Microsoft's Progress is Slow, But Not Out of Sight
March 5, 2008
at 12:34 pm
in microsoft, software, standards, technology, windows vista
Comments (0)
We already know that Microsoft needs to start listening to the community and hearing what they have to say. We already know that not only do they need to listen, but they need to involve the community in core decision-making processes with their software, from the very planning stages. What do we as users want out of the software? What do we want to be able to do with it? How would we, as users, actually go about doing this with said software, and what features can be added to make it easier and more enjoyable?
Twoof the teams at Microsoft which have isolated themselves from this ideal are, mainly, the Windows and Office teams, and quite possibly a bit of the Windows Live team. Windows Vista, while not a disaster for me personally, was one for multitudes of people. Office 2007, while having many excellent features, was a trainwreck for the power user (Outlook 2007, anyone? No thanks…). Where are all of these complete OS/cloud integration features from Windows Live? No where to be seen.
Onthe flips side, there are many teams at Microsoft who do an incredible job at listening to users. The Xbox and Xbox Live teams, absolutely the Zune team, and while they’re not heard from too often, the Microsoft Research teams. They all listen to what users want out of products, what features, whether software or hardware, would benefit to the end user, and begin using their brilliant development minds to follow through on those ideas. They have us, the geeks and user advocates, to literally translate what the average end-user wants to do or has frustrations with into language that Microsoft developers and technical users can understand.
Onething that made headlines today is that Microsoft Research has opened up the Singularity project to the public for SDK and RDK use, for 100% free. If you do not know, Singularity is a very small Operating System which runs its microkernel and processes as managed code. Not only that, but it’s written in the C# language. For the non-technical users, this means it’s a completely different operating system than anything else out there both in terms of its programming and the potential it has. What Microsoft Research has done with Singularity is create a virtually uncrashable operating system with insane performance. People have been begging Microsoft to release this to the public, to technical users and developers, for over a year now. They’re finally listening.
Whatdoes this mean? It means that they’re making progress. It means that technical users can use Singularity, get down into its core, and start making suggestions to the Singularity team of how they’d like to see it improved. It means that with Microsoft’s brilliance, and our end user input, we could potentially be involved in the planning stages for a next-generation Operating System from Microsoft.
Now,I’m not saying that Singularity will be the base for the next version of Windows. The Singularity developers have already states that’s not its purpose. However, with input from the community, it very well could be the case that Singularity’s ideas make it into the next version of Windows, something that would significantly help us all. Nor am I saying that this has any relationship to my previous post about Microsoft’s involvement to the community, though a few people from Microsoft have already commented to me about it.
Microsoftis making progress, no matter how slow it may be. Let’s just hope it’s not too slow. And let’s hope that not only my cry to Microsoft, but that of thousands of others, speeds up that process.
Microsoft:Please listen to the community in all areas of your software development from the very planning stages. It will benefit the end user, and ultimately, it will benefit you as a company.
I Love Networks
October 8, 2007 at 12:17 am in internet, networking, standards Comments (0)
It’s no secret. I’m a geek.
I’m also a networking geek. Basically, that means I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I work with computer networking. I love it. It’s should be no surprise that I’ve chosen Network Administration as the field and career that I am currently pursuing.
Whether it’s TCP/IP, LDAP, DNS, HTTP, packet sharing, ports, firewalls, security, Linux, Microsoft Windows Server 2003, routers, switches, hubs, CAT5e, or anything else network related, I devour it. I love it.
The reason I love networking so much is because, well, it’s just so cool. I mean, come on. Even though it’s old technology, I just got a color LaserJet printer capable of connecting directly to a router. How cool is it that I can’t print to this router … by an IP address? How cool is it that I can do some port forwards on my router and actually print to my printer when I’m in another city and state?
Networking is what powers the internet. It’s what allows us to connect to any device I want and communicate with it. And its full potential has only begun to be realized. The future of networking is in the small things: like our MP3 players connecting wirelessly to our computers to sync music. Or perhaps, our MP3 players listening to music that isn’t even stored on the device but rather on a file server at your home hundreds of miles away. It’s what will allow us to watch TV from anywhere at anytime on any device we want. (Slingbox Pro anyone?).
