Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 2. Explain in broadest terms _what_ you are trying to achieve at the highest level (NOT "here's _how_ I want this to be, tweak it"). For example, instead of saying "I want three equally sized columns because nobody told me that that design is cr(ee|ap)py, and please color them like pee in a swimming pool while you're at it", tell them "I have three product lines, and I want them featured on the homepage in a simple and straightforward manner".

For non web designers, this article and YouTube video are well worth the 5 minutes:

http://boagworld.com/business-strategy/10-harsh-truths-about-corporate-websites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wac3aGn5twc

Pretty much summarises Andrei's sentiment above.

On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:42:22 -0700, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> CSS." Except that using CSS for layout DOESN'T WORK RELIABLY. With 
tables, I can 
> get 3 columns that are actually 3 columns, not 3 columns that are a 
side effect 
> of bugs in CSS.

If you hate CSS as much as I do take a look at the Blueprint CSS "framework". Its 20 minutes to learn it and the best investment in time you can do.

Hello Nick,

> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com
> http://www.digitalmars.com/dmlogo.gif
> http://www.digitalmars.com/download.png
> http://www.digitalmars.com/library.png
> http://www.digitalmars.com/news.png
> http://www.digitalmars.com/buy.png

where is favicon.ico?

> So at least in FF2 with JS disabled via NoScript, twitter doesn't get
> referenced by the client. Or at least if HttpFox is to be trusted, but
> I've never had a problem with it.
> 
-- 
... <IXOYE><

"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff1d7818cd320c5cd65b3a@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com http://www.digitalmars.com/dmlogo.gif http://www.digitalmars.com/download.png http://www.digitalmars.com/library.png http://www.digitalmars.com/news.png http://www.digitalmars.com/buy.png
>
> where is favicon.ico?
>

I have favicons turned off. (I don't have anything against favicons. I've just come across a number of sites with animating (!!!) favicons (What is this? 1996?). And strangely, FF blatantly ignores my "never animate images" setting for favicons.)

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i8d77c$1bf1$1@digitalmars.com...
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> The layout breaks in anything but the default text zoom.
>
> The annoying thing about this is everyone says "don't use tables for layout, use CSS." Except that using CSS for layout DOESN'T WORK RELIABLY. With tables, I can get 3 columns that are actually 3 columns, not 3 columns that are a side effect of bugs in CSS.

YES!! This is a pet peeve of mine (but then, what isn't? ;) ). I've even been meaning to write up a little article about it. For styling, CSS is, umm, acceptable. But it's crap for layout. And every argument I've seen against using tables for layout has been either extremely minor, questionable/uncited, or just plain bullcrap.

Speaking of, if anyone has links to well-regarded "why you shouldn't use tables for layout" information, please post them. Whenever I get around to doing that little write-up I'd like to try to refute as much as I can. Or be proven wrong before making a bigger ass of myself. Either way :)

 "Brian Hay" <bhay@construct3d.com> wrote in message
news:i8duv5$2nn6$1@digitalmars.com...
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> 2. Explain in broadest terms _what_ you are trying to achieve at the highest level (NOT "here's _how_ I want this to be, tweak it"). For example, instead of saying "I want three equally sized columns because nobody told me that that design is cr(ee|ap)py, and please color them like pee in a swimming pool while you're at it", tell them "I have three product lines, and I want them featured on the homepage in a simple and straightforward manner".
>
> For non web designers, this article and YouTube video are well worth the 5 minutes:
>
> http://boagworld.com/business-strategy/10-harsh-truths-about-corporate-websites

Three trivial knee-jerk reactions to that I can't keep my mouth shut about (And that mint.com site Walter mentioned suffers from the same problems #1 and #2):

1. Are they sure they used enough different fonts? Couldn't they have crammed a few hundred more in?

2. It's a Campbell's soup site, "Big-N-Chunky"! Feel like I'm reading a poster through a peephole. Or using a GTK app.

Web artists often use giant 40+" monitors at five-trillion-by-ten-billion resolution. Apparently some of them haven't noticed that nobody else does.

3. "In most organizations I work with the website is managed by either the marketing or IT department. However, this inevitably leads to a turf war and the site becoming the victim of internal politics."

Obviously this guy's never worked at a place that *did* have a separate web department. If he thinks a separate web department is going to curb site-related turf wars and politics, he's completely off his rocker. Doesn't matter who handles the site, every other department is going to demand the site be bent exclusively to their department's whim. And if the website isn't *completely* separated from IT, then IT will make constant dumbass decisions that will screw over the site programmers.

A lot of the other stuff he says is good though.

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 5. ...
> 
> 6. Profit!

Step 5, sigh.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I have favicons turned off. (I don't have anything against favicons. I've just come across a number of sites with animating (!!!) favicons (What is this? 1996?). And strangely, FF blatantly ignores my "never animate images" setting for favicons.) 

Check out the lovely apple-touch-icon.png you get when you bookmark the site on an iPod!

On 2010-10-04 23:23, Walter Bright wrote:
> Robert Clipsham wrote:
>> As for CSS, it works perfectly reliably, once you know how to use
>> it... Getting a 3 column layout or anything more exciting than
>> content, menu, sidebar is a pain unless you're more experienced with
>> CSS, takes a while to learn the tricks for it. Then, unless you're a
>> web developer, you forget how to do it next time you need to :3
>
> That's what bugs me. Something as straightforward as a 3 column layout
> shouldn't require "tricks" for it. Googling it found 3 pages dedicated
> to explaining this "trick" (each of them wildly different, of course).
>
> One of them was the one I used. Being a "trick", it apparently doesn't
> always work.

I think this site has good CSS tutorials: http://css.maxdesign.com.au/
Here is a tutorial for a liquid three column layout with a header and a footer: http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/tutorial0916.htm

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2010-10-05 01:54, Walter Bright wrote:
> Brian Hay wrote:
>> With all due respect to Walter, as a professional web designer I have
>> to agree with Andrei. It's terrible for all the reasons mentioned ...
>> and more. "1995 programmer art" sums it up.
>
> Ok, but on the other hand, mint.com gets high fives for its home page.
> But I find it to be slow loading, the green-on-green text (near the
> bottom) impossible to read, and the animated text slideshows irritating.
>
> Or maybe I'm just too old :-)

I think it looks quite alright, but I can agree about the green text at the bottom. But I guess that is to be expected from a site called "mint".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg