Poll: Ignorant Customer Explanations

[Zac Hester]

I figured since a lot of us around here design sites for "customers" a lot,
I'd ask a general question that might help a lot of us in the future.

When dealing with clients asking for _professional_ web sites, I am
constantly trying to explain why less is more; that professional-grade web
sites should focus on functionality, usability, and accessibility before you
even think about graphical design and layout. I read a great quote once on
webpagesthatsuck.com that said something like this (paraphrasing):

The ideal web site is one in which the site quickly and easily tells the
customer what to buy, then proceeds to take their wallet our of their
pocket, read their credit card numbers for them, and processes the order in
one click of the mouse.

Of course their use of the word "ideal" means that we will never accomplish
this. I consider it a hyperbole of what we should attempt to accomplish
with web design.

So I always argue that it's better make the page load faster and be more
accessible to people on all different types/sizes of hardware than to load
down the page with graphics, Flash, scripting and other things that just
make the site more "cute." However, when the customer is "always right" and
their competitors have graphically-heavy web sites, they don't know that
their resource can be better than the competitions' through technical
superiority.

I'm a big fan of making the site visually interesting, but I really hate to
see a great web site drowning in GIFs and JPEGs. When I propose a
mostly-text layout, a graphically-light layout, and a graphically-heavy
layout, it always seems that forms wins over function. And, of course,
there are some (very few) instances when having a little client-side script
really can make a site more useful (like displaying multiple colors of the
same product without another trip to the server). It's when the "cuteness"
of these features becomes merely decorative that I start having issues.

So here's my poll:

What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won't work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?

How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).
Here's a short list of some of my reasons:

1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don't do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)
Many thanks to all,
Zac

[Brian]

Zac Hester wrote:

So I always argue that it's better make the page load faster and be more
accessible to people on all different types/sizes of hardware than to load
down the page with graphics, Flash, scripting and other things that just
make the site more "cute." However, when the customer is "always right" and
their competitors have graphically-heavy web sites, they don't know that
their resource can be better than the competitions' through technical
superiority.
It would be instructive to get a dialup connection on an old computer
and load their competitors' sites, if they are indeed bloated.
I'm a big fan of making the site visually interesting, but I really hate to
see a great web site drowning in GIFs and JPEGs. When I propose a
mostly-text layout, a graphically-light layout, and a graphically-heavy
layout, it always seems that forms wins over function.
Of course, well-done css can be quite impressive, imo. I've seen
colored links that change on hover, and again on active; they look as
good as any js buttons with mouseover changes.
What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout?
Not sure how to answer this one. I'm sure it depends on how much time
they spend on the web, what their connection speed is, etc. Last
week, one of my sister's was trying to fill out an online nursing
application. She grew *very* frustrated at the slow load times, and
by the fact that the site did not tell her how many pages she had to
fill out. Thus, she didn't know if she should give up, or if the
finish line was just around the corner. At one point, she exclaimed,
"You know, it would be 10 times faster to just go to the office and
fill out a paper application."

This is not the experience any site owner wants her/his visitors to have.
What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?
I'm going to design a site from scratch soon. First time. Everything
else I've done has been redesigns, which are hard because you're
working with a container that might not be appropriate. This time,
I'm going to design a fully functioning site with no css. Have the
client look at it to check for functionality. Then go over what
changes she wants for the appearance.
How do you describe standards compliance to the customer?
I use human language as an analogy. If everyone who spoke English
made up their own rules, it would quickly become impossible to
communicate within an English-speaking region. We teach our children
grammar and spelling rules so that communication remains possible.

HTML also has rules. If everyone follows the rules, communication is
easy. If the customer's site breaks the rules, then noone will be
certain what they want. They'll have to guess at what (s)he "really
meant," but they might guess wrong. Follow the rules, and there's no
guessing.
1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.

Do you read the ciwa* groups regularly? If so, then you must be aware
of the arguments for simplicity and standards. Use the ones you like.
I like the one about not banishing from a brick and mortar store
anyone who doesn't have a certain brand of shoes.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Vlad Tepes]

[ Followup-To: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design ]
Zac Hester <ne**@planetzac.net> wrote:

[...]

What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout?

How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).

Here's a short list of some of my reasons:

1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don't do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)

A few more points:

6. Advantages of separating content and design:

- Easier to maintain a consistent look throughout the website.

Updating the visual appearance of the site can be done by
editing one or more stylesheets (css-files).

( The alternative is wading through each html-file looking for
elements to change. This is error-prone and time consuming. )

- The pages will look better when printed.
Layout for printing can be specified in the stylesheet.

- The site is usable with a wide range of browsers,
screen-readers and handheld computers.

- Updating contents can be done with any texteditor

--
Vlad

[Philipp Lenssen]

In article <3f********@news.enetis.net>, ne**@planetzac.net says...

So here's my poll:

What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won't work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?

One reason my ex-boss used to promote non-Flash content was to give an
example of a company which created a new homepage in Flash-only. Sounds
good. Except they forgot to allow their company firewall to let through
Flash content, so no employee could see the result.

The irony is that I'm now working on a site where it's just the same
situation. There's heavy Flash in it, but there's just one single
computer in the whole company (thousands of employees) where they can
view it. All other PCs won't allow that. So they have to walk to that
special computer just to see their own homepage!

In general, it works better if you compare management costs and browser
statistics. Say, for 1% of all browsers, we need 99% of all time (in
other words, Netscape 4 and the endless work-arounds). However, there's
a problem if you take over another website, and there's already 50,000
pages of non-validating content. Then you have to add another variable:
time it will cost to convert old content. It might be unreasonable to go
through tens of thousands of old pages and restructure them, and no tool
like Tidy HTML will do the job of converting table layout to meaningful
CSS (in the sense that it will create meaningful class-names, and so
on).

Also, you can list bandwidth costs (CSS caching and so on).
Last not least, download speed and customer satisfaction.

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:35:57 -0600, "Zac Hester" <ne**@planetzac.net>
wrote:

What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout?

It's very difficult to sell "good design" as being "better".

An easier target can be to show where "bad design" falls to pieces.

Show them the text-mode browser effect, on a good or bad site.
Show them browsing by mobile phone, to good and bad sites
Dump them on a Flash splash page with no click-through, from a Unix
browser.

[Andy Dingley]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:57:46 +0100, "William Tasso" <ng*@tbdata.com>
wrote:

we only have a problem when the distinction gets blurred.

Indeed - however the question is not how to avoid this blurring, but
how to recover the current situation which is already blurred.

Any Idiot Can Design Web Pages - after all they've all seen their kids
do it, and they know how easy it is to do it with RuntPage (for big
adverts have told them).

If a client would just get the hell out of my hair, then things go a
lot better. It's the ones who "could have done it themselves, they
were just a bit busy" who are the problem.

[Isabelle]

"Zac Hester" <ne**@planetzac.net> wrote in message
news:3f********@news.enetis.net...

Here's a short list of some of my reasons:

1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet." 2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.

(snip)

I don't usually go into the structure part with clients because all they
usually care about is presentation. With that, my style is simple in look
(minimalist). I still love graphics. Style AND function are equally
important to me and thus my clients because they have asked me to do this
for them. I explain to them what makes a site professional looking and
that's actually a "selling point".

Bottom line, I keep repeating the word, "professional" and that's all that
seems necessary. :)

Client: "Lets put a few banners on the site!"
Me: "In order to keep things professional looking (for your market and
objective), it would be better not to sell someone else's wares but if you
want - we can make an "extras" section or a space off to the side."

Client: "I want dark green text on a black background".
Me: "Professional looking sites usually have high contrast text/background
because it's easier to read."
Client: "I want it that way"
Me: "How about we do white text on a black background with dark green
"hover" links and graphical accent treatments (that are small in
filespace)?"