I’m sorry, but networks are cool. Networks are one of the best examples, as well, for how following standards in the computing industry has gotten us places. Where would we be if TCP/IP wasn’t made a standard communication platform decades ago? The internet wouldn’t exist the way we know it today, that’s for sure.
What do you think of networks? Are they cool or do they scare the heck out of you because they seem so complex? Let me know. Leave a comment or Ask Me.
Social Networking and its Failure
October 1, 2007 at 10:44 pm in blogging, future, standards, web development Comments (0)
Let’s take a trip back in time. The year is 2003 and the internet is a rather pleasant place to be, although looking back we wouldn’t make that claim. Myspace and Facebook didn’t exist and half of the world didn’t visit them at least once per day. No one knew what AJAX was let alone used it on their websites. Flash-driven websites were the “cool thing to do.” But most importantly, the idea of using the internet as a “platform” and the convergence of technologies was near non-existent.
Then this whole concept of Web 2.0 came along and everyone was confused about what it really meant. People claimed that their websites were Web 2.0 and companies even dedicated their so-called services to help people make their websites Web 2.0 compatible. Some people even jumped the gun and claimed that Web 3.0 exists.
The change that happened in late 2004 when people started really understanding what the Web 2.0 concept was all about. It was about convergence of internet technologies and using the internet as a platform for full applications. Instead of running a program on your computer, why not run that program on the internet where you can have access to it from anywhere you go?
To be honest, if we’re still dealing with desktop environments on our computers in 15 years, I’ll be surprised. Your entire desktop environment will be web based and you’ll have access to it from anywhere, but your files and documents will be stored locally for safety. You won’t be putting in a CD to listen to music, you’ll be using a music subscription service to listen to anything you want. You’ll have access to anything from anywhere at any time. All of your devices will work together, and all websites will be able to communicate and share information with one another.
And here is where I think Social Networking sites have failed. Their very idea in concept form is awesome. If we can connect technologies, why don’t we connect people together from all over? Let’s create a social map of the world on the internet. However, what social networking sites have lost sight of is that the whole point while doing these things is to converge technologies. With their immense popularity, their potential to drive forward convergence of web technology is just as immense. Why haven’t they taken advantage of it?
Picture this: Instead of you needing to upload photos of yourself to MySpace or Facebook, why not allow you to associate your MySpace account with your Flickr account? What if I could send an email to someone but I didn’t know their email address? What if I could use the information about that person I did know to send them an email? What if I could fully control each and every one of my accounts without even needing to launch a browser? And what if I could update all of my accounts at the same time with the same information?
The possibilities are endless. AJAX is only one very small part of the concept of Web 2.0. AJAX is the User Interface side of the vision of convergence of technology, not the convergence itself.
Social networking sites have failed at what could have been (and what still could be if they play their cards right) an awesome breakthrough in web technology and even your computing experience as a whole. MySpace and Facebook are right now just a place to “hang out” and post silly surveys. They each let it come to that, when it fact it could have been a complete portal to socialization and conversation and the computing experience as a whole.
I love my Zune. I don’t like my Zune.
September 10, 2007 at 1:46 am in microsoft, music, standards, technology Comments (3)
I have just purchased a Microsoft Zune as a replacement for my old MP3 player (Creative Zen 20GB). My experience with the device and software has, so far, been extremely satisfactory. However, there were various things which I found about it which annoyed me. I just submitted those as feedback to the Zune Team in hope they will review them and take them into serious considering. My feedback was as follows:
Hello! First of all, I’d like to let you know that this will be fairly long. I’m a firm believer that the Zune has an immense amount of potential, so what I’m submiting here is a thorough list of various improvements that I would like to see in the Zune to help improve my experience using the product, as well as many other people who already own a Zune or are looking to purchase an MP3 Player. Also, as I have selected “Zune Software” as the category for this, what I will write isn’t necessarily limited to that, though a good portion of it is. If different departments of the Zune team handle different categories, I’d ask that you please forward the appropriate feedback to its respected department for review.
