What if we designed web pages as if we were beholding to NCLB?
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this postAlong the "what if" analogy lines I expounded upon in the previous post, a recent visit to a blog I haven't been back to for a while has inspired another post of similar leanings, though not nearly as humorous. The blog post in question decried certain types of web site design. You can also read a response to the original blog at Eric's site; he's a web site designer.
After reading the post, I immediately thought of the following question: What if web designers designed web pages as if they were forced to comply with NCLB?
Once upon a time, three web sites back from the current design you are looking at, I designed two versions of the Lone Prairie site. This was because I was beginning to use CSS code that was falling apart and making my site unreadable in Netscape Navigator 4. I had a link in an HTML table that allowed NN4 users to go to a stripped-down text-heavy version of the site.
In the next version of this site, I dumped the whole NN4 version. I figured if people wanted - nea, insisted - on using NN4 as some sort of proud rejection of Bill Gates or because Netscape got bought up and future versions of Navigator were trash, fine. They just wouldn't be able to read my site. I wasn't going to fall into the bear trap of designing backwards while trying to go forward at the same time. However, I kept my over-all site text-heavy and graphics-lite (even for an art site) because I knew a lot of people had dial-up. We had just gotten DSL (about $40 per month), but it still wasn't as common across the board as it is now.
The next version? Graphics heavy, more CSS, screw it if you can't read it.
This version? Mostly CSS, some areas graphics heavy, some not. I figure if you can't read my site, that's just God's way of saying you weren't supposed to in the first place. Can't read Sports Illustrated's site? Clearly a sign from God (as if you needed one).
I can't design backwards. I can't design a site that looks great and zips along on 28.8 when more and more people have moved into broadband or at least higher speed dial-up, and are now expecting more than a "Jukt Micronics" kind of website when they surf the web (Jukt Micronics: scroll down on this page to the story "Lies, Damn Lies and Fiction" and click on the link to see the website).
I don't expect to find new software for the old 386 downstairs. I don't expect to find parts for my sister's 1980's era Mrs. Beasley talking doll that is now broken. I understand that, whether I like it or not, technology marches along. I can't design for old technology if I want to keep up. I can't make the internet playing field level and equal for everyone. It's bad enough trying to sync my meager CSS knowledge for Firefox and IE.
It's unfortunate, but because technology evolves so quickly, there will be Internet surfers left behind. What we need, perhpas, is a NISLB. This would make it so everyone is equal, and no one has a better internet connection than anyone else. There would be some forms and qualifications for all web designers to comply with, severly limiting the number of web sites out there because not all of us can keep up with the continued education demands. All homes would have the same computers, software and internet connection. It would be beige, ten years out of date (think France's Minitel) and work badly equally for everyone.
This, of course, would take subsidies.
Now, that's not to say there aren't sites that are irritating, loaded with flash, animated gifs, background music, automatically playing videos, splash (it was a bad movie, it's a bad design ploy) -- all things that slow a site down and cause people who are easily distracted (like me) to go ape. I always like to check in at Web Pages That Suck for a good laugh and a reminder of what not to do. I'm not totally oblivious to what needs to be considered; in fact, I think there's more to be considered than just pure loading time or gimmicks. As a visual artist, what peeves me worse than slow loading is a visually ugly site. A bazillion fonts in all sizes and colors, poorly thought out page progression, odd spacing, ugly graphics, bad color combinations -- where's the NGO, where are the crusaders, for this cause?
But I'm not going to waste too much time trying to account for the 39 percent of dial-up users because really, where do I stop? Should I design for every possible browser? And every version of every browser? A friend told me of her work on a site for a state university: they had to take into consideration things like flicker rate and accessibility of buttons for handicapped users (blue? bigger? parking space in front?). There must be a limit in trying to account for everyone and everything. Me, like a lot of web site owners out there, have learned to create web sites on our own and don't have the technological know-how to account for everyone. If the professional web designers are getting slammed for their output, I shudder to think of what's coming to the lowly "let's-give-it-a-try-I-need-to-look-at-your-source-code!" web site designers like myself.
Nope. I'm not going to exhaust myself trying to please everyone who ever turned on a computer and tried to go online.
Well, not unless someone gives me a subsidy to do it. I'm from North Dakota. Evidently I know how to endorse just such a check.
Labels: technology
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 12/30/2005 11:58:00 PM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
2 Comments:
I figure if anyone is still out there on Netscape 4, he's about seven years behind on everything else in the world, and there's no reason on God's green earth why he should read any of my rantings anyway.
I'm barely checking IE 6 compatibility anymore: I figure if Firefox looks okay and the Safari guys don't complain, I'm fine.
By 
CGHill, at
1/1/06 09:12
I probably wouldn't bother with IE anymore, either, except my sister uses IE, reads my blog daily, and would let me know immediately and repeatedly that something was amiss.
Bless her heart.
But IE is an afterthought.
By Julie, at
4/1/06 18:01