If the client says no, then I ask them why they are "holding on" and go from
there. It's a dance. Give your clients "options". That's all many of them
want. There are those that want to be able to decide and others just want
you to do all the deciding. Just as a side, there's the great book called:
"The Art of Difficult Conversations" and "Getting to Yes" to help with these
sorts of things.

P.S. I don't have a problem with banners but even when I was designing my
own sites non professionally in 1997, that was my #1 rule - no banners! :)

Isabelle, who is still learning and developing her levels of expertise!
http://www.is.visisoul.com

[Jim Dabell]

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:48:34 +0100, Jim Dabell
<ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:

Dump them on a Flash splash page with no click-through, from a Unix
browser.
Nitpick: I think you mean a text-only browser.

No, I meant a Unix (not Linux) browser.

The browsers I mentioned (Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror) all run on various
forms of Unix.

There are plenty of OS platforms where you still can't run Flash.
I agree. When using the official plugin, the limiting factor is the
hardware (whether it's Intel-compatible or not), not the operating system
though. I believe there is an open-source plugin available too, although
I've heard that it's not as capable as the "real" plugin.

Some companies whose core business involves selling these servers have
been known to buy in corporate portals that won't run on the hardware
they sell, and that many of their own staff use !

Right hand, meet left hand :)
--
Jim Dabell

[William Tasso]

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:57:46 +0100, "William Tasso" <ng*@tbdata.com>
wrote:

we only have a problem when the distinction gets blurred.
Indeed - however the question is not how to avoid this blurring, but
how to recover the current situation which is already blurred.

In a large shop this can be safely handled by assigning a new account
manager. Smaller outfits and one-man-bands must rely on their wits and
negotiating skills.
Any Idiot Can Design Web Pages - after all they've all seen their kids
do it, and they know how easy it is to do it with RuntPage (for big
adverts have told them).
tell me about it - these self same heroes were IT gurus up till last year
too ;o)
If a client would just get the hell out of my hair, then things go a
lot better. It's the ones who "could have done it themselves, they
were just a bit busy" who are the problem.

it's not a new problem though - think motor mechanic or painter/decorator
etc.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com

[Darin McGrew]

Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

Some companies whose core business involves selling these servers have
been known to buy in corporate portals that won't run on the hardware
they sell, and that many of their own staff use !

Yep. My previous employer did that. Benefits open enrollment was a mess
that year, because employees were REQUIRED to use the new intraweb portal;
there were no hardcopy enrollment forms for backup. Naturally, the new
intraweb portal worked only on certain configurations of MSIE. Many
employees didn't have access to Windows boxes, so the company ended up
paying MS for an unsupported version of MSIE that ran on the company's
version of Unix, rather than fix the intraweb portal.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"We are Microsoft. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

[Mikko Rantalainen]

Jim Dabell / 2003-08-29 17:48:

Andy Dingley wrote:

[snip]

Dump them on a Flash splash page with no click-through, from a Unix
browser.

Nitpick: I think you mean a text-only browser. Mozilla derivatives, Opera
and Konqueror can all handle Flash just fine.

Unix != Linux-x86. Try to get your hands on some non-x86 based unix
system and try again. Mozilla, Opera or Konqueror do not support
flash natively but instead use plugins. And it's up to macromedia to
decide which platforms are worth supporting. Do you want macromedia
to decide who gets to see your page content? Do you want to do your
page content *twice*? (That is, once for Flash plugin and another
time for those that cannot get the plugin.)

Also, much could be said about the quality of flash plugin for
Linux-x86. That plugin is barely usable on windows machines, IMO.
Shockwave is even worse.

--
Mikko

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Jim Dabell wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

[snip]

Dump them on a Flash splash page with no click-through, from a Unix
browser.