I have just recently purchased a Zune, and as far as the experience goes I have found it far superior to anything else out on the market, including the iPod (iTunes is just meh … I won’t go there). While the Apple iPod is a solid product in its own way, I personally do not like the craze that is all over it, making it out to be a superior product than it actually is. I was truly looking for the Zune to become an iPod killer … which as of this point it has failed to do so for various reasons.
That being said, the Zune from my experience, certainly has the incredible potential to do so … easily. The aesthetics of the hardware itself are great, including the size, weight, durability, and controls. The software on the player itself is far superior to anything I’ve ever used before. The menu system and organization just makes sense. In album (track listing) view, I was pleasantly surprised to be able to use the left and right navigation buttons to move through various albums, while using up and down to select the track. THAT’S innovation and such a small touch that makes the experience wonderful. The Zune software on the hardware is virtually perfect. There’s various things I’d like to see, added, however:
- I love the way the FM radio system is set up and how presets are added and such. However, why am I not able to record radio? For example, I was listening to a late night program on an FM station when someone started talking about something I found extremely interesting. I would have loved to have been able to record that for my later enjoyment. The only MP3 player that has actually done FM recording right is the Creative Zen. Can we please add this to the Zune? Please?
- The Zune automatically pausing playback when the headphones are removed is certainly a nice feature. However, can we please get an option to turn it off or on? I can vision various situations where I’d be switching headphones/speakers and I really don’t want to have to keep pressing play/pause each time I do so.
- When playing back a video, it would be awesome if the playback didn’t stop when going through the menu system again (such as with music and the radio). Can’t we implement something like in Windows Media Center where the video is still played back in the bottom corner? (with the back button, just as it does now, go back to the currently playing video)
- Having an equalizer is very nice. However, people such as myself who have various experience with “real” equalizers would probably like the option to have a custom equalization setting. For example, I like a particular song which has an awesome guitar solo. When I listen to that song, I’d like to isolate the range of frequencies in which the guitar resides and boost them. Saving these to custom presets would also be an added bonus.
- When saving radio presets, it would be awesome if each frequency was also tagged with the last know station name (whether it be the station name, or the call letters), just like the current station is top when viewing the presets. When tuning to that frequency again, this can be updated if the station has changed it.
- Along with the suggestion to keep video playback in the background (having a preview in the bottom corner or some such ), a “Currently Playing” section (whether it be music or the radio) would be a massive addition.
- Add an option to turn wireless on or off within the community section. I really don’t want to go into the community … find out that it’s not turned on … then have to go all the way back and two levels into settings to turn it on … then back to the community.
- Even though it’s fairly intutive that you’re viewing a list of Artists/Albums/Tracks, adding a tag to tell you what’s being displayed would be nice. Play around with the idea. Something as simple as a tag or even reducing the font size of the tracks, or indenting them 1 more space would do it.
- When I try to send a song through the song options menu, for the love of James Allard himself, don’t let the song stop playing! Isn’t the storage/cache inside fast enough to play AND send the song at the same time?
- There has to be some better way to show the track list than in the song options menu. Clicking twice to get to it is rather unnecessary in my opinion. I’ll admit that I can’t come up with a better way to do it, though. So have fun with it and rattle the idea around a bit.
The Zune hardware is essentially perfect, as I indicated before. The main thing I would like to see added is some sort of button which will take you back to the root menu. Hitting back 14 times isn’t a good experience for the user . I know the point of the Zune look was it’s lack of buttons and to get every feature accessible through those few buttons. However, you already did an awesome job designing the current Zune. I’m sure you can come up with something.
Another thing which would be absolutely AWESOME for the Zune (and a feature to make it stand FAR out from the competition) is a rather large improvement. It would be great if Microsoft would work with other manufactures (such as Pioneer, Sony, Alpine, JVC, etc) to integrate wireless support into the Zune for car media decks. The Zune already has the hardware capability. I can’t imagine it would be that difficult of a task to apply a simple software/firmware update to allow connectivity with supported car decks. Of course, the main work would be on the car deck manufactures.
