Please... let me redesign the TTDPatch site...

[krtaylor]

I couldn't agree with you more, Owen. The Internet as it is today is what you get when you place advanced technology in the hands of people not well educated in its proper use, and too lazy to learn...

[Patchman]

- must work 100% without Javascript (i.e. no Javascript navigation)

WHAAAAAA??????? Javascript RULEZ! Are you the saddest person alive or what?

I might be, if you didn't exist. The way things are, I don't think there's a big chance of me claiming that title.

Anyway, Javascript navigation is bad because it means search engines won't be able to navigate your site. Same with flash navigation.

[krtaylor]

Actually, Josef, you are only half right. Search engines cannot see through Flash navigation, that is true. But with frames navigation, it is easy to set up a paralell "noframes" navigation with just the links. That way the search engines can find their way all through your site and index all the pages. That's the way I set up my sites and it works quite nicely.

[Patchman]

I talked about Javascript, not frames. Frames work fine for most search engines, although they do return the sub-frame pages instead of the whole frame.

I mean pages that use link with <a href="#" onclick="javascript:gotopage1()">click here</a>, which no search engine will be able to follow. Often those are links that open a new window (even more annoying), but some "web design programs" do that for regular links as well.

[krtaylor]

Actually, you can rig frames such that the files automatically put themselves into the proper frameset if someone goes there directly, as they would from a search engine. Like this example from my company website:

http://www.as-st.com/index.html?disFr=work.html

Your point about JavaScript links is well taken. But it's silly to use JavaScript this way. I've never found a "web design program" that worked worth beans, I always code them entirely by hand.

[jixor]

Actually, you can rig frames such that the files automatically put themselves into the proper frameset if someone goes there directly, as they would from a search engine. Like this example from my company website:

http://www.as-st.com/index.html?disFr=work.html

Your point about JavaScript links is well taken. But it's silly to use JavaScript this way. I've never found a "web design program" that worked worth beans, I always code them entirely by hand.

I am going to be blunt with you. Your companies site is terrible. If you would like some pointers PM me. I would be happy to send you in the right direction. Try not to be offended but I feel if you are going to run a web design business you should have a basic grounding in web design. Understanding good design will make web design a more enjoyable process and will make your end product far more effective and pleasing. Again sorry to be so blunt, I ask that you choose to see it as constructive criticism.

[Grunt]

...I ask that you choose to see it as constructive criticism.

Frankly, I'd say that it can hardly be called constructive criticism unless you say flat out what you think is wrong with the site. I realize you're willing to share this information with the author of the site but you don't have to tell everyone else that it's a lousy site if you want it fixed... either share it with everyone, or send the author a PM that will get the same point across in a more private matter.
There you go: constructive criticism on constructive criticism.

[krtaylor]

A lot of web designers don't like my site, that is normal because it does not follow the so-called "rules". Clients, however, do, and that's the important thing. Most of my clients come to me after having been dissatsified with the sites previously designed for them. A website is not to impress web designers, it's to please normal people who don't care about what the technology is, they just want to see something nice.

It's also possible that you are using an odd browser. I don't care about the bit-market browsers, I care only about IE and to a lesser extent Netscape because that's what the whole world uses, except for a few techies that use Opera or Konqueror.

The purpose of the Patch site is entirely different, pretty much anyone that goes there already is a techie anyway. And that's fine. I don't have any problem with the Patch site just as it is, I'd like to see more stuff there but that has nothing to do with the design.

I hate to say it, but a lot of web design seems to have become a religious battle between people that were trained in paper-based graphics design and try to force the web to work that way, and people that actually understand the way the web is supposed to work. And, of course, people that really don't understand either, they just read the "experts" and take it as Holy Writ.