Nitpick: I think you mean a text-only browser. Mozilla derivatives, Opera
and Konqueror can all handle Flash just fine.

Assuming a processor architechture and OS that the Flash plug-in is
available for. Support is currently spotty for non-i386 architectures (as
mentioned in another thread).

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Jim Dabell]

Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

Jim Dabell / 2003-08-29 17:48:

Andy Dingley wrote:

[snip]

Dump them on a Flash splash page with no click-through, from a Unix
browser.
Nitpick: I think you mean a text-only browser. Mozilla derivatives,
Opera and Konqueror can all handle Flash just fine.

Unix != Linux-x86.

I know. Mozilla derivatives, Opera and Konqueror all work on various forms
of Unix. I wasn't counting Linux, although there are some Unix operating
systems that have a Linux compatibility mode.

Try to get your hands on some non-x86 based unix system and try again.
Why does it have to be non-x86 based? "Unix" doesn't mean "anything but
x86", you know.

Mozilla, Opera or Konqueror do not support flash natively but instead use
plugins.
I know.

And it's up to macromedia to decide which platforms are worth supporting.
It was my understanding that the file format is open.

Do you want macromedia to decide who gets to see your page content?
Do you want to do your page content *twice*? (That is, once for Flash
plugin and another time for those that cannot get the plugin.)

[snip]

No. I don't use Flash. I'm just responding to the assertion that browsers
on Unix cannot do Flash. Plenty do.
--
Jim Dabell

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Jim Dabell wrote:

Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

And it's up to macromedia to decide which platforms are worth supporting.

It was my understanding that the file format is open.

It's not open. You have to agree to Macromedia's license to download a copy
of the specification, and there are many valid reasons not to agree to
their odious license.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Dale Austin]

1) This is my hourly rate.
2) This is how much a simple site will cost you.
3) This is how much an overburdened site will cost you.

$$$$ That's a good start.

Continue by explaining that the hourly rate also applies later on (times
2 or more) for simple changes to the content, which in a simple site, a
"non-professional" could do with any old text editor. Point out that
this amounts to charging them something like $75/word in that fancy
Flash start-up. Smile while you say it, you're in business to make money
by charging the client after all. With some clients that smile will be
enough-they know if you seem eager to charge 'em for the incidentals
it's something they need to reconsider.

If the cost is not an immediate talking point-business is there to make
more than they spend after all-the contemplated site is probably about
ego rather than effectiveness.

If you can get them talking about the goals and deliverables for a
site-in measurable terms-then you have a very effective tool in your
arguments. Better still if you can generate something like a written
list of tasks. Then you can point to a design "suggestion" and ask the
client which goal it is meant to forward, and what evidence they have to
support the claim that it will do so.

Oh, yeah, my "client" is my employer, so I'm screwed even when I can
make these arguments. No amount of reason can supersede "Do it my way
because I'm the boss." (It's a position held in rotation for 5
years-only two left to go, only two left to go . . . )

Dale Austin
"Webmaster" by accident
Boatbuilder by choice
Zac Hester wrote:

So here's my poll:

What reasons/explanations do you use to try and get a technically-lay
customer to go with a more simple and usable layout? Jargon won't work
here. What if the customer is already set on having a "fancy" web site, but
their content warrants a more streamlined appearance?

How do you describe standards compliance to the customer? I like to create
pages that will validate as strict HTML 4.01, but when a customer "requires"
these extra features, sometimes the technology violates "good" document
structure (like "external" links, scripting kludges, proprietary browser
rubbish, frames, etc).
Here's a short list of some of my reasons:

1. Load time of pictures/Flash vs. text. "Not everyone has broadband, yet."
2. Accessibility to different display types and sizes.
3. Accessibility to different/older computer platforms.
4. Backwards AND forwards compatibility.
5. "There are some things you just don't do." (said in reference to
requests for background MIDI, animated GIFs, animated page transitions,
"splash" pages, etc...)
Many thanks to all,
Zac