Layout suggestion

[Anonymous]

Poor Richard. He keeps having to make the same post regarding the separation of content and presentation. I'd be getting extremely annoyed with him by now, but for the fact that I strongly agree.

Thank you. Other wise you end up with coprotentsentation!

[COBOLdinosaur]

We use what we have. I can't tell my visitors they don't get a menu until 2009 when the W3C releases a new standard and the major browsers embrace it.

I agree that we use what we have... and we have a dozen other ways to do menus without mis-using ul and creating downstream maintenance problems.  There is a whole toolbox available, but when you like to use a hammer; everything starts to look like nail.

You can't serve me the same content you will serve a screen-reader, it would be like explaining to me quantum physics using kiddy language.

Perhaps that is just semantic error on your part because if you actually intended to say there needs to be a difference in content, then it indicates a lack of understanding of the seperation of presentation and content that is basic to modern web design.  The whole issue revolve around delivering exactly the same content to all users.  In some cases it is necessary to do alternate presentations; but most of the time all it takes is an awareness of how things will respond to different client interfaces.  

When you build a building, you do not need seperate entrances for wheel chairs you just have to use ramps instead of stairs and make sure the doors are wide enough. That does not interfere with those who can walk, and in fact making the build accessible almost always improve the quality for everyone. Creating a menu that is easy for a reader to handle does not require seperate presentation, and it does not reduce the quality of the presentation for the sighted.  All that is required is for the developer to be willing to do a little extra.  When you look at the coding on accessible pages you generally find very high quality because accessibility devices require validated code; whereas the average off the shelf browser has a high tolerance for trash code.

You need to define your target users.

Based on what demographic?  The target is already defined as narrowly as necessary. The target user is anyone who need help and technical support in the topics that we have Mentors to support. What further narrowing of that do we need?

it is your job to support everybody, not neglect a majority to support a minority.

Which is exactly what I am advocating. You again seem not grasp that you are mixing presentation and content.  There are three parts; you seem to think there is one. Content for the most part is a server side responsibility. Whether it is static pages, dynamic generation from scripting, or advanced data manipulation using xml/xsl or apps. There should not be a need to know about the client. Structure is basic markup, whether the tagging is HTML, XML, or VML it simply defines the structure so the browser knows what kind of containers to put the content into; it does not need to know the content or nature of it beyond what is the intrinsic behaviour of the given tag. It is only in the presentation layer where we have to deal with devices, special needs, and compatibility issues. The flaws in the mix are easily seen with list based menus where you see CSS that has to define rules based on structure with rules like:
ul li ul li a:hover{...  the presentaion layer should not need to know the structure, and should not need to know anything about the content.

How could you discuss design without professional grip of the basic concepts?

There is a thing called theory. That is what they teach you in school.  It is what you will find in most books.  It is what most certification exams are based on. That theory is merely the starting point.  There are some who manage to go through a whole carreer and never come out of the cocoon that they built in school.  They make a living. They get by because they have basic skills.  Most somewhere along the line; 2 years on; 5 years; 10 years; run across THE project or task or team that brings them outside the cocoon where they have to abandon, extend, or redefine the "holy scriptures" that they learned. For some, it is a traumatic experience that they withdraw from and they deadend; for others it is the freedom to explore their capabilities and put their mark on things.

When you reach that stage you will understand that in your rant about what is important you left out the single most important thing; standards.  You fail to mention or consider them.  Web development is not ART, it is engineering. It is a precise technical endeavor. The challenge it to make requirements work within a set of guidelines and standards; and the real skill that comes not from books but from experience is knowing when anf how to extend and tweak the standards without breaking anything; but I guess in some ways art is more fun, than writing correct code.

PHP team...

As Matt said they have a secure area to work in; they have much more access to server resources than any other group, and they have security resposibilities.  It would be irresponsible to have public access to the areas where they are working.  They manage themselves and I have not had to be very involved other than giving them requirements, and asking for help when I screw up some of the code with changes.

I came here looking to get away from the Nazis "over there" and I find a similar agenda running this show.

