MAJOR update to the boards

Actaully, a CMS is exactly where I see this site going!

Just scrap everything and use Drupal


Ducks and runs

Once again you just cannot see past the technical specifications of the site, you're still stuck on css vs. tables debate.

No! I have made the decision that the content and the styling of the site need to be separate because otherwise half my plans for the site WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE! Saying I am too huung up on technical details because I am adhereing to the physical restraints placed by realiy is like saying airplane engineers should not define the altitude a bomber must be able to fly at as part of the specs but rather just let the bomber fly at what ever hight the stylists design will result in it flying at. That is just rubbish! The functionality of a website should not be determined by decisions on looks! The functionality of the site is the driving factor here and that is EXACTLY how it should be.

XHTML + CSS is capable of generating nice, efficient, elegant, functional, usable web pages. So are tables. XHTML + CSS allows for content separtation, tables get horribly in the way of that. HENCE, I have made the decision to go the XHTML + CSS route with symantic markup and compliance with the W3C web accessability standards. This will result in a good web page using the best practices and technologies at my disposal. This is a good design decision taken after serious consideration and based on much experience with dynamic sites. There is NOTHING wrong with my taking that decision at this time and in this way.

For the last time, I have no difficulty with CSS, but to say they have no drawbacks whatsoever is just false.

I didn't say that. I evne outlined some of the issues with CSS in one of my posts last night. CSS has drawbacks, yes, but in this case a table based layout has MORE and WORSE drawbacks!

I am speaking from experience, I have used both tables and CSS to create websites.

Static web sites not heavily dynamic ones. They are two VERY different things. I have done both so I can say that with authority.

From a DESIGNERS point of view CSS is not as easy to work with, precisely because the WHYISWYG editors have not caught up with the technology. It is FAR easier for a designer to tweak a tables based design.

YOU find it easier! That does not mean EVERYONE finds it easier!!!!! I FIND IT EASIER TO TWEAK WITH CSS THAN TABLES EVEN WHEN USING DREAMWEAVER (and I have dreamweaver experience). I LIKE working with CSS, I find it easy and intuative and I like the power it gives me. I am a CSS programmer!

Using CSS is sometimes like using a command line interface to use photoshop.

And someone who is good on a comand line will run rungs around someone using a GUI for most computer administration tasks. Don't say comamnd line like it's a bad thing because that's naive.

Does that mean we should abandon CSS? No. Does it mean CSS has an impact on the sites design? Yes.

Well at least we agree on something!

For example- box borders. The CSS genius who decided to include a number of stock border styles- dashed lines, dots, solid border- was actually limiting the design scope- not enhancing it.

Err .... what? And what has this to do with this conversation?

As for those companies that are still using tables- it really is a bit naive to assume it's because they are stuck in the dark ages. They do it because in the real world projects are time bound and a number of disciplines are involved in the design process.

I dissagree completely. The bigger the company the HARDER it is to adopt new technologies. The bigger companies have so much MORE to change over that they tend to be slow to change. AIB still used Windows3.11 up untill this year. Was this becauase Windows3.11 was the best thing for the job? Not on your life! It was because it is exceptionally hard and expensive to change when you are that big so you put it off as long as you can.

And for the last time Al, in your quest to reach personal programming nirvana you have completely missed my point. The first thing you define is not the technical specifications- it is the human ones. It seems quite clear to me it is technology driving this project. My very first post was constructive- it was a gentle reminder to forget about the technology for a while. I was told I was patronizing.

I've addressed this in my previous post but I will re-state it. functional requirements are driving this project and those functional requirements have resulted in technologies being chosen to allow the project ot move forward. The GUI is NOT the driving force here, functionality is and that is exactly how it should be. The technologies that have been chosen do NOT stand in the way of a good GUI but they do enable a lot of stuff on the back end for the future, hence they were chosen.

So again you are ascerting that no thought has gone into the design

I am certainly ascerting that not enough thought has gone into the design or the process for that matter. Unless the pair of you are hiding your expansive design knowledge I think it is unlikely you are even aware of all the factors. But you can still write technical specifictions in stone? Without understanding the entire scope? Now I wouldn't normally make such disingenuous comments but I'm getting quite sick of your condescending tone. I won't be packing the crayola away just yet.

You know I am so sick of this I HAVE PUT LOTS OF THOUGHT INTO THIS. I AM NOT SOME KIND OF YAHOO WHO HASN'T GOT A CLUE. THIS DESIGN IS WELL THOUGHT OUT AND IS DRIVEN BY ISSUES YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN. What gives you the right to tell me I have no idea what I'm doing in an erea you have no experience in just because you have experience in a related area? There is a LOT more to building a site like this than to building a brochure site. I have extensive experience at this kind of programmign and have worked al ot of projects from design through completion. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. Please at the very least accept that I am not a blithering idiot!

Al, you have your blinkers on I'm afraid. You are a proficient coder, no doubt, but I have used every web tool available including CSS layouts. But I see the bigger picture. I see why people use Dreamweaver and Flash. I work with web programmers all the time and we all use similar methodology and products to bring the best possible experience to the user. The technology is just a tool. I'm sorry Al, but it is clear to me you have little web experience beyond web based applications, and just about zero experience working with other disciplines. The methodology you describe is wrong, wrong, wrong:

I'm sorry but it is you who are not seeing the big picture. The interface is just one part of the design of a site like this. Sacrificing functionality just to be able to use table on the front end is utterly backwards.

