MAJOR update to the boards

BTW, the running comentary is "unique", can't say I've ever taken part in a thread like this before!

As for the number of views of this topic, I'm honestly shocked .... I thought it would just be the handful of us who are taking part that would be reading this!

Anyhow, back to the "fight".

Dave, I do try see it from your point of view and I do accept that ATM very few (not none) web companies use only CSS for style and layout but that is because the shadow of the past has not fully lifted from web design. There are still people using horribly out-dated browsers and people are still targeting they sites at those old browsers. That simple decision to still support say, Netscape 4, imediately ties your hands to the point that it's tables or broke! Then you also have the fact that CSS is new and still developing. We are not on the third major release of CSS (2.1, preceeded by 1.0 and 2.0) and the fourth (3.0) is being developed as we type. There are currently some shortcoming in CSS but they are dissapearing fast. Then of course you have further lag caused by a gulf in skills. It takes times to get familiar with the XHTML/CSS way of doign things and to get profficient enough with it that you can skin a site as quickly using XHTML/CSS as you can with DreamWeaver (and I know people who can do that and do so proffessionally in Ireland).

At the end of the day, tables were not designed for laying out sites, they evelved into that role at the height of the nasty browser ward because they were the only cross-browser alternative. Custom built technologies for stylign and laying out web pages are under active development and browser support for these new standards is ever improving, the reasons not to use talbes are getting ever more convincing with each year that passes, the reasons to keep using them are at best standing still, imo decreasing in convincingness. From where I'm standing Tables are the pasr (or as Al put it, so 1999) and CSS and it's future descendents the future. It makes no sense to inter-twine content and presentation information and it makes ecellent sense to separate them. I accept that there are barriers in the way of that ideal ATM but those barriers are on their way down.

Bart.

Honestly you go away and have a migrane for a few hours and this happens

Bart what you have suggested out looks good.

I have only one suggestions, and its probably not one you have time for.
There should be an opendocument template for users wishing to publish documentation on the site. Rather than, for example, the observing cert page having some text that we wrote in an editor, it should be able to be written in openoffice using a site template. This would force things like, title, description, authors, abstract, main content, etc. to be correctly marked up and displayed on the website.

This is a lot of work, and really falls in the realm of a CMS. But perhaps its something to consider long term to enable and encourage content submission to the site.

Cheers,
~Al

Hmmm, it's worse than I feared in that case. I'll try to address them one by one...

Firstly, form and function are joined at the hip. The 'real' program which runs on the server has to interact with a real human being at some point. Guess what? Humans like to use attractive programs. And there are other very good reasons. Good GUI design can lead a persons eye to the information they require. It makes text easier to read (correct typography, justification, contrast of text on background, kerning) Navigation easier to use (tactile effect of clearly defined buttons, colour coding for weighting, correct graphical grid for eye to process information) and besides this can alter somebodies psychological humour (Did you know the colours Mc donalds employs in their interior design are designed to make you feel uncomfortable after 20mins?). It enhances the users experience and increases the chance of them using and returning to the site.
There are reasons companies spend a lot of money on corporate identity. Make no mistake, IFAS needs to consider these things- the site is not merely an information portall, it represents the organizations public face. I assume IFAS wants to expand it's membership and it's message, maybe even apply for funding some day. These days the first port of call for finding out about something is the web. A professional, friendly face on the site reflects on the organization. Are you still sure you have thought this through? This is the tip of the iceberg. There are methodologies and metrics that can help determine the impact of these factors.

now the others...

1) Why? A site can be a combination of a brochure and an information portall. Some pages need to change regularly, some dont. The ones that don't, well you can spend a little more time on the graphic design there.
2) There is no magic template that will cover all eventualities. Some pages by necessity will have to break the mold.
4) Even pages that appear to be heavy on graphics can be designed in an efficient manner. Images can be cached. No need to kill the whole look and feel of the site just because you feel it should be 5kb.
6) Form and function are a marriage, there is even a place for eye candy. For example, sometimes an animation or a picture can explain something far easier than 1000 words.
7) Ah, the old proprietary software debate... I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that there will always be a few professional web designers on the boards, and it's not unusual for those designers to have the industry standard software. Plus this completely rules Photoshop and Flash out- powerful tools when used appropriately. For graphics, nothing competes with photoshop. In fact it is possible that you are preventing many people who can use the industry standard software, but who aren't great with the code or free non industry programs from helping out.

Too many rules too soon. BMW, Coke and other major brands used to write branding manuals- sets of rules designers had to follow for a consistent image. After 10 years of hardship they learned to throw the manual away- the result was more creative branding and new frontiers. The rules had become a dead weight.

Maybe we should look at some large companies... hmm seems all the Coca Cola family websites use tables too. What about the two largest/most prominent web design companies in this country, SilverInk and WebFactory. Doh! Tables/CSS again.. A mix of tools used on all websites.

oh come on, the examples and more probably thought frames were a great way to organise layout a couple of years back also. Slowly they learned and moved away from frames. Now they are slowly moving away from tables to css.