From what I have seen, the people who bring what's "over there" here do it because they cannot let go of what's "over there".  This is a different place with different goals and objectives; and a much different destination. This is not some kind of competition to see who gets the points.  There are a group of us building a site.  Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. I make decisions and do stuff because that is my role.  The site exists because I decided to build it.  There are other people contributing their time, effort and ideas because they think what I want to do is a good idea and they want to be a part of it.  I guess there are still some who are here because they don't like it "over there"; but that is a negative, and we seem to accomplish more dealing with what can be here; instead of thying to be a clone minus what we don't like about what is "over there".

I've been sticking around to lend a hand with the layout which is the part that needs the most help, hoping that the day will come when we can let the nonsense rest and put actual working ideas on the table.

You seem to be missing something.  We are already putting pages up.  There is not much more we are going to do with the forum layout, and we have started putting pages up on the content side; and we have opened a preview.  Is what we have the final look? Don't know; it is evolving. If you are waiting for someone to hand over responsibility for design to you...

There are groups working on various parts of the site and providing pieces of what is needed.  The people making decisions are the ones you have stepped in to lead the efforts; and contribute.  Some times they don't care much for the requirements I give them.  Sometimes I say no to something they want to do; but they have the chance to do something and try somethings as part of a team. In the end, I'm the quarterback; so I call the plays, but it is a team effort.

What has to get done will get done; because I will do whatever no one else is doing; and in a lot of thing there are people who can do it better, but there is nothing that I can't do myself if I have to.  No one is helping because they have to.  No one is contributing content because they have to.

Your lack of involvment and input on the graphics layout side is by your choice.  I would really like you involved there, but the final word on what goes on the site is mine.  I have a topic posted asking that links to sites get posted based on definitions liks "clean professional looking".  There are as many different presentaion formats as there are people responding; exactly as I expected, because no matter what the books tell you, there is nothing in presentation design that gives a site broad appeal. It is a matter of taste and perception. There is no such thing as a design with wide appeal.  There are technically well done pages and those tend to rise to the top because in the end the user does not really care much about how it looks, if it works well for them.

Firefox has an extension called Stumble.  It is an interesting way to explore design by going to random pages based on broad definitions of interest.  The pages get presented because people of similar interests have recommended them.  Try stumbling around with preferences set to your actual interest, and also set to things that don't interest you a lot; then see what it does to your peceptions of how layouts should be done. You will find that most of the time when you like a page it has very little to do with the layout.  When you run accross pages that you don't find much of interest you be more likely to not like the layout; and the same layout on two different pages will rate differently based on how much you liked the content.

[Esopo]

Arghh!! Cd&, discussing layout with you sometimes feels like banging my head on the wall.

You keep accusing me of the same inaccurate things. One is that I want to merge presentation and content.
Where the hell did you get that ridiculous idea from? You have been repeating the same statement since our first useless discussion and since day one I’ve been trying to help you understand I am here trapped discussing GRAPHIC DESIGN principles. NOT CONTENT, GRAPHIC DESIGN. NOT CONTENT, BUT GRAPHIC DESIGN. NOT CONTENT, BUT LAYOUT AND GRAPHIC DESIGN.
Content you say? No, not content, graphic design - layout and presentation.

What? What was that? Content? No, not content. Graphic design. And layout.

Now, hopefully with that out of the way for the last time (hopefully – if this keeps up you are going to make a religious person out of me), let us discuss GRAPHIC DESIGN. No content, just graphic design.

GRAPHIC DESIGN – Designing graphics (simple enough)
Graphic – anything that our minds interpret as a dot, line, shape, etc.

Graphical elements:
- Pictures (simple enough)
- Type
- Shapes, bullets, buttons ,etc

LAYOUT – The placement of graphical elements on a canvas

What is content? The elements that we place on the canvas. The pictures, text and shapes.

Why use layout? Why not just throw stuff in there?
For the same reason notes are carefully planned together to make music. In modern music there are only 12 notes, yet every song you hear is different = Layout.

Is Layout important? Yes. Stop saying it is not. Yes it is. Don’t say “the layout on some of the best sites suck and it doesn’t matter” that is pure bull crap. Do you honestly think graphic designers are around to self indulge in artistic endeavors? WTF? That is not just dumb, that is insulting. Stop insulting me and my craft.

I’m here because I want to help. For fights, I can go somewhere else. There are plenty of people ready to call me names elsewhere. And there are plenty of places I could be having more fun attacking people. If you want me to stop, just say so and I’ll go away. Else, I’m going to stay here deciding whether I keep posting about layout in this apparently masochistic fashion that seems to go nowhere, or just shut the hell up and go away by myself. I must say, after 50 pages of going at it with no result, I’m leaning towards the latter.
At this point it won’t take much to make me go away, just tell me to piss off and you won’t have to deal with me again.