I swear … I would use nothing but a Zune for the rest of my life if I could sit down into my car, push a single button, and play all my music from my Zune on my car stereo without ANY auxiliary 1/8″ wires or unstable and horrible quality FM transmitters. Those are just baggage which is largely unnecessary. The technology is available.
Microsoft … Zune Team … whoever. If you take one bit of advice from the mass of stuff I’ve written here, PLEASE pursue this option as a viable one. Seriously. Do you want to take a huge market share away from Apple with respect to playing in the car, or not? Do it quick before Apple does it first. And believe me … if no one else does it, they MOST CERTAINLY will.
The main things which I am giving feedback for, however, is the Zune software. At first, I was hesitant to purchase a Zune because I was unsure of the ease of use, stability, UI, and features of the Zune software. However, after discovering it’s utter similarity with Windows Media Player 11 (and the fact that WMP11 is required to be installed for the Zune software to work), I was very much pleased all considering I use WMP11 for my desktop media player anyway. Importing my library (as it was done automatically) was seemless and I was very happy.
However, there are various things which I would like to see changed. They are as follows:
- I found it rather annoying at first that when I plugged my Zune into my computer via USB, the Zune software automatically launched and synchronizing started and the album I was listening to stopped playing. All I wanted to do was start charging the Zune while using it. I quickly found the option to turn off Zune software launch. Okay, that was nice. However, what about the option to turn off connecting and syncing when I plug the unit in? Can’t the unit be connected in the background when the Zune software is active? Can’t the “real” connection (where music stops playing) ONLY happen when I actually MANUALLY sync the device?
- Why in the name of the evil Steve Jobs can’t I add music to my device from networked machines? If the Zune software is that similar to WMP11, seriously … why can’t I add my non-DRM’d music from another computer? I, for example, have a server in my house which holds ALL of my music/videos, etc, which I use for storage. I mostly stream this to other computers when I want to listen to the library or when I want to listen to the music on my stereo system/TV from my Media Center computer. I’m finding myself forced to sync while physically plugged into that machine … THAT’S annoying. Seriously. Fix this.
- It makes no sense to have playlists in the photo view. Slideshows? Maybe. But not playlists. Please remove it or change its functionality.
- This is 2007. The internet’s news comes from bloggers. Bloggers also are big into doing podcasts. If the Zune is all about “the Social” for Pete’s sake, why isn’t there Podcasting support in the Zune? Here’s a radical idea: add RSS feed support to the Zune software for me to subscribe to the podcasts rather than iTunes’ method. While a central database is important for finding new Podcasts and organizing everything into categories, being able to subscribe to a podcast (which may not necessarying be in the archive) via RSS would make the Zune the #1 blogger’s MP3 player. Period. Think about it: every enthused and non-Apple-fanboy blogger on the internet is advocating that their readers buy a Zune. That’s some MASSIVE publicity and good PR. But whatever you do, add Podcasting support to the Zune/Marketplace. Period. I don’t care how. Just do it … and soon!
- Even the name of your Zune is indicated in the category/genre view on the left-hand side of the software, can we please add some kind of indication this is your Zune? For example, tag it with (Zune) or (Device), or heck, add a tiny picture of a Zune next to it.
- Why doesn’t “sign me in automatically” actually sign me in automatically? I mean, I get it that it’ll sign you in when you actually want to download/buy something, but why can’t it sign in when I launch the application? I keep feeling like it’s lost my account association or something…
- Can we have some kind of indicator in the Zune Software/library that a particular album or song is DRM’d or has been downloaded from the Zune Marketplace? I want to know which media is going to expire at the end of the month.
Again, sorry for this being so long! However, like I said at the beginning, I’m very impressed with the Zune and I see utterly massive potential for the device. The things I’ve listed here certainly are my own opinions. However, I’d wager a good portion of what I’ve listed are ideas that are shared by many other Zune users out there … or rather, their experience would be improved should these things be changed.
I sincerely hope I haven’t written all of this in vein. One thing that I’ve been impressed with in Microsoft of late (mostly within Microsoft Research and the Xbox/Gaming division, which James Allard is part of) is how well they have listened to the community surrounding the products that have been released or are in development. Again, I sincerely hope what I have suggested in here will be read and seriously considered by the Zune Team as viable changes and improvements.
