|
|||||||||||
PREVIOUS PAGE • SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER • CLIENT LOGIN Designing for today’s Internet userYesterday, I was looking at a Web site that probably looks wonderful when the designer shows it off — as long as it’s on a big monitor, on a fast LAN, on a computer with all the latest bells and whistles. But for the average user, it’s a disaster. Slow. Ugly. Broken. I’m impressed by the technology that allows waving flags and rotating banners and I enjoy the intricate page designs that are possible in conjunction with the latest versions of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer or Netscape’s Navigator. But I also consider myself a realist, so I know that not every person who comes to my Web site will have the latest browser from Microsoft or Netscape. I know the latest features won’t work on older browsers. Visitor stats for my site show that most visitors are using a version 3 browsers or better, but there are still some version 2 users out there. Of the most recent 650 browsers to visit my site, about 600 reported "Mozilla". That’s the name Netscape used long ago and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer also reports "Mozilla". So about 50 people were using some other browser — perhaps Opera or Lynx. 485 visitors were using version 4 browsers. 54 were using version 3 browsers. 84 still have version 2 browsers. Other sites I’m responsible for have much higher percentages of version 2 and version 3 users. Should I use some of the latest features, knowing that they won’t work at all for people with version 2 browsers? Should I use just features that work with version 3 browsers? Should I forget about the "laggards" and use every bell and whistle I can find — load the page with animations and graphics — and figure that if visitors don’t have the latest and greatest browsers (and a fast connection) that’s their problem? Sadly, that last option is the one some designers choose. Another alternative is to create a site that works for everyone! It’s possible for a Web site to interrogate a browser — to ask "Who are you and what are your capabilities?" Once the site knows that information, it can display a site that’s optimized for that browser. The downside is that it’s terribly expensive. Instead of designing a Web site once, the webmaster must create at least 4 versions — and maybe 7. Worst case: MSIE 2, NN2, MSIE 3, NN 3, MSIE 4, NN 4, and non-graphical browsers such as Lynx. Why? Because each of the browsers has extensions that the others don’t have, and each implements "standards" in unique ways. Unless you have a lot of money to spend (and are willing to take the time to learn how to accomplish similar tasks 7 ways) this is not a good choice. For my site, I assume that most visitors have version 4 browsers. That means I can use "cascading style sheets" (CSS) if I’m careful. Neither Microsoft nor Netscape fully supports the CSS specifications the two companies worked together to create. Still, CSS can be used at sites where there are higher percentages of version 2 and 3 browsers because it degrades gracefully. What I mean by saying it degrades gracefully is this: The basic CSS formatting displays properly with browsers that support it, but CSS codes don’t create problems for less capable browsers. Everything still displays, just not as well as it might. What about graphics?As my friend and marketing guru Ray Jutkins likes to point out, the Web is still a "read medium". Streaming audio, streaming video, and animations are coming — someday — but they’re not here yet. People come to Web sites for information, not to be entertained. The wise Web designer will limit the use of graphics because most people are still connected at 56 kilobits per second or less. The most common modem speed is currently 28.8 Kbps. (I remember when 1.2 Kbps was fast!) Even 56 Kbps is slow if the page is loaded with graphics. I have a cable modem that can exceed download speeds of 1,000 Kbps and it seems slow with some sites. Someday we’ll all have fast connections, but I can’t assume that today unless I’m working on a site that is accessible only on a local area network. What can I assume about the monitor?One of the advantages of the Internet is that we don’t have to worry about paper, but that’s also a problem. Is the person who’s looking at your Web site using a 640x480 monitor or a 1600x1200 workstation? Most people are in the middle. The most common monitor size today is 800x600 pixels in a 15-inch box. If you assume the user’s monitor is higher in resolution (say 1200x768) you’ll design graphics that are too large. If you assume 640x480, images will be too small. Someday, perhaps, the hypertext mark-up language (HTML) will provide for high-quality sizing of graphics on the fly. That’s not yet an option. For my Web site, I decided that most visitors will have at least a 15-inch monitor and that they will be running it at 800x600 resolution or greater. Designing a Web site to those specifications means that the person who uses a 1600x1200 Sun workstation may squint a bit and those who have 640x480-resolution 14-inch monitors will think I’m shouting. And colors?Some monitors display only 16 colors, but it’s illogical to design a Web site for that standard. It’s safe to assume that nearly everyone has a monitor that’s capable of displaying 256 colors or more. Problem: Macintosh computers that display 256 colors do not use the same colors as PCs that display 256 colors. The two systems share 216 colors. Those are the "Web safe" colors. It’s wise to design graphics that use only those 216 colors. Photographic images should always be displayed at 16.7 million colors for the best results on monitors that support the standard. Monitors that are capable of displaying only 256 colors will degrade the image, but it’s preferable for those with low-color monitors to see degraded images than for everyone to see degraded images. |
|
William Blinn Communications - All Rights Reserved |
|||
 |
|
|
|