BTW, comparing your agenda to that of a Nazi was about your dictator-style decisions about layout/graphic design, a craft you have not shown any understanding of, nor respect; and also about me thinking you have decided to keep me off the development threads. And thinking this was a democracy… where the hell did I got that ridiculous idea?

I obviously have a problem with something don’t I? Call it “OpenSource heart”. The reason I keep writing articles for magazines and help people in free forums. Maybe I was born in the wrong century, but I believe in helping people and I thought this site was meant to tackle that same belief, hence I feel I should fight a little to help it grow.

[COBOLdinosaur]

[qoute]Where the hell did you get that ridiculous idea from?[/quote]

It is prety hard not to get that idea when you post that I will have to delivery different content based on what device you are using.

You still fail to undestand the basic abtraction; and make no attempt to understand it.

This demonstrates that you are still strugling with what content is:

What is content? The elements that we place on the canvas. The pictures, text and shapes.

Wrong that is part of the physical presentation model. Content is and must be an abstraction.  Presentation gives it a physical presence.  The artifacts you list are presentation elements.  They may by a concrete representation of content but they are not content.

The content of any page is an idea or a message; in many cases a token. The user may go away with some physical representation of the content, a printed page, a jotted note, a bookmark or a pilferd image; but without any presentation they can still go away with the content itself.

The content of a news item is not a bunch of text and a picture. The content is an information token.  If the user reads the news item with or without presentation they receive the token; they get what they came for.  With or without presentation.  How can content be delivered without presentation?  The same way it has been done on computer screens for 40 years, with simple structural tagging.

This delivers the token:

Code:

<html><head></head><body><h3>my content</h3><p>content1</p><p>content2</p><p>content3</>
</body></html>

So might a page with 3 stylesheets, a whack of scripting, 40 graphics and a gee Whiz dazzling "layout". Will the plain text get read?  Will a content message be heard over the din of a technicolor page full of distractions?

I keep saying there are three parts, not 2, between content and presentation there is structure.  The structure is in the form of basic markup.  It does not matter if the tags are HTML, XML, VML or something else.  Structure needs to remain seperated from content, but has no reason to exist except to make a physical manifestation of the content possible.  Content cannot be delivered in a readily usable and concrete format without structure on the presentation side.  The structure becomes the interface.  The issue when developers and designers disagree about how to present the concrete form of the content, centers on where you start; and where you end.

There are two options: You start from the design and use structure to support the design; or you use structure that guarantees correct delivery of the content, and the design is applied to enhance and support the content structure.  Before we side track on the phrase "correct delivery of the content" let me repeat content is an abstraction.  We are talking about correct delivery of the idea, message or token. We are definitely not talking about the physical presentation of the the idea, message or token.

Neither the designer not the developer can know the "correct delivery".  Only the creator of the content and user receiving it know the ideal presentation.  In the absence of advice from the author, we can try and get information from the user, but we are asking them to predict their future behaviour and desires.  The situation is easier for developers. Basic underlying structure always delivers the content, and they start there and add enough to get where they think it is the correct presentation.  If you start from the design it becomes a matter of how much do you have to take off before you get down to correct presentation.  To complicate it the designer already has a substantial investment in time before the tearing away begins, so they will resist it.

The basic problem we have is that we want to start from different ends. It is the kind of disagreement that happens all the time and the client has to make the calls.  In this case I am both the developer and the client.  So the developer is going to win out.  The best you can do is propose or demonstrate alternatives that will move closer to what you want to do, but lightweight enough that I will accept; or sit back on the assumption that you are right and you will get to say "told you so" at some point.

If you want me to stop, just say so and I’ll go away.

No, I don't want you to stop.  I am hoping that as some point you get tired of talking and decide to get involved in making the layout better; even if it is not what you want.  I don't have any problem handing you something and giving you control of it, as long as yuo understand that in the end it is going to have to be to my requirements. The thing I am not going to do is let you do it the way you want to do it because, I have not seen any indication that you have the level of respect for the content that I want it given.
 

At this point it won’t take much to make me go away, just tell me to piss off and you won’t have to deal with me again.

