[MacDV] Re: Safari pros and Cons!

[Danny Grizzle]

On 1/8/03 12:02 PM, "Erica Sadun" <erica at mindspring.com> wrote:

> Actually, one *can* write a web page that will display correctly
> in all browsers. But one cannot write a web page that will
> display *consistently* in all browsers.

This is true only for the most rudimentary designs.

One factor that is often not addressed is the psychological factors
involved.

On one hand, modern web design is really a multi-discipline endeavor. For
serious, commercial-level work, you can expect to find:

  1) Graphic designer for visual design, aesthetic appeal.
  2) HTML coder to implement the visual design, write custom
     JavaScript, wire HTML forms together, etc.
  3) Information architect, to conceptualize navigation, scalability
     (consider websites under constant revision like CNN)
  4) Server administrator. Web servers are like automobiles of 1920 -
     each one is fabricated from odd bits and pieces of commercial
     and non-commercial code, custom configured for the specific task
     required for a particular website.
  5) Backend systems programmer. Web interaction with backend databases,
     programming, integration with internal IT systems of client.

On the other hand, individuals tend to struggle with web design, no matter
what their approach:

Problem #1: Web designers limited to selling what they know, not necessarily
designing the best overall web strategy for the needs of the client.

Sometimes, small shops like mine, one person wears too many hats. For
instance, I have a buddy, superb graphic artist, who does a website for his
kid's band. It looks marvelous -- but it is poorly designed for the web. His
work is limited to the sphere of his experience, in this case 100% Flash,
with poor navigation and overuse of new windows as a navigation device.
Furthermore, he really does not understand bandwidth, file size,
compression, or browser experience.

   <http://www.mosseisley.com/>

Problem #2: Clients with limited experience. I used to work at a regional
advertising agency, largest client was a major new car dealer. Whenever we
placed a billboard campaign, we always made a point to secure at least one
sign between the owner's residence and the dealership. We could not justify
this based on merit (traffic count, etc.), but we knew the man needed to see
where his money was going.

Today, I have one elderly client using Internet Explorer on OS 9. He has no
concept of difficulty, and is unable to distinguish between his $12K annual
tourism website effort and that of the State of Texas, which has a dedicated
staff of 30-40 specialized people. His entire evaluation criteria is how
things look on his personal Macintosh PowerBook. If he can see it anywhere
on the web, the expectation is we can do it at no cost, delivering an
identical experience to all web users on all platforms & browsers.

Fact is, budget constraints limit many websites to browser version 3
compatibility, because bleeding edge stuff is extremely intensive for
programmers & compatibility compliance.

I'd love to offer links, but the site is down for annual maintenance
(sponsored program runs on calendar year, first few weeks of the year a
massive effort -- out with the old, in with the new).

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." As true with web design as
anything else.

> The whole point of the
> way markup languages were specified was to allow each browser
> to have control over the output of the description. This, I always
> felt, was amazingly stupid. Time has (I believe) proved me right.
> It's the content providers, not the subscribers, who want to
> determine the look and feel of the content.

I've read the geek logic, and have some sympathies. But these ideas are not
real world, and are blind to the requirements of branding & design.
Furthermore, they do not seem to be implementable, re: CSS2.

People care what clothes they wear, what cars they drive, the impression
they make. Visual clues present in font choice, layout, and information
presentation are a critical element of communication. Style (along with
other non-verbal communication such as body language) says just as much as
substance. Can you tell the difference between MTV and the History Channel
with the sound turned down? I can! The geeks are nearly dead wrong about
content presentation, in effect specifying something selfishly obsessed with
their own needs. If pure unadulterated textual information were the only
requirement --- well, can you show me *any* national magazine with the look
and feel of a legal brief or an Internet RFC?

Real world: this never happens, and it never will.

Why? The public does not want it.

Danny Grizzle