I was also impressed that such a Feedback form was provided on the Zune site. A few minutes before I discovered it, I was joking with a friend about how impossible it usually is to find feedback sections for devices such as the Zune. I love irony.
Again, thank you for all of the hard work that has been put into the Zune. It’s an awesome product. However, there are various things about it which keep it from being popular with the masses. I wish you guys good luck with the development of future revisions. I’m certain I’ll return with more feedback at a later time as I want to see the Zune improve.
Regards,
- Adam Reyher
http://www.adamreyher.com
What is Web 2.0?
August 20, 2007 at 3:23 am in internet, standards, web development Comments (2)
If you’re at all a common browser on the internet, you probably have come across a website mentioning this thing called “Web 2.0.” What is this exactly, and how does it work? There has been much confusion going on surrounding Web 2.0, a lot of fallacies, and a lot of debate among website designers as to its true definition. Hopefully I’ll clear some of these up.
Firstly, let me tell you what Web 2.0 certainly is not. As the name would imply, Web 2.0 is supposedly the successor of Web 1.0. In some ways this is true. However, it definitely does not mean there is some brand new version of the “internet” coming out or that you’ll need to “download” a Web 2.0 browser or anything. We’re still dealing with the same exact internet. Don’t let the so-called version number fool you.
Web 2.0, as I personally as a web designer and technology advocate would define it, is redefining how we look at the way websites work. For example, for the past 15 or so years, the World Wide Web has been nothing but static pages with text, maybe a few pictures, and within the last few years, possibly some Adobe Flash animations or interactive navigations. Still though, for the most part, every website you browse is simply for the display of information, page by page, site by site, everything works by itself and for itself.
Web 2.0, on the other hand, is redefining static web design concept. For example, instead of coding a website to simply display information, how about updating this information in real-time without requiring any Flash, Java, or the user manually refreshing the page? Even moreso, how about allowing users to instantly add information or make changes? Ultimately, Web 2.0 is defining the convergence of internet technology and websites on a global, standard, and non-proprietary level. Everything just works together. Every website isn’t just its own anymore, it’s able to interact with others as well.
I found it very interesting that Steve Jobs recently announced at an Apple conference when presenting iLife ‘08 that iPhoto was “officially Web 2.0 compatible.” I seriously had to laugh at this. Not only did he miss the mark completely, he has a completely warped idea of what Web 2.0 is really trying to accomplish. What Jobs supposedly meant by saying this was that you are now able to upload your photos directly to your .Mac account. Keyword, there. .Mac. Nothing else. You have to use Apple’s services. For iPhoto to truely be able to take advantage of Web 2.0 technologies, it would have to be able to work with (or work with after installing a simple addon or putting in an API key) other online photos services such as Flickr, or Sony’s PhotoStation, and many others at the mercy of the API’s developers.
The whole point of Web 2.0 is making every website work together and connect with each other seamlessly. It’s not just flashy AJAX programming, live updating, or cool rounded edges. It’s about the convergence of all internet technology into one collective memory. Microsoft gets it (with things such as Microsoft Windows Surface and Microsoft Research’s Photosynth), the open-source community gets it. The mainstream and “talented” web designers get it, but apparently Apple doesn’t. Going off in a slight tangent, Apple will seriously be hurting in the next 5-10 years if they don’t back off of their proprietary mindset and realize everything is going online to the collective memory.
What’s even funnier is people are starting to talk about Web 3.0 when 90% of people don’t even know or give a wooden nickle about what truely is Web 2.0.
New page links when following web standards
August 2, 2007 at 3:12 pm in standards, web development Comments (2)
This question was brought up awhile back when I wrote my Standards of Web Design article. The question comes from Greenweaver
Anyhow, get your own off site links to use a (target=”_blank”) and open any links in a new browser window instead of people having to leave your site, DOh!!
The answer to this, while in technical terms is simple, turns out to be a bit complicated at this point in time. As Greenweaver correctly points out, in order to open up a hyperlink as a new window instead of in the same window, traditionally you would use similar code to the following:
<a href=”http://www.google.com” target=”_blank”>link</a>
In this code example, the target attribute tells the browser where the new link should be opened, whether it be the same window (default if left out entirely), a new window (_blank), or even another frame on the same page. However, in XHTML 1.0 Strict, the target attribute has been removed completely from the standards. So how exactly do we get a new window to open up when clicking a link?
The answer, in short, is two parted. While a new standard hasn’t been put in place yet (which I would very much like to see), the rel attribute has been added in XHTML 1.0 Strict. This is the relationship attribute and describes what this object is or how it should behave in relationship to everything around it. The accepted standard at this point is to use rel=”external” in order to create a link relationship that will cause the page to open in a new window. However, by itself, this will not happen. This just describes the relationship.
In order for the new window to actually open, JavaScript must be used. This is where things get somewhat complicated. In the past, JavaScript use on pages was strictly prohibited, mainly because back in 2000/2001, a majority of browsers barely supported it, let alone few users actually had it turned on for security reasons. Times have changed. Not only do all major browsers thoroughly support JavaScript, an extreme minority of users switch it off purposely. So in effect, JavaScript is perfectly acceptable to use in small quantities.
However, the complications arise mainly with popup blockers. Built in blockers, such as those in Firefox, IE7, Opera, or Safari, do a perfectly fine job at being able to understand when a link was physically clicked by the user and to allow that popup. Other third-party vendors are a different story. Sometimes they won’t allow any form of a popup to show. The good news is these are few at this point, so again, I wouldn’t worry too much about those users.
Anyway, the JavaScript code to grab the rel=”external” attribute and open it in a new window should look similar to this:
function externalLinks() {
if (!document.getElementsByTagName) return;
var anchors = document.getElementsByTagName(”a”);
for (var i=0; i < anchors.length; i++) {
var anchor = anchors[i];
if (anchor.getAttribute(”href”) &&
anchor.getAttribute(”rel”) == “external”)
anchor.target = “_blank”;
}
}
window.onload = externalLinks;
Put this code in a file and name it something like rel_external.js
In order to load this, put the following code in your head section.
<script type=”text/javascript” src=”/rel_external.js”>
</script>
All in all though, the question arises, why should the web designer dictate how a hyperlink to an entirely different page opens? With modern browsers which have tabbed interfaces, it should be up to the user how the new window opens. I would very much advocate not using this method and having all external hyperlinks open in the same window if even if they have to navigate away from the site. And indeed, on this site, you’ll notice no links open in a new window.
Why? Those are the standards without having to resort to JavaScript, and ultimately, it’s the user’s decision, not mine.
Standards of Web Design
January 28, 2007 at 8:30 pm in standards, web development Comments (7)
Let’s be brutally honest: there are thousands upon thousands of websites out there which look horrific. They’re just flat out bad. Now, different websites serve different purposes. It’s perfectly okay to have flashy graphics on, let’s say, a gaming site. It’s perfectly acceptable to have pink text on, let’s say, a site about flowers. But there is a point where it has its limits.
Let’s dissect this a bit more by giving a few examples of a bad site, and a good site. Hopefully the people who own the bad sites don’t see this post! Actually, I hope they do so they can use my points to clean them up a bit.
First off, this website is an absolutely horrible site. Just look at it and be honest. Now, granted, the purpose of the site is to provide straightforward information and not have a lot of hoopla surrounding it. While it accomplishes getting that information on the page, what it doesn’t accomplish is giving that information in an organized and somewhat easy to read fashion. The page in question fails on all counts and in all aspects miserably.
So let’s tear it apart. And I’ll do so with a large set of web design guidelines. Now, I don’t claim to be an expert at web design. I know people who are absolute gods compared to me with what they know and can pull off. But I do know a fair share, and I certainly know what looks good, or rather, what absolutely doesn’t look good.
Here we go:
1) Never ever use Times New Roman as the page’s font
In the realm of fonts, there are two main types of font categories: print fonts, and display fonts. Times New Roman (TNR) falls in the print font category. When you pick up your average text book or even novel, what you see is TNR or some variant of it. The purpose of TNR is to be printed out. Quite simply, it looks good on paper and is easy to read.
So why do we see it so often on websites with bad designs? The reason for this is, at least on Windows systems, TNR is the default font in most browsers and in the operating system itself (MS Word, Wordpad, etc). When someone puts text into an HTML document and slaps it up on the web, if they don’t define a font, it 95% of the time will show up on a browser’s computer as TNR. Other print fonts include Arial and Courier (New). Windows Vista (primarily Office 2007) will release a new default print font, Calibri, which, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful print fonts I’ve ever seen. Never use it on a website, though.
On the other hand, there are what we call display fonts. Again, quite simply, most of these fonts were designed with a screen in mind. They’re easy to read on screens, simple, straight forward, and blend well with virtually any site design. The most popular font in this category is Verdana, which happens to be the default font on this site (and most well designed sites for that matter). Other choices include Helvetica and Tahoma.
Font choice is a must. Use what’s proper and I won’t trash your site. And remember … never EVER use print fonts on a site unless it is absolutely essential to that particular design. A few exceptions to this rule will come out in following points.
2) Please don’t use font sizes larger than necessary
On a well designed site, most often you will see Verdana being used, and the font size of the main content will be 11px. 10px makes you have to strain to read, and 12px screws everything up. 11px is perfect. Use it.
For headings, using a larger font size is perfectly acceptable. But remember, keep heading wordiness to a minimum, and never let the font size go above 20px. Usually 16-19px is standard, depending on the site’s design. It also depends on the font choice for headers. With Verdana, I wouldn’t push it past 16px. With other fonts, such as Georgia or Lucida Grande, 19px is usually the best choice.
Now, let me hold it right there for a second because I know someone is going to say “But wait! Georgia is a print font.” And this person would be 100% correct. Georgia is, indeed, considered a print font. However, remember the exceptions I mentioned above? This is one of them. When creating headers, occasionally using print fonts is okay. But again, the rule of keeping the wordiness applies as this is what tends to cause your eyes to bug out when reading print fonts on a screen for an extended period of time. However, as per the first rule never, ever use TNR on your site. Header or no header. Don’t do it! Georgia and Lucida Grande are perfectly acceptable as header fonts.
Second point on headers: They don’t always need to be a larger font size. In many cases (indeed, in this very article), headers can be accomplished simply by making the text stand out on its own, such as bolding (as in this article) or underlining it. However, as you can see from the title of this article, it is, infact, a larger size as it is the main header (not sub header).
3) We’re tired of the standard straight blue link text. Stop it.
It’s true. I cringe whenever I see the standard blue text on a site. Especially if said site is in TNR font and is more than 11px, like our friendly example site.
I read an article a while back that suggested to use this link color for the very reason that people have become accustomed to it, so they can easily recognize a link. And while he brought up a good point, there is one other thing I believe he missed. People are not necessarily used to looking for that particular font color. What they are, in fact, accustomed to looking for is text that significantly stands out from the rest of the page. It doesn’t have to be underlined. It doesn’t have to be that straightforward blue.
On this site, my link colors are blue. However, they are not the blue that is standard. What they are is a color that stands out from the background and the rest of the text so it can easily be distinguished as a link. As long as it flows with the sites design and stands out greater than anything else on the page, you have free reign here.
Also, some type of hovering effect is essential to link text as it confirms to a browser that, indeed, it is a link. On this site, I chose to darken the color and add a dotted underline. Plain underlining is just too blah!
4)Clashing color text is a no-no
I’m sorry. Puke-green text on a pink background is not a good design. Period. When designing a site, the colors you choose are vital to the appeal and organization of said site. At most, 3 colors are to be used. You may have up to 6 total (ie, slight variations of those 3 colors). On this site, there are a total of 5 colors: red, black, and blue, and 2 shades of gray. That’s it. White typically doesn’t count. I’ll be brutally honest with myself, here. I actually used a bit too much color variation on this site. It clashes a bit too much for my tastes. It is what it is, though.