I am not a fool so I am not going to do that. You have a lot to offer, and I would rather continue fencing with you in the hope that you will decide to put down the sword and attack the problem, instead of me.

BTW, comparing your agenda to that of a Nazi was about your dictator-style decisions about layout/graphic design, a craft you have not shown any understanding of, nor respect; and also about me thinking you have decided to keep me off the development threads. And thinking this was a democracy… where the hell did I got that ridiculous idea?

Well there are three thing in one there.  One. Arbitrary decision are what managers do.  I would have preferred that those with expertise demonstrated enough adaptability, to work within the limits of the requirements, and then be in a position to make some decisions.  It did not work out that way, so I did my job as the manager or project leader or whatever, and made arbitrary decisions.  I have not had to make many of those kinds of decisions outside of graphics/layout, because someone has picked up the leadership and taken on much of the decision making in other areas.

Two.  I have not done anything to keep you off of anything. I have gone to great lengths to not pursuit and recruit people to work on this site.  When people indicate they want to help, and offer something, I accept it and I encourage them to continue participating; but this a voluntary project, and people should be here because they believe in it, not because they feel pressure.

Three.  Democracy is not chaos.  Democracy is not stopping to vote on every minor detail. We still don't have a democracy.  We have a site being built using democratic principles for some processes, but we will not have a democracy until we have a site in whch a democratic community can dwell.

One final thing.  You are not going to do much to promote a democracy if you call people Nazis because you don't like the decisions they make.  If you have an issue with a decision then attack the decision instead of the person, and it might find that they listen to all your arguments instead of stopping at the inflamatory personal references. You are articulate enough that you are capable of communicating with a better choice of words and phrases.  I understand there is some passion in your position, but you will gain more ground if you are a little more careful with how you say thing. Believe me if anyone knows about saying the right thing the wrong way it's me.

[Esopo]

Maybe we are making progress. Perhaps if we could yell at each other face to face we could deal with this in one sitting. :D

I'll reply tomorrow (need some sleep), but my main problem is that we disagree in basic matters. I partially do CMS systems for a living so I don't need preaching about the importance of separating presentation (hell, I ran the websites for two newspapers, that was over 200 articles per day, 7 days a week). Our difference is in the way stuff should be delivered, that's why I want to keep the discussion in the realms of  presentation.

I'll post back later.

[Anonymous]

In an aid to re-direct this potential all-out-war, can we clarify some terms so we (ok I) have a better understanding of what is being discussed.

Token The idea - a book about a boy who is a wizard and didn't know it.
Author Creates content - Harry Potter and The Philisopher's Stone.
Presentation Physical construct - The book on the shelf in Waterstones.

Token - We want to tell users about some current best-practise for data abstraction and data persistence.
Author We now have a series of articles dealing with the current best-practises for data abstraction and data persistence.
Presentation We can create a PDF, a web page with LOTS of functionality (things like split screen viewing of code in execution combined along side author's notes on what the code is doing - sort of like a verbal debugger or in document navigation - like PDFs can have), a simple print-ready version with as little of the site additional stuff as possible. A chopped up mini version for PDAs with more smaller pages or even a plain ascii version for emailing.

If this is the sort of thing we are trying to achieve?

It seems that for the most of us Token (as I understand it) is part of the Authorship aspect. I think for the main we "get" that without it having to be explained. Maybe CD works in an area where he has to constantly ask people WHY they are writing that article? Who is going to read it?

In that case, then I sort of understand the POV, but for us, here at this place, we already have the token - we want to communicate, education and enhance the lives and work practises of anyone who is prepared to listen and to do this in a democratic and community way.

Our Tokens are going to be, in the main, created by our Seekers. I've been doing my job for so long now, I've no idea what someone who is just starting out is going to want to know. I was self taught.

Our Authors will be the Mentors who have enough word craft to construct readable articles from the mentoring that is done.

The Presentation will be generated by the web server to fit whatever criteria the user wants. If they want a PDF, they will get the best bloody PDF going. It will have all the nice thumbnails and navigable indexes you can throw at it. If they want a web page, then the page will have in page navigation to allow a user to jump around the document quicker. If they want it as an email, then the plain text version will exist with sensible section and paragraph numbering to allow in document jumping using those numbers (a bit like the McAfee "What's In This Release" documents).

But, to a degree, this concept is probably a bit "high". The practical aspects are things we ARE already doing. It is like software design patterns. We do things a certain way to solve a problem. Suddenly someone gives it a name and it is somehow all different. Nope. Just a name. Some of the names conceal some VERY good ideas.

When I go on about separating content and presentation, I'm NOT the one generating the content! That is the author's job. Whether the content is GOOD content or not, is the job of the Editor to decide/recommend/etc. It would be my job to offer the critique on technical accuracy, but not the stylistic approach used.

The physical presentation will be provided through a series of optional styles. Some may want the bells and whistles, others will want less. Other MAY want nothing but plain text! Not an issue. We can do it all. Hey, we may even have the capability of allowing users to grab the feed and style it themselves!

We will NOT be presenting different content for different users, just presenting the content differently.

[COBOLdinosaur]

I ran the websites for two newspapers, that was over 200 articles per day, 7 days a week).

ERT is not a newspaper, very little of our content is news.  When do use newsfeeds then presenting it in news format makes sense.

Newspapers use a lot of narrow columns.

Magazines use a mix of columns and full width.  The columns generally are wider than in newspapers.

Books mostly use full width.

Business documents and presentations not only use full width most of the time, they even go full width with landscape format sometimes.

Structurally there is a huge difference in a newspaper and a technical repository like w3c.  That is why there are different stuctures to carry the content, and why the presentation issues are very different.

If a site wants to look like a newspaer or other news source then a three or four column layout is appropriate.  If a site wants to look like a data repository, link farm or portal then table based layout makes sense.  If a site want to look like a quick hit full of small bits of info, then the best choice is the use of a lot of bullet lists.  If site want to be seen as a very academic formal and definitive source of information, then they want that dry black on white, no frills document look. If the site is ERT; and we want to be seen as a place of learning, collaboration and inovation, then we need a look to say that.  So we start with a pretty conservative looking forum.  Then for the content area we go to a full width format, with elements inserted in the text (quick facts, related items, link collections, and illustrations).  That gives it a textbook look without making it look like an academic format.  That allows very broad variations in presentations; another trait of textbooks and other learning materials.

What we are presenting are documents, learning materials, examples (lots of code), opinion pieces, and a few news items.  The news items should be structured for what they are; and so should everthing else.  Good content and correct structuring are worthless if they are butchered by using templates from The New York Times or CNN.  Code examples that end up getting wrapped across three lines in a narrow column don't have a lot of value as a means of communicating with examples.  Narrow columns pretty much limit us to not being able to demonstrate much beyond helo world coding.  How do I do a java article in a narrow column if I have to include a line of code like
batchLogger loger1 = new batchLogger(ioConnectFactory(bat101.pathParse(usecurrent().toBuffer(lastBuff).toString()));

Other formats can run into space limitations and they are negatives to go with there positives, but narrow news style columns are about the worst possible choice technical training materials which is the primary content type; and the design needs to grow up out of the necessary structure, not crush down and strangle it with ornamentation.

I made an earlier comment about having a hammer makes everything look like a nail.  So maybe the problem is you know how to do news layout so everything looks like news. You need to work with a variety of structures; from the structure up to the design.  You might then start to understand how much standard news pagination limits the possibilities.

[keneso]

I read Esopo's comment, and I think "hey, this makes sense", then I read Cd&'s comment and I think "hey, this makes sense", again, I read RQuadling's comment, and I think "hey, this makes sense".

I hope the above makes some sense!   :D

What I am trying to say is that there are many aspects to look at, when creating something, and the secret is to find the right balance between the many elements.

We did miss to talk about the specs, and requirements, before starting this venture, and that is the reason of this confusin.

There are different ways of doing the same thing, that's why there are so many variations of everything.

By my personal experience as a designer, I can say nothing ends up like the first drafts and concepts, that's because engineering, or productive process, or marketing, can, and for sure will, do some kind of reccomendation to change it.
Likewise they will have to come up with new visions, and ways of doing stuff, in order to implement some novelty to the product.

If engineers kept saying "you can't do that" and forced the "creatives" to do stuff like always, we wouldn't have had any progress.

Take a monitor as an example to see the above point, one day someone came up with a drawing of a flat monitor, then engineers started to use their creativity (yes they are creative people as well) to accopmlish that.

I can go on longer, but I better stop.