I have no problem with criticism, constructive or otherwise, and I would be perfectly happy for you to post it right here for everyone to see. Some may agree with you, or not, but in any case it might be an interesting discussion. I'm not trying to sell YOU web design services

[jixor]

A lot of web designers don't like my site, that is normal because it does not follow the so-called "rules". Clients, however, do, and that's the important thing. Most of my clients come to me after having been dissatsified with the sites...

Its going to be a long one...

However you should still sell a solid product. At the very least you should study accessibility and web standards, these are most certainly not to simply "impress web designers".

Also you should do some usability research, you will find there is a lot of information out there. Just making a few small changes can make the sites you create far more navigable and effective. From understanding the confusion caused by new windows, to understanding how users expect to react with a site. These concepts are not simply some BS dreamed up by a web guru. You will find solid research has been done in this area.

I have chosen not to worshiping the gospel of some web guru, and take the time to really learn these concepts for myself. Remember a lot of experienced people are out there and your clients will benefit from you taking some interest in what they have to say.

Just because you feel that you can get away with your current service it is no reason not to expand your knowledge.

For example web designers don't design sites to be cross browser compatible to impress other designers. They do this because it is very easy and will ensure that a maximum number of visitors can see the site as it was intended. Further that if they visit with a browser not supporting features you have used the site will still be usable, rather than being completely broken. Think of JScript as a good example of how to make your site inaccessible to about 25% of users.

Accept that you design to a rather poor standard and stop making excuses that you don't want to impress web designers because frankly that is bull. You are ripping your customers off and even yourself. Of course you can easily get away with it because there are thousands of small web design businesses out there offering an even worse product, far worse in some cases.

There is no religious batter between paper based and web based. It is simply a battle between people that have put in the effort to understand good design and people who can't be stuffed. You will encounter some extreme points of view quite often and you should take with your own discursion. You will find that even people with extreme points of view usually will have some grounding for their arguments. Take the strongest arguments against or for flash. They usually have some logic behind them. Whether it be to use flash to create a more enjoyable user experience or to not use flash to access a wider audience. It largely depends on who your client is. But at the end of the day regardless of your client you should design for standards, usability, and accessibility. This is simply fundamentals.

Information Architecture for example is a solid consideration, not simple a term thrown around to impress corperates. Information Architecture is a consideration of the way you organise data on a site. It is however not as simple as using conventions such as 'home, about, contact', etc. If you employ good IA principals your users will naturally be able to better find what they are looking for, and that is only for starters.

Basically if you put in a little work you will get big returns. It is not as hard as it may appear. In most cases you will find these concepts to be a case of fairly obvious logic.

So its, use standards, use conventions, avoid unnecessary use of features that may break for some users, consider other browsers, consider IA, consider colour and typography, consider layout, design for accessibility where possible (Really it is always possible if you are careful, accessibility doesn't mean you can't make a nice site.), design sites to be as fast loading as possible (Take css for example, around 98% of users now use a css1 enabled browser. Using css will cut down on page loading times and speed up construction and maintenance. Also it will enable more flexible design. But remember using css doesn't mean you must convert everything. You may use it to simply set page margins and font style, there is nothing wrong with this.), use resources out there (Whether it be to see what else has been designed for similar clients to your current project, to talking on discussion boards when you are unsure about something.), don't shoot down experienced designers so fast, use lessons learned in print (An understanding of design principals in print can be translated into web for great benefit.), don't be scared to try new things (While they may not always be appropriate for current work you may find new and better ways of doing old things.), expand your knowledge of graphics programs (Having a nice looking site is most certainly not pointless, and at the very least think of how happy your clients will be. You will find most clients don't expect their web site to look as nice as a major corporations, but its not hard to do so. Think of the smile on their face ), and how I could go on so much longer but this is already far too long.

====
Also sorry I should have PMed my initial comment.

[krtaylor]

At the very least you should study accessibility and web standards, these are most certainly not to simply "impress web designers".

