🚀 go-pugleaf

Trajen wrote

> I think with web sites the designer has to be flexible with the design.
> The true test of a web site is (in the folloeing order of importance) if
it
> will
> 1) convey all necessary information
> 2) Work on every system and
> jointly
> 3) Look good and load quickly
>
> If you design a website with flexibility then it doesn't matter what
system
> it's viewed on, it will always work and always look good.
>
> Well, that's what I reckon anyway.
> Simplicity is the key.

Depends on the site.  Most look like a cross between a scrap book and a
diary.  I always think of the web as being a cross between peoples scrap
books and the biggest encyclopaedia the planet has ever seen.  Oh, and then
there is the corporate stuff, which is growing all the time.

Most site fail in either a) style/look/layout and b) content/navigation

Unfortunately, they go hand in hand and aren't easily separable.

People are working on visual clues, so a good design is paramount, followed
by easy navigation, then content, then possibly frills and extra's [covers a
whole host of evils].

For example, shopping online - I want a site which will let me enter an
item, say the Matrix DVD, and the site will be able to sift through the web
and find the cheapest prices around the globe [which is where the web comes
into it's own - when people figure it out].  But that's just an example for
the 'business' side of the web.  From my perspective, every web editor
available, and the language, is total garbage - it get more and more
complicated when all it appears to be is a glorified word processor and
database [html and scripts/Java whatever].  I've come to loath web languages
simply because of their needlessly overcomplicated nature.

Okay, end of rant <g>

Det. [certainly got it about me today!]