I'd like to add a few specific comments:
Esopo,
we all have, time to time, to work on a project we don't agree with its specs, but I think it would be a waste not having your expertise contributing to it.

Cd&
you should loosen up a bit on some of your convictions, I am not saying we should go against the standards, but if we don't try to push, and create new needs we will not have progress.
Furthermore you seem to have some kind of prejudice against some of the standard elemnts as well, because of your personal likes: i.e. absolute positioning, I am not an expert, but my guess is that if the W3 has agreed on it it means you can use it, and the fact you don't like it is only a personal view; though I can understand the reasons you don't like it, sometimes, for the sake of design I might need to use it.

To further elaborate on the latter concept:
you can't force people to use the stuff you make the way you want/like it.
I mean most of the people want/like to see the elements of the page to be exactly where they saw it last time they visited; we may discuss if that is right, or wrong, but that is not the issue here.
The issue is the majority of us is still trying to familiarize with the use, and potential of the web.
And don't take it as granted the fact that people visiting/using ERT will be techs who care only about data; for each mentor, and potential mentor of this site, there will be 50 (trying to be optimistic) who care only to solve some issue, end a project, make a site work for a client, or learn to pass an exam.
After all most people use the tech sites to solve contingent problems, and I think ERT would already be a success if 1 out of 100 visitors will be willing to deepen some topic.

All this to say again, everyone give up a little to get more on a bigger scenario.

[COBOLdinosaur]

I saw an interesting quote the other day:

when the requrements get presented:
The developer says "Yes we can do that but..."
The designer says "Yes we can do that and..."

I guess that is the difference.  The reality of the current ituation is that we have content flowing in and it is going to go on the site.  Anyone who want to have impact on how it goes on the site; what it looks like, and how the pages work just has to tep up and get involved.  

I guess the limiting factor is going to be me, but that is always the way it is, because in the end there is always some pinheaded manager who make the final decision on what gets delivered.  In this I'm the pinhead, and anyone who wants to do something is going to have to show me something that my tiny dinosaur brain understands and can endorse.  In the absence of options I will just do it to work for dinosaurs.

So if someone wants to submit content with a better look and feel just do it and submit it.  If someone has a template they think is useful for some of the pages submit it.  Textbook teory and how other sites look don't do anything to get us closer to putting the site live; we need to put pages up, and 6 months form now if we decide theya are ugly we will change them, but we are not going to wait for the debate to end or will still have an under contruction page 2 years from now.

[Esopo]

Cd&,

You may have misread my last statement about working in a newspaper publisher. I said I ran the WEBSITES, not the print versions. The web is not a suitable format for a 6 - 7 column layout.

-----------

On C O L U M N S

The eye has a “comfort zone” of line-length. It needs visual cues to follow the lines forward and back to the start of the next one. This is basic graphic design principles (layout first week stuff).

There is an optimum amount of words you can put in a line. If you put fewer words it makes the sentences choppy and if you put too many it makes it hard to follow forward and back to the next line.

What is the optimum amount of words to have in a line? It depends on the spacing. You can get away with 20 words per line if your lines are very well spaced (and if your cutting-edge design calls for it). Usually, for PRINT-media columns have anywhere between 5 – 10 words per line. (Go ahead, open up several publications and count the words in the lines).

This, of course, does not escape books and novels. Usually, the kind of formatting you would expect from a book (the physical size of the book and its use of columns) is designed to better fit the content being served.

When a book has a full-page-width column, it features:
- Fonts better suited for wide columns (easy-to-read serif fonts)
- Bigger space between lines
- 7 – 15 words per line depending on the use of the other means (font, spacing ,etc)
(go ahead, compare the words/fonts/spacing in a magazine column vs. a book/novel column)
BTW: I’m writing this in MsWord, which by default uses Times New Roman providing me a somewhat comfortable 17 words-per-line limited by the medium (the “legal” size so widely used in the US – a limitation most publications don’t have since they get to chose their sizes).

So, the use of columns is not determined by the medium, it is determined by the content. It just so happens that the use of columns in different mediums look alike because they have similar content, but the main thing here is delivery. Whatever formatting/style/layout (in graphical terms) is chosen to deliver the content is a decision based on communication.

