Web Site Design

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

This is another looonnng post...

Erik has said that he will be doing the mechanics of the event web-site:

-the background programming to allow for the judges to enter their scores
and comments,
-the background programming to tabulate and present the results
-etc.

The majority of the basic content, i.e. the "nuts and bolts" about what the
event is and how people can enter, etc., can come from the Proposal (with
some tweaking and re-writing).

That leaves the "look and feel" of the Web-site. I asked several days ago
for anyone who felt comfortable with web-site design to step forward and
volunteer their comments. So far, I haven't heard from anybody...

I don't expect Erik to undertake this task as well, although if he wants
to...

That leave me with one obvious alternative... do it myself.

But before I expend the considerable amount of time and energy involved, I
want to clear a few things with everyone. These are, for the most part,
general and "background" issues unrelated to content, but very important to
the way the Web-site is received.

Please read the following carefully and TELL ME if there is anything you
DON'T AGREE WITH.

1. Our audience is composed of hobbyists throughout the world (hopefully),
but realistically will be drawn from developed countries where computer
useage and Internet access is readily available. I assume that the majority
(probably in the range of 90-95%) of our potential audience will be using a
computer running either a version of Microsoft Windows or Apple's MacOS.
Alternative operating systems, primarily Unix and/or Linux, are for the most
part still not a big segment of the marketplace. But regardless of how small
these alternatives are, our web-site should not contain anything which would
preclude its being viewed by people using other operating systems.

2. For many years the "standard" resolution and color depth for computer
monitors was 640 pixels horizontally by 480 pixels vertically and a maximum
of 256 colors (VGA). This displays well on a 14" monitor, a size which was
"standard" for many years. In recent years, technology has improved greatly
and practically all computers sold within the past few years have been
capable of higher (sometimes much higher) resolutions and color depths.

There are probably MANY computers still in use which are still limited to
standard VGA (in Public Libraries and in less developed countries outside of
North America and Europe). Our BASIC web-site design should allow FULL
viewing on a standard 14" monitor set to basic VGA resolution and color
depth (640X480, 8-bit Color [256 colors]).

Color selection for the BASIC web-site design should be confined to a
"Netscape-safe" color palette. This was designed in the days of "standard
VGA" and allows for full cross platform compatibility (Windows/Mac/Unix).

QUESTION: Should I design for 640X480 (VGA) to be compatible with EVERYBODY,
or go with 800X600 (SVGA) which is more common on newer systems??? This
would force people with older systems to scroll horizontally to see the
entire page, and could be a drawback.

3. The above being said, this web-site is about the display of COLOR
PHOTOGRAPHS and to do that well will require that those images be displayed
in either 16-bit color (which is capable of displaying slightly over 64,000
colors) or 24-bit color (which is capable of displaying over 6,000,000
colors). The settings that the viewer has the computer set for will
determine what they see, but I ASSUME that Erik will be uploading the images
in 24-bit color. A note can be placed on the Web-site to that effect, with
instructions for viewers on how to change the color depth of their own
display if necessary. If a viewer's system is set for a lower color depth,
they will still see the image, just not as well as it could be seen.

4. Traditional HTML practice is more concerned with the CONTENT of a
web-page than with the LAYOUT, i.e. font selection and use is left to the
browser software and may be different on individual machines and operating
systems. More modern useage provides the web designer to specify certain
attributes of font useage and page layout, giving the designer more control
over the "look and feel" of the web-site. This CAN be accomplished in a way
which will NOT preclude the viewing of the web-site by people with older
software/hardware.

5. Traditional fonts supplied with computer operating systems are
adaptations of fonts used in printed publications. They DO NOT generally
translate well to a computer screen, i.e. they look "jagged" and "blocky",
and they can cause eye strain when viewed in quantity or for long periods of
time.

Several years ago, Microsoft (bless their monopolistic hearts) commissioned
several of the best typographers currently working in the field to design a
set of fonts SPECIFICALLY for use on the Web. They look good on the computer
monitor AND when printed out on paper. These fonts are freely available for
download in formats for both Windows and Mac computers and are included with
the latest versions of Microsoft's browser software.

