I’ve been thinking about things on websites that either help or hinder the reader. I know that an ugly site is not fun to be at or read. I also know that many attractive sites are just that - atractive. They don’t have any content. So, here I am, solicitning opinions about what’s important to you when you visit a website. What does it need? Should it have a pretty header image and lots of “bling”, like smilies on the comment page (if its a blog or forum, for example)? Should it be simple and content-full?
Do you like to see blogs with a chronology of full posts for the last 30 days? The last 5 posts? Is it better if there are images included? What if you get an excerpt of each post on the first page and the details when you click on the post?
Do you peruse the blogrolls of the blogs you visit? Are related links important? Do you follow links if they’re presented in articles? Or, do you follow recommended links that may relate to an article? Do you think that tags are important? Do you follow them? What about categories? What about the side bar? What do you pay attention to? Do you prefer 2-column, 3-column, or only one column, when you are visiting a site?
I know that I have asked a lot of questions, but that’s just the beginning. There are more points that could be raised, but I don’t want to lose you in all the questions. I ask because I want to make your stay here a pleasant one, and I don’t want to inconvenience anybody who wants to come here. If there’s anything that you don’t like about this site, I’d love to know. If there’s anything that you really like, I’d also like to know (what I did right!). I think that this sit’s theme is a decent compromise between simple and complex. I do try to make the content (yeah, that scratching I call writing) the reason you might come back, but I am sure that doesn’t always work. Let me know what you think. I’d be interested in what makes people visit or return to a website, especially a blog-style site.
I’d ask that you refrain from commenting that the thing that you don’t like is my point of view or opinion, though, as I’ll consider this to be an off topic comment and it may “dissappear”. If you have a difference of opinion to one of my posts, please keep it to the post that you have issue with, so that it’s on topic and useful to those who read (see, I don’t mind opposition - I just want it clear to the reader what you’re opposing).
So, what do you think about websites?
All websites have to be aesthetic to a small degree. If a person has trouble looking at a site, all the content in the world won’t matter. It doesn’t have to be “beautiful”, but it can’t be ugly at all.
If a website has a decent layout (and almost all WordPress themes are decent), content is what rules the day.
I guess I’m really just reiterating what you posted, but it’s my perception as well.
Thank you for your response, Richard. I value all input I get on this subject. I don’t know where I intend to go with the knowledge that I’m given.
I guess the thing that I’m kind of looking at is a balance between what one would want on their page versus what they have to put on their page to please their readers.
My brother had an interesting take on the whole design thing. He has done some web programming for a few companies in his persuit of finding that one piece of continuous employment as an artist (albeit a digital one). His idea was to think of the intended audience for the site. If you want to cater to those who would be looking for rich media, then don’t worry yourself about being as useful or accessable to the user who doesn’t have the bandwidth to handle it. I can see his point, but that still is no excuse to encumber your site with large bandwidth hungry images, when smaller file sizes will do (like the decorations around the “rich” content).
I’m also wondering about little things like perhaps a rich text editor or clickable text tags, like in many webmail programs for formatting. Does it matter?
With a product like Wordpress, should we use plugins that break the W3 compliance? Or, should we forgoe the added functionality such a plugin provides in the interests of having our page readable by screenreaders?
I think about some of these things because I do blog, and this type of site attracts all sorts. I got a nice and informative email from a gentleman whos son has trouble with certain colors and made some suggestions about what might work better for readability in such instances. I did implement some of the suggestions at the time (although I scrapped the whole theme after, in favor of this one).
I neglected to mention one thing. It’s not your fault, but a mentality thing that’s widespread, mostly among the theme authors. It seems that most blogs are set up as fixed width, optimized for either the 800×600 or the 1024×768 resolutions. Fluid widths cater to all resolutions (my blog works at 640×480!). Right now, your blog only uses two thirds of my widescreen real estate.
As monitors get bigger and resolutions get better, the fixed-width blogs will continue to cover less and less of the screen real estate. I’m not pointing fingers, but narrow fixed width seems to indicate there’s less content being provided.
Oops, I didn’t mean to infer that I didn’t like your blog. I just think the layout should be fluid instead of fixed.
That was something that I had considered when adopting this theme. I’m still not married to it by any means, but I did put quite a bit of work into hacking it to pieces (see the link to Fresh in the footer). The hacking has been extended to the template tags used on this site as well, which are due for a modernization (like wp_list_cats and get_links, which can be handled by the new bookmarks call).
I have forgone 640×480 as mostly obsoleted, since any 15″ monitor and up should easily and comfortably accomodate 800×600, which is big enough to display the content of the site. Anything smaller was manufactured so long ago that if it works, POWER TO YOU! The background is a 1px high image that repeats to the bottom of the page, so if I were to cater to a wider screen than, say 1152, I would have to incorporate the “sliding doors” method of using two images, anchored left and right of the body, which can render in some browser with interesting and inintended results.
Now, of course, sites with templates that have footers like mine might also look pretty scary if the width was not controlled by the author. So, I have to admit that I have considered this issue of width and tried already to incorporate a fluid width with this current design as well (perhaps my minimal CSS skills were not enough to see why the code would not bend to my will), but the results in the footer were disastrous and hideous.
Saying all that, I have been considering a move to something a bit more “web 2.0-ish”, in the respect of using large, easy to read fonts (perhaps flashified siFr fonts for titles if the accessibility claim is true) and a simple design. Perhaps an AJAX “shelf” with all the extra bits, like with the “Durable” theme. The only save for browsers without javascript would be a fixed home page for navigation (or an alternate stylesheet). All are being considered (except the preponderance of sky blue/orange that seems to be ever so modern lately.
Mostly, I am concerned about readability and ease of navigation. What does the reader want?
Does anyone else have any ideas? Or, is Richard the only other one on the planet who cares if his (or any one else’s) site is readable?