********
Here is the problem with the screen (internet) using the W3C site as my example (I don’t mean to attack the dear old W3C, but it is an easy target because of how badly its layout/presentation sucks from the graphic design point of view).

http://www.w3.org/

The front page has a 3 col layout, but it features a 1 col full-page-width paragraph at the beginning of the page. That paragraph uses an uncomfortable sans-serif font to deliver a whooping 25 WORDS-PER-LINE on a full-sized 1024x768 screen (one of the main resolutions our target visitor uses); it is barely readable.

Wait a second, I have to go puke…

Ok, I’m back,

Now, at the beginning of the left column, there is a 6 words-per-line paragraph using a serif font (the area is labeled “W3C Supporters Program”). That is completely different thing. Although given the medium I wouldn’t recommend putting so few words in a column because of the chunky way it renders, it makes for a pretty decent read.

These two examples should give you a very good idea of what I am talking about.
A single full-page-width column is a sin, an absolute sin.

Unless you are using XXXLarge text, your column is bound to display more than 25 words per line on a 1024px + screen.

A 3 column layout on the other hand grants a center column of 7-12 words per line (depending on the space allocated, use of font, etc) that fits the “comfort zone” for the human eye.

And this is just talking about the “comfort zone”. I’m not even dealing with navigation issues, etc.

(I’m counting my words here, I know these threads are getting longer and I don’t want to be tiring).

[Esopo]

BTW: This forum we are using right now features an uncomfortable sans-serif font with an equally whooping 25 words per line. Another example of lousy  design ,and of course, complete disregard for basic principles of layout/communication.

That's what I mean when I say it reads "done by a PHP coder" all over it. A third column would seriously improve the situation.

[COBOLdinosaur]

I assumed you were talking about the web sites, not the newspapers.

So now it is time for academic arguments to face the reality of life on the competitive side of the web where what is critical is traffic;  You live or die on traffic.  W3C does not have to deal with that reality they are not a commercial site.  

Let's look at THE successful site on the Internet YAHOO.  I picked them because they spent over a year and $1.5 million re-writing their site to use CSS based layout. There is nothing legacy, or accidental about it.

Change your resolution to 800x600 to start; that is the resolution they favor in ther design as you will see.

The home page is a jumble of links; after all they are a portal. I have my default set to Times Roman but is does not do any good because Yahoo sets san serif fonts (boo); unlike the current ERT home page which does not impose the font. Part way down on the right are news items let's take a look. Well now what is this two column?  A float in the text?  The word counts per line are almost the same as ERT home page, and a similar approach using a float to break up the text.

Hmmmm...  try two or three more,  Same thing it must be the standard way they present things.  Well the word count is going to be too high at 1024 resolution but let's take a look.  Oh! They don't stretch the page.  It is rigid big wide margins on the left and right keep the word count the same, but it does seem an awful waste of available screen. And of course the rigid screen also means if you downsize the window so you can have more than one thing on the screen, you get scroll bars.

Is all their content like that?  Lets try a search. Ah okay that fills the screen two columns just like Google, the word count in the left column is high but I have not heard much condeming (or praise) of the standard Google layout.  Let's back up and look at something else.  Sports ... NFL... ah finally a 3-column layout; but the page has got those big margins on the side. They don't stretch the columns.  I guess they do not care about high resolution.  Back to 800x600 ... perfect fit!.

One of the most successful sites on the internet, and they seem to make their own rules on layout.  They seem to change up layout structure to matth content.  They ignore cross resolution issues.  They use semantically correct structural elements, and resort to a few IE specific hacks to support cross-browser.  The layout is not going to win any design awards.  The coding is not going to win any awards either.

How can they possibly be successful like that?  They don't even present the news in narrow column like the textbook says they should, and they only give token support to high resolution.  If we can do in a week the traffic they do in an average hour, we will be a resounding success.  The reality is the textbooks talk about principles, ideals and theoretic behaviour.  In general users hav not read the textbook.  They don't know that they should not like Yahoo because of its weak design.  Or is it weak?  Did Yahoo just trow money at a re-write, or did they take the to find out what their users really want?  As our users are probably also Yahoo users, maybe using a textbook and theories is not a good as just looking to see what is working for others.  

When I asked for links to professional looking sites, I got a diferent answer from everybody; as I expected.  The funny part is everyones choice for the site they find most useful daily is Google which definitely is not great layout; they just happen to have content that rocks; and they don't need ornamentation; just as Yahoo, Ebay , and most other success constent sources on the Internet have kept plain and functional.