Unix and Linux users are pretty much stuck with fonts included with
X-Windows. I have played with both operating systems but have never been
able to connect my Linux box to the Web (I'm not THAT much of a geek <g>) so
I don't know how pages appear on those systems. Erik did say a while ago
that most things on the mock web-site showed up on his computer (which I
believe runs Linux) in monospaced Courier (old typewriter standard).

*Note to Erik* - could you confirm this for me?

Using HTML code which specifies fonts which are not loaded onto the users
hard drive will NOT cause any problems for the viewer of a web page - their
browser software will merely substitute a font which IS present.

The VAST MAJORITY of people who are our potential audience will NOT go
traipsing over the web to obtain fonts which they currently don't have,
merely to view our web-site. But a large portion of our audience (those
using a late model Microsoft browser) will already HAVE the fonts necessary.
And, like it or not, Microsoft has all but won the browser war with
Netscape.

I propose to USE specific fonts on the web-site, to gain some control over
the way it looks on viewer's computer monitors. They always have the option
of setting their browser software to over-ride this specification.

The main REASON I would like to go this route is that web-sites done in the
"traditional" style are visually BORING and with the attention span of most
casual web browsers (the people, not the software), anything you can do to
grab their attention and focus it can only help keep them on your site.

F.Y.I., the "mock web-site" that I had set up
(http://www.interlog.com/~jpurch/webs/aga-contest/home.htm), uses one of
these newer fonts. The font I specified is called "Trebuchet MS" and is a
proportional sans serif font.

*NOTE TO ALL* - I would REALLY appreciate it if EVERYONE could check this
out on your own system and POST the results of what you see on YOUR monitor:

        - go to the mock web-site
(http://www.interlog.com/~jpurch/webs/aga-contest/home.htm) and follow the
link at the bottom of the page to Microsoft's Typography Website
(http://www.microsoft.com/typography/free.htm). Find the link there to True
Type Core Fonts for the Web
(http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/default.htm?fname=%20&fsize=).

        - scroll down the page until you get to the font samples - these are
graphics of the actual fonts and should display on your monitor as they were
intended to show, regardless of whether or not you have the font installed
on your machine.

        - compare the "look" of the "Trebuchet MS" font with what your browser
software displays for the main homepage of the mock website.

        - if the font displayed on YOUR computer is different, please tell me 
what
DOES show up (the specific font name isn't important, but is it a
proportional or monospaced font, serif or sans serif?) I'd also like to know
your computer platform and OS version.

***Again, the above, while fiddly, is IMPORTANT to how the event Web-site
looks. I am running Windows 98 and using MS IE 5. I don't have access to a
Mac nor to an Internet capable Linux box. I want the event web-site to be
viewable by as many people as possible but I also want it to look as GOOD as
possible for the majority of people. This is one way that all of the
"lurkers" on this list can finally provide a bit of input and feedback which
will help the event be a success. PLEASE take the time to do this and post
the results.

6. I would like the Web-site to be clean and modern looking, without being
overly fussy or "fancy". I don't intend to use "background images" which
take forever to load or big fancy graphics for basic navigation. But I don't
want to fall back on "standard HTML" with its use of separator lines or
blinking text. The mock website is an example of the sort of design that I
would suggest we use.

Whichever design we go with should work well for the ENTIRE site - both the
"nuts and bolts" section and the actual display area. One concern I have
with current setup, which has navigation links running vertically along the
left edge of the screen, is that this limits the screen area available for
the display of images of the aquascapes - on the mock web-site, the HTML
specifies that the entire body of the page take up 550 pixels horizontally
(in order to be totally visible on a VGA monitor). The navigation bar
occupies 100 pixels horizontally, leaving only 450 pixels horizontally for
the display of either text or images.

I assume that this would be rather small for the display of the full size
images of the aquascapes and would prefer to AVOID requiring viewers to have
to scroll the image horizontally to see it all.

Would it be better to place all navigation links horizontally across the top
of the screen???

Erik - would you have a problem or take issue with any of this or with
limiting full size images to a maximum of 550 pixels in width to allow for
their display on VGA screens? Your comments and suggestions are sorely
needed at this point in time.

I think I've droned on enough for one day..... again, PLEASE give me some
feedback on this ASAP.

James Purchase
Toronto






  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest