You’re doing it wrong
Or maybe I am. Andrea Harris, assessing Web site failings:
1. Busy sites with lots of memory- and bandwidth-clogging stuff that has to load. I recently had some computer problems and had to accept a kind donation of an older computer. This computer runs Windows XP on 256 megabytes of RAM.
I try to keep the noise down around these parts, although I have no idea how much of a performance hit comes from embedding something from YouTube. I routinely resize photos, and I mean really resize, not just declare dimensions for something that’s actually a megabyte and a third.
2. Fixed-width layouts that are for large (17″ and up) monitors. See the above info about my donated computer: it also came with a small (14″) monitor. I have it set to 1024×768 because that’s as small as I can set it and still read from it comfortably. When I open my web browser (Firefox’s latest build, natch) I am seeing that horizontal scrollbar a lot more than I used to — if I’m not seeing info just vanish off to the side without any way of me getting to it.
My resolution is set to 1152 x 864, which is not so wide. (And this is on a 22-inch screen, at least at home. Bats can see better than I can.) Generally, the template here calls for a width of 770 pixels, which should fit in almost anyone’s screen these days without calling for scrollage. (Per #1, I cut photos down to size when necessary.)
3. Fixed sized fonts. I don’t always mind if the font in question is normal sized, but when it’s teeny tiny… and I can’t resize it… well, I’m getting old, I can’t afford right now to replace my $500 progressive-lens glasses (that was what they cost four years ago), so if I can’t read your site I won’t be visiting it.
Guilty as charged, though they’re not too teeny, and there’s always the size-adjustment gizmo in Firefox.
4. The Ugly, otherwise known as Web 2.0 design. I thought once that Web 2.0 meant nice, clean design (clear fonts in normal sizes and colors that everyone could read, websites that were well-ordered not flashy, cluttered messes, bright, clean colors, etc.), but apparently I was mistaken, or hadn’t read the fine print. (Maybe it was 9px Arial in pale gray.)
My particular bête noire is the RSS button half the size of a cell-phone screen. For some reason, there are a lot of those in WordPress. (I don’t have a button for RSS at all, unless there’s one in your address bar; there are text links in the sidebar, and that’s that.) This particular theme is very old and isn’t Web 2.0 in the slightest. (1.5, maybe.)
5. My new pet hate: the Arial/Helvetica font. Both are ubiquitous — Arial for Windows, Helvetica for Macs. I’m just sick of seeing Arial (I don’t get many Mac encounters — I think the nearest Apple store to me is in Charlottesville or somewhere). Please investigate other common sans-serif fonts — Verdana is a good option, and it’s on everything Windows now.
Around here, we do Verdana for text, shrunk 10 percent for blockquotes (I am pondering changing that), and Georgia, a nice serif font, for titles. The comment box uses Lucida Sans Unicode, if you have it. I used to do blockquotes with serifs, and may yet again.
6. Speaking of Macs… I realize that most designers and such artistic people mostly use the Apple brand of computer. I wish they would remember, though, that most people in the world don’t, and the websites that look so pretty on a Mac can often look plain and dull on a Windows computer.
If this site looks like hell on a Mac, I’ll hear about it from Trini. Believe me.
McGehee »
15 October 2009 · 9:18 am
My main peeve about websites is the un-margined page. My monitor’s native resolution is 1280 x 1024, but some websites out there are still set up for Web -0.π and run text right up to the edges on both sides of the screen.
And it’s amazing how many people can still write 1,500 words about four different topics, all without a single paragraph break. On those margin-less pages I find myself needing to put a sheet of paper up against my screen to be able to follow the lines all the way across and then be able to find the next line back at the other end of the universe.
If I could hack such sites, I’d redesign them, narrowing the content area to something like 256 pixels, right down the middle of the screen.
Donna B. »
15 October 2009 · 11:41 am
I hate mouseover popups. And I hate anything that moves on a website if I don’t tell it to. Not that I’m complaining too much about the twitter feed :-)
canadienne »
15 October 2009 · 10:29 pm
Your site looks fine on my Macs, but I don’t have a PC to compare.
Your blog is very readable. The line length and font size are good, and the quotes are fine in a smaller size unless you are planning to quote one of the longer chapters from “Moby Dick” or something.
My pet hate is unnecessary Flash. That little “Loading” thingy, no matter how cutely designed, is still damn annoying. Too often what I am waiting to load is, in the words of the Photoshop Disasters blog guy, an “unnavigable pile of Flash.” Or at best, things which gratuitously zoom or pop out or bounce.
My other pet hate is white type on black. Legibility, people! That’s why I have the key shortcut that reverses the display enabled in the Universal Access preference pane.
CGHill »
15 October 2009 · 10:43 pm
I know of one issue, but it’s with Safari, and it’s not Mac-specific: this comment box, in Safari, tends to slop over an inch or two into the sidebar, at least on my PCs and on Trini’s Mac.
canadienne »
16 October 2009 · 12:02 am
Actually, that does happen on my Mac in Safari too. I usually use Safari out of force of habit – started with it when it came out because it was the first browser I’d ever seen with tabs. Does look fine in Firefox.
But for the most part, your blog is one of the most legible I’ve seen. I do a lot of reading and research online, so I appreciate it.