As for the fourm layout.  Nearly everyone who made suggestions on the selection of skins recommended a two column format.  So again the academically correct solution was not what users wanted.  So the near term solution is an off shelf template, and maybe people who don't like it will take time out from debating academic correctness long enough toinfluence the development of the longer term design so it goes in a direction they are more comfortable with.

[ameba]

... 25 WORDS-PER-LINE on a full-sized 1024x768 screen

Did you know that you can control the width of your browser window?
Writer gives control to the reader, and reader can adjust whatever width they want.

[COBOLdinosaur]

Did you know that you can control the width of your browser window?
Writer gives control to the reader, and reader can adjust whatever width they want.

Well put, but there is that school of presentation who believes there is one perfect way to render that is acceptable to all, so no adjustment should be necessary.

After all you can't resize a magazine page so why should you need to play with a perfect layout on a web page.

[Esopo]

Cd&, a quick reply because most of what you posted is based on your wrong conclusions,

>>One of the most successful sites on the internet, and they seem to make their own rules on layout.<<
No they don't. The Yahoo site makes perfect sense.

>>They seem to change up layout structure to matth content. They ignore cross resolution issues. They use semantically correct structural elements, and resort to a few IE specific hacks to support cross-browser. <<
Those rules are the rules of your book, not mine. The Yahoo site fails none of the rules in my book. If browsing the Yahoo site has driven you through a break-through, I am very happy for you, but don't pretend you are teaching me anything or refuting my ideas.

>>How can they possibly be successful like that? <<
You mean by doing things right? Well, how else where you planning to be succesful? Do you really think that "standards" will lead the way and all it takes is a thorough understanding of Xhtml1 + CSS2 and a big bucket of faith?

>>and they don't need ornamentation; just as Yahoo, Ebay , and most other success constent sources on the Internet have kept plain and functional. <<
My wife (fictional character as of yet) doesn't need ornamentation to me either, but I wouldn't mind if she looked like Kim Basinger at the same time that she is winning my heart.
And as a second comment on the matter, I am vauching for absolute funtionality; I just don't think a functional and efficient site has to be ugly. (I don't think either Yahoo or Google are ugly. They look very nice to me.)

Finally, as a third comment now on ornamentation, can you tell the difference of Coca-Cola and Pepsi beyond the marketing strategies? Failing to acknolwedge "ornamentation" as a humongous force is a very absurd mistake.


>>So again the academically correct solution was not what users wanted.<<
The use of "again" would imply you already made a valid point which you haven't.
And about your "users know and they have already spoken" I do not mean to be disrespectful in any way, but when it comes to technical matters most people just don't know what they want. If I had produced exactly what I had been asked for on software and website designs, I would have had to work twice everytime. The job of the designer is to listen to the user, understand what they really want and show them how much better their idea looks when improved - that's why we are supposed to be the "pros".

>>...and maybe people who don't like it will take time out from debating academic correctness long enough toinfluence the development of the longer term design so it goes in a direction they are more comfortable with.<<
Or maybe you are indirectly implying that I want to tilt the path of the design to better fit my personal taste wich would of course be tremendously insulting and rather stupid considering I am volunteering my time to the risk of a constant ill health (given that most of my interactions are negatively-toned debates) - which should be obvious by now.

Ameba,
>>Did you know that you can control the width of your browser window? <<
Yes, of course. But how many people do that? For "standards" evangelists it is very painful to accept that sometimes a fixed width like that in the Yahoo front page is the best way to go. I am not vouching for it for the ERT site, but it serves the purpose of illustration.

Also, the Yahoo site having chosen to fix their layout to 800x600 is a clear sign of professionals not trusting the web nearly enough to let it even grow dynamically.

I am not saying no to any idea, I am actually putting up a fight to let all ideas get an even chance. I don't think we have our goals stright yet.

Where are our Mission and Vision statements? What are we planning to achieve and how? And to a more complicated level, what are our tools and our boundaries? Is "standards" the only thing we are going to go by?

If we had a clearer definition of what we are doing, this so-painfully-long disccusion about layout wouldn't feel like a fight as much as a quest for excellence. Let's do this right based on correct premises. I think this is a feeling shared amongst many here, I wouldn't even bother posting if I didn't think so.