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'

Out of your depth from this statement onwards. A profound lack of understanding of web design methodology.

*pulls out hair*

This is madness. Al is a proffessional software developer working for a massive computer powerhouse, I think he might know a thing or two about software development. Belittleing him is hardly productive or fair.

Bart, for the record this does not mean I don't appreciate the time and effort you put in. As for constructive contribution, I have offered to help out time and time again. I know when I'm out of my depth- heavy hand coding PHP, ASP or others. I'm quite comfortable with CSS, but it is not the holy grail. And it was not my original point. I do understand where you are coming from using CSS.

[/quote]

Note the bit in bold.

The decisions that have been taken are entirely driven by the aspects of the site you mention there. CSS is capable of generating a good frontend but tables will make for a mess on the back end, hence they are totally un-suited to this project. The technologies chosen have to work on BOTH ends, and not just on one!

I will be presenting a mockup when I'm happy with it and that is when I would really appreciate your inputs. The technology used really is irrelevant to the design in so far as I am profficient enough with CSS to implement just about anything that can be generated with tables as well as designs that just wouldn't work with tables.

Please trust that I know what I'm doing when making technology choices and that I am aware that each choice impacts the design. Design is all aout trade-offs, I have decided on my trade-offs and I stand over them becauase I belive I have the experience and knowedge in this domain to make those trade-offs efficiently.

Actaully, a CMS is exactly where I see this site going!

Just scrap everything and use Drupal


Ducks and runs

Funny you should mention Drupal, it is one of the technologies I'm actively considering incorportating into this site! I'm experimenting with it on another site ATM to see how suitable it would be so watch this space!

BB

And once again you manage to send a long tirade against other peoples abilities without a single constructive point about how a site can be designed better.

Have you been reading this thread? I've made plenty of suggestions, but I keep getting dragged back to the same damn CSS debate. But if you want more...
1) Firstly don't assume to know anything about the user- Ask them what they want and what they would like to see on the site. Determine the average users technical ability/disability. Too many designers make assumptions about what their clients want. And I don't mean extrapolate the data from the boards. Build questionnaires, hold focus groups. Document the data. What browsers do they use? What sites do they use? Do they have any disability? What country are they in. Don't base the design solely upon your own experience.
2) Review the competition- SWOT analysis- Document Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats. These teps will form the basis of a brief. Look and feel of the site starts here, before Information Architecture.
3) Bart is left to do all the work, bad idea. Form a team- there's plenty of expertise on the boards. Determine their skill set, make a list of tasks and assign people to those tasks. This will give you a wider skillset and give bart more free time. Depending on the skills you have available determine the best way for people to contribute to the administration/building of the site.
4) Conduct task analysis of current site. This means sitting down and watching somebody performing tasks on the site.
5) Information architecture- using the principles of usability and a knowledge of how people navigate the web to create a hierarchy.
6) Create a mockup using the look and feel and your Information Architecture. Ask people to navigate, observe and correct site appropriately.
7) Review current site content. Writing for the web is a whole area of expertise in itself. Writing style, text formatting and understanding how peple read on the web is vital.
Quality Control
9) launch
10) Evaluation.

Until steps 1 through 3 are complete writing technical specs is plain wrong.
I can elaborate on any of the points above and even provide the necessary questionnaires etc. Having a sole person design the site is a bad idea because there is only so much one person can do, and you are relying on that person alone. If IFAS is to be taken seriously these points should be considered. Al, that's your responsibility right now- the steps above are best practice. OK so it might be a bit much- you can refine the process. But a pure technology led project is not the way to go. IFAS belongs to the people on these boards. Get them involved. Stop micro- managing. It would be nice to see comments from other people here too.

Actaully, a CMS is exactly where I see this site going!

Just scrap everything and use Drupal


Ducks and runs

Funny you should mention Drupal, it is one of the technologies I'm actively considering incorportating into this site! I'm experimenting with it on another site ATM to see how suitable it would be so watch this space!

BB

It actually was a half-serious suggestion but there was no way I wanted to get in the middle of this fistfight :lol:

We're in the process of moving www.unreal.ie to a drupal configuration as well.

Static web sites not heavily dynamic ones. They are two VERY different things. I have done both so I can say that with authority.

There is a LOT more to building a site like this than to building a brochure site.

You know I am so sick of this I HAVE PUT LOTS OF THOUGHT INTO THIS. I AM NOT SOME KIND OF YAHOO WHO HASN'T GOT A CLUE. THIS DESIGN IS WELL THOUGHT OUT AND IS DRIVEN BY ISSUES YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN.

You assertion that I simply design brochure sites and know nothing about dynamic generated pages is plain wrong. I have project managed, consulted with and designed web based technologies for Coca-cola, Irish Distillers, Lucent Technologies, Ericsson, GE and several other web design agencies. Not to mention dozens of SME firms. And not small Mickey Mouse tasks either. These projects have been hard won, competing through tender processes and against other agencies. And not just for designing pretty pictures, but for designing systems that are a balance of technology and other disciplines.

Software and web design have similarities, but they are not the same thing.

It is precisely your assertion that you alone have the expertise to make these decisions that worries me. In the real world you would be part of a team. It is extremely disengenuous of you to so quickly dismiss other relevant disciplines. There is no way you have considered all the issues. No one person can do that. The area of expertise is too wide.
[/quote]