, clumsy and at it’s worst a complete confusing mess.

Just how rigid is this layout ? have all the web design chaps read the same book ? I must say I’ve more or less followed it with the few sites I’ve designed but tried to break the mould a little and I know ‘speed of loading’ is paramount …

Would be really interested in hearing your thoughts 'cause you’re all so wise and know more about web design than I’ll ever know … that’s if you’ve been patient enough to read all of this …

Best Roger


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks again Colin - kind of confirms what I was thinking - it almost comes down to ‘custom and practice’ - of course there are certainly requirements for functionality but some of the better designed sites (always a matter of opinion of course) that I’ve come across have broken the basic ‘rules’ a little whilst still being very usable - if not more so - I’ll go ‘fill my boots’ - Roger


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 10 Mar 2011, at 10:01, Roger Burton wrote:

broken the basic ‘rules’ a little whilst still being very usable

I think that kind of reinforces the point. Once a designer understands the basic rules, they can be bent to breaking point without making the underlying concept a complete mess.

It does take some experience to be able to get away with it, though, and it’s been pretty obvious over the past few years that the “Dreamweaver template” route is far easier!

Of course, being Freeway users, we don’t have to follow the herd.

=o)

Heather


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Rules are meant to be broken! Well, at least stretched a bit - it is only by experimenting that you find new formulae.

Colin

On 10 Mar 2011, at 10:01, Roger Burton wrote:

…kind of confirms what I was thinking …but some of the better designed sites (always a matter of opinion of course) that I’ve come across have broken the basic ‘rules’ a little whilst still being very usable - if not more so …


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I agree - Freeway rules OK - I have heard comments - “how was that achieved without creating messy code” … I think that’s why (referring to another thread from me) that I wanted to design a new home page for a pal but create it in Freeway so he could see it’s functionality - if I just give him a ‘drawn layout’ I’m sure he would keep saying “…oh I can’t do that …”

Roger


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options