Web Design & Development

"One Page" or "Single Page" websites - passing fad or serious design consideration?

Recently I've been discussing with clients the merits of "One Page" or "Single Page" websites using DHTML has all of a sudden become the "new Flash". While I can see that they can definitely provide a unique and quirky look to a website, I am struggling to see past the buzz to the real benefits.

Examples of the kind of sites I'm taking about can be found on sites like onepagelove.com.  It is basically a trend in design which creates a whole website that always fit onto the screen without any page reloading.  When you click on links, it moves elements from offscreen onto the screen using Javascript.

These sites achieve what is achievable with the Flash plug-in or sometimes Java applet but not used as extensively due to several issues.  With the latest browser standards supporting more dynamic HTML standard HTML and the emergence of javascript libraries like JQuery and software development toolkits like Silverlight, Flex, the tools and frameworks for these sites are more readily available.  While these libraries the boundaries of what can be done client side, many effects remain virtually impossible or incredibly unfeasible to without a plugin.

These sorts of non-Flash sites may look impressive and have the “wow” factor of Flash sites, but many get carried away such that they actually share similar issues to using Flash:

• Very time consuming and expensiveto build (lots of attention to detail)
• Rely heavily on third partylibraries (which may not be supported forever)
• Big cross-browser issues (particularly backward compatibility with older browsers - loads of testing required)
• Don’t work well at all withcontent management systems (CMS)
• Often not accessible
• Often can’t print the pages (stylesheetsare only for screen)
• Have usability issues and aren’t particularly user friendly(loading times of large images, processing speed on slower computers etc)

In a nutshell some designers are losing sight of the reasons why CSS and HTML arebeing used instead of Flash in the first place !  Not to mention that thereis really no problem (apart from it being blocked by some networks due to video content) with embedding Flash where required.

If done well, however (not embedding styles), the main benefit over Flash is that these sites are more readily discovered by search engines, so it may not have as adverse an effect on SEO and Google rankings.

PersonallyI think for  many organisations that these issues are prettysignificant.  Accessibility and usability should be higher on thechecklist than design, particularly for non-profit and government organisations.   In reality, such sites are really only useful as a designer's portfolio, as they are primarily there to show off nifty and impressive graphics.
 
I also don't think there is any need to be too strict with the aim of one page sites to have most of the contentabove the fold.  Studies have shown that users don't mind scrolling at all - in fact many have grown fond of it (look at news websites for example).

With dynamic HTML content, balance is important. A good visual outcome is achievable without get too carried away with the flashy stuff.  Afterall, once thenovelty wears off, you still need to build a relationship and reputation withyour repeat visitors (key stakeholders) and that is where content andfunctionality should be the main focus. 
Comments (0)

Fixed vs Fluid Layout - A Critical Design Decision

It is not unusual to see a situation where a client, having pursued a certain graphical look in the design stages, gets a suprise when they see their website in a web browser for the first time.

One of the things that is difficult to convey during the web design process is the use of screen real estate.  When people are used to thinking in A4 pages and print (especially those from print designing backgrounds), it can be very hard to explain to them the differences with the web media.

I often go to great lengths to explain to and educate clients as to the difference in fix and fluid layouts and how important it is to consider during the design stages.  However it can be a struggle, especially when you work (as we do) a lot with third party designers who push for a certain look but don't have the technical know-how to know envisage it on screen.  You can't always avoid a sense of frustration when the project is finished.

The key issue here is that unlike the print media, screens can be almost any size and resolution.  They can range from a tiny screen on a mobile phone or sub-notebook to giant plasma televisions.  A designer needs their website to look good on a range of resolutions, usually starting at 800x600 or 1024x768 pixels.

A marketer or PR manager's nightmare is the situation where you take great care to get the graphical look you want only to find that when the CEO with his giant state-of-the-art LCD screen loads the final website up it fills a tiny square in the top left corner !

At the same time, there is nothing worse than designing a website for larger screens and then having thousands of staff who use dumb terminals view it and not be able to see critical functionality.

So I cannot emphasize enough how critical the solution is to this problem. 

While there are two key concepts - fixed and fluid layouts, there are a large number of variations in between that help websites to deal with different screen resolutions.  They also vary with current web design fashions, dictated by both web designers and their clients. 

I thought I'd run through some of them with some examples of each using modern 17 inch or larger screens.
Continue reading Fixed vs Fluid Layout - A Critical Design Decision

Comments (0)

Understanding CMS - Critical to successful web design ?

The lack of information about how visual concept design translates into a dynamic content managed website is something we've taken great pains to address and was recently highlighted by one of my readers.  So I decided to look at what is more important for designers to understand - the technology or the concepts.

I thought I'd attempt at an explanation of why building a successful website is not always as simple as ABC, but why some do it better than others. 

I'll start here.  In the modern web development industry, businesses and consultants operate in the following modes:

A) designing, and;
B) implementing content management systems (CMS)
C) both

Many businesses operate in mode C, simply because they work with a technology (in this case - website content management system) that they are familiar with and understand. 

However both A and B are very specialised fields.  In fact many designers aren't even experts in web, they often come from print backgrounds, which is a completely different medium.  HTML is not only a different medium to print but it also introduces a whole new field of information architecture - defining the content structure of websites.  The problem is compunded in that, in this day and age, customers are increasingly the ones who choose the technology. 

Few that excel at B are also good at A and few that excel at A are also good at B.   Information architects sit somewhere in the middle.  Both designers and information architects are rarely programmers that do the nitty gritty work.  They think creatively, not logically.  Individuals that can do C are a very rare breed indeed and are in high demand (although templating engines and smart APIs are somewhat bridging the gap here).  Businesses that only do B have an even tougher challenge deciphering the creative goals of someone who has never attempted to understand the technology.

So my message is that to design a successful content managed website, you need to understand the concepts involved.  But the question remains - is it necessary to understand the technology ?  It may suprise you to learn that our answer is - not really.

So how does a business like Datalink which operates around 40% of the time purely in mode B, working with "third party" designers achieve a good design result that satisfies both the creatives and the end customer ? 

How do you overcome these obstacles ?

Well I have some tips, common examples and advice on how it can be achieved.


Continue reading Understanding CMS - Critical to successful web design ?

Comments (0)