Point being: Use as few colors as you can get away with, and please be sure said colors do not clash! And stay away from the reddest of reds, the greenest of greens, and the bluest of blues as color choices.
5) Tables are a thing of the past. Please move on to block-level elements such as div layers
I won’t pound this point too much since it’s not an absolute and requires a significantly greater knowledge of (X)HTML and especially CSS to pull it off successfully. Case in point, tables are not supposed to be use for aligning page elements. While this can work, it in a lot of cases doesn’t work well, especially cross-browser/platform and on different screen resolutions.
However, using tables like on the site I linked is an absolute no-go. It’s ugly. It’s too big. It requires your eyes to move too much. The borders are too big and distracting. It’s horrific. End of story.
6) Place items on a page where they can be easily seen, read, and accessed
Multiple studies have shown that you have under 2 seconds from the time someone sees your site until they have made their decision of whether or not it’s a viable source of information. Reasons it could fail this time-test are many. The main one is content placement; where is the information on the page?
You want to make the most important information the first thing a visitor sees when browsing the site. This, in the past, meant it was dead center on the page. And while this was, indeed, very true on lower screen resolutions (ie, 800×600 and below), it is most certainly not true on 1024×768 and above. For primarily text sites, this needs to be about 1/3 of the way towards the center of the screen. An example would be this very site. The content is not dead center, but it’s not all the way to the left. It’s closer to the left than centered, though.
However, there are exceptions to this rule. The point is to get the visitor to see that all-important text. If there is something else, for example, a header image or picture above that text that will instantly draw the visitor’s eyes to that section of the page, it’s alright.
Case in point: The visitor must not have to do more than 2 seconds (primarily less than 1 second) worth of searching to find the important content.
7) Simple is beautiful
Again, every individual site has its own purpose. Gaming sites need lots of pictures. Sites on why you shouldn’t take that new prescription are mainly text based and the goal should be to make that text content extremely easy to read. However, when designing sites that need pictures, please do so with care. Never over-do it. And said pictures need to be placed in an organized manor. One site that does this really well is Gamespot. It’s very crowded, but it is, indeed, organized!
In the past, every web designer was competing by seeing who could make their site the coolest in terms of flashiness and graphics. This was the big boom of entirely Flash-based websites. In recent years, web designers (at least the good and respected ones) have stepped back and realized all this stuff was only hurting the visitors. People want a nice, clean, organized, and appealing design that they can read without having to physically strain their eyes.
Now days, “Simple is beautiful” is the motto of web designers. Keep it as simple and clean as possible, but balance it with just enough graphics and color to keep it interesting and appealing to the eye.
And now for the conclusion. The one site that has stood out to me for the past 3 years as the best designed site I have ever seen is that of the 2004 PGA Tour Championship.
It’s beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. The colors flow so perfectly. The font choices are wonderful. There is just enough graphics to appeal to the visitor and give words in pictures. The content is so organized you can find exactly what you want immediately. The 2005, 2007, and 2008 sites are just as wonderful, perhaps even better in some areas (2006 was a bit lacking, in my opinion).
I go back to those sites almost nonstop when I need an example of how to do things right. They’re almost perfect.
In summary, my 7 standards:
1) Never ever use Times New Roman as the page’s font - Verdana and Tahoma are standard
2) Please don’t use font sizes larger than necessary - content should generally be 11px, headers no more than 16-19px
3) We’re tired of the standard straight blue link text. Stop it - All it needs to do is stand out from the rest of the text
4) Clashing color text is a no-no - Choose colors that go nicely with each other. No more than 3 primary colors on a site, no more than 6 total (including shades)
5) Tables are a thing of the past. Please move on to block-level elements such as div layers - Tables are made for information, not layouts.
6) Place items on a page where they can be easily seen, read, and accessed - Remember, you’ve got 2 seconds before someone decides your site is useless
7) Simple is beautiful - Flashiness is so 2001. We’re in 2007. Live like it. Make simple websites.
Have more standards? Please feel free to add them. I’m sure I’ll think of some others myself…
-
Subscribe »
-
Search the Site »
-
Meta »
-
Archives »
-
Blogroll »
RSS