From a look at some of those site its clear that the only reason they are using css is just to control font size and colour. SilverInk dont use a single div class, and use tables instead. Why are they doing it? Because they want every pixel to appear where they want it, and they know how to do that with tables. One day they will wake up and realise that stylesheets did away this this many years ago. It may be a painful process, as they realise that the order of the content in their pages doesnt really matter anymore, that they can put anything exactly where they want on the page (and then abuse "position: absolute;" for another 5 years...). Slowly realisiation will hit them that they can abstract out all the design to a single file, and will quickly shun the practice of content trying to assert where it wants to go.

From a technical point of view companies today using tables, and token css to manage the layout of websites are way out of date. Those responsible may be lazy, inept, or would rather pay to maintian their current site rather than redesign it properly, something that will only be sustainable for another year or two. Whatever the reason, its just a matter of time before they switch to css.

Dave, your arguments on this thread are basically saying that Bart is incapable of designing useable a website because he doesn't use antiquated methods. Thats just plain wrong. Bart is coming at this from a completely different angle, that of maintaining a dynamic site, where your methods simply are unsustainable. Thats why we have css at all btw, because years ago designers and coders got together after mutually realising that laying out websites with the practices of the day sucked.

So how about this. Let Bart make the website properly. Dave, if you, or anyone else, have any perls of wisdom that would actually help make the site more useable then please suggest them, I havent seen a single constructive comment about how the site should be designed yet from anyone, just criticism on technical decisions. As Mr. TinkTank said, if you want a design discussion then keep it to 'thats the wrong colour', 'move block X to the other side of the screen its to cluttered'. Bart, if you could give a pointer to a beta site at some point that would be cool. Dave, stick to commenting on design.


~Al

Dave, what are you on?

Firstly, ...

So again you are ascerting that no thought has gone into the design. Please start giving some useful advice if you want to continue in this vein. If you have conducted usability studies in this area, or have seen resaearch about how many columns there should be on a page, how navigation should be represented etc. etc. then please share it. The only part of that paragraph that was at all constructive is that we should not use the same colour scheme as McDonalds on the website!

1) Why? A site can be a combination of a brochure and an information portall. Some pages need to change regularly, some dont. The ones that don't, well you can spend a little more time on the graphic design there.

What the hell has this got to do with content separation? If you want a static page then mark it up appropriately and use the site stylesheet. Put whatever graphic design you want in it.

2) There is no magic template that will cover all eventualities. Some pages by necessity will have to break the mold.

So because some pages are akward, we should make the site layout akward? It needs to be simple precisley to be able to better handle any pages that as you put it would 'break the mold'.

4) Even pages that appear to be heavy on graphics can be designed in an efficient manner. Images can be cached. No need to kill the whole look and feel of the site just because you feel it should be 5kb.

Am I reading the same list you are? Barts point 4 is "The skin (or styling) should be as efficient as possible to make this site work well for people on dialup". He said nothing about 5kb. He said nothing about graphics. He said nothing about killing the look and feel. He said the site should be efficient so as to work well for dialup.

6) Form and function are a marriage, there is even a place for eye candy. For example, sometimes an animation or a picture can explain something far easier than 1000 words.

Bart said "Functionality is more important than window dressing, the site should look good but does not need excessive eye-candy." He didnt say he was banning pictures!

7) Ah, the old proprietary software debate... I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that there will always be a few professional web designers on the boards, and it's not unusual for those designers to have the industry standard software. Plus this completely rules Photoshop and Flash out- powerful tools when used appropriately. For graphics, nothing competes with photoshop. In fact it is possible that you are preventing many people who can use the industry standard software, but who aren't great with the code or free non industry programs from helping out.

Again will you RFTP? "The site must not be dependent on any platform dependent or non-free software." That means that it must not be created using something that if Bart gives up, someone else has to fork out money just to look after the site. It does not mean you cant use photoshop to create images, you just need to save them in something that we can all read! RTFP!

Too many rules too soon. BMW, Coke and other major brands used to write branding manuals- sets of rules designers had to follow for a consistent image. After 10 years of hardship they learned to throw the manual away- the result was more creative branding and new frontiers. The rules had become a dead weight.

What bart is proposing are rules so that the site is acessible and maintainable to as many people as possible. The rules are there to stop you getting locked into a particular situation.

Sensational breaking news on round eight!

After Bruiser was counted down, he came out with both fists blazing! The crowd roared, Warren roared, Destroyer roared!

The first salvo was a cheeky right jab from Destroyer, trying to capitalise on a groggy Bruiser. But Bruiser was having none of it. A few skips to the left, one to the right and he was in the clear. Destroyer was beginning to tire. But the crowd were screaming for more.

Then Bruiser took a pop at the Worm! At a little over light Bantamweight though, The Worm stood no chance against the Heavyweight Goliath and lay spreadeagled on the canvas! What a turnaround! The Worm got up, dusted down his white shirt and took Bruiser to one side. After a short altercation, it was evident that Bruiser has mistaken the Worm for Destroyer - the ugly wound to his right eye was now pumping and had momentarily clouded his vision. The Worm gently bowed out of the way and shouted 'Continue'.

Bruiser found the target - not one, not two but 7, yes SEVEN combo jabs to Destroyers torso followed by four successive head shots - Destroyer was reeling! But was he finsished? No, saved by the bell...