I assume by "accessibility" you mean worrying about computer readers for the blind, and keyboard navigation for the paraplegics. If I were doing a site for a large Fortune 500 company, I would worry about such things. My clients are generally small and do not have the budget to concern themselves with such a tiny minority of potential customers - they know their target, and make that kind of decision. My sites are an example of the principle that you can get 90% of the benefit for 20% of the work, but you have to pay a whole 'nother 80% to get that last 10%. It's just not worthwhile. This is also known as the law of diminishing returns.

As far as web standards, obviously my sites follow web standards or they wouldn't work at all. However, a lot of the more recent "standards" are, to put it politely, stupid. What reason is there to abandon the well-tested table layout method for CSS which doesn't work half the time? And so on.

Also you should do some usability research, you will find there is a lot of information out there. Just making a few small changes can make the sites you create far more navigable and effective. From understanding the confusion caused by new windows, to understanding how users expect to react with a site. These concepts are not simply some BS dreamed up by a web guru. You will find solid research has been done in this area.

I have to wonder whether you looked at my site. Where exactly do I generate a new window on that site? I avoid them. There are a few circumstances in which they are appropriate, generally ones in which they would also be appropriate in a non-web application - for example, a shopping cart display, or a help screen. Other than that, they are an appalling annoyance and I don't contribute to that clutter. I am well aware with how users react to and with a site, and follow, not the written conventions necessarily, but the ones generally prevailing on the Web which is what your average Joe will be used to from the total of his browsing.

For example web designers don't design sites to be cross browser compatible to impress other designers. They do this because it is very easy and will ensure that a maximum number of visitors can see the site as it was intended. Further that if they visit with a browser not supporting features you have used the site will still be usable, rather than being completely broken. Think of JScript as a good example of how to make your site inaccessible to about 25% of users.

Not 25%, more like 10%, and not the target 10% of most of my clients. See my note above. You can get a great deal of extra usability from JavaScript (as distinct from JScript) which is worth the few and decreasing users that can't or won't use it.

Accept that you design to a rather poor standard and stop making excuses that you don't want to impress web designers because frankly that is bull. You are ripping your customers off and even yourself. Of course you can easily get away with it because there are thousands of small web design businesses out there offering an even worse product, far worse in some cases.

Accept that I understand my customers and recognize that they do not care about getting Every...Last...Customer because they do not have the resources to design for every possible configuration ou there. They choose the peak of the curve, as it were. Your design methodology leads to the lowest common denominator, and that is why so many corporate sites look completely bland and are all but unusable - they avoid anything that might add any extra usability or features, and so it is a confusing, but standards-conforming, mess.

There is no religious batter between paper based and web based. It is simply a battle between people that have put in the effort to understand good design and people who can't be stuffed. You will encounter some extreme points of view quite often and you should take with your own discursion. You will find that even people with extreme points of view usually will have some grounding for their arguments.

Do tell. I have given arguments for my position, and I would be interested in hearing yours, rather than polemics.

Take the strongest arguments against or for flash. They usually have some logic behind them. Whether it be to use flash to create a more enjoyable user experience or to not use flash to access a wider audience. It largely depends on who your client is. But at the end of the day regardless of your client you should design for standards, usability, and accessibility. This is simply fundamentals.

This is an excellent example. It's interesting that you would use Flash but argue agains JavaScript, when JavaScript is usable by a far greater percentage of users than is Flash, when you consider that it all but doesn't work over a dialup connection. I have no objection to using Flash in the least. I've not had a client that felt its pros to outweight its cons. At least you agree that it largely depends on who your client is.
When you say regardless of the client all sites should be designed for accessbility, then logically you would outlaw the use of Flash. We both know that's silly. Similarly, it's silly to say that "all" sites should go for maximum accessibility. Why, when you lose so much to gain so little? And again, the only relevant "standard" is what works for most people.

Information Architecture for example is a solid consideration, not simple a term thrown around to impress corperates. Information Architecture is a consideration of the way you organise data on a site. It is however not as simple as using conventions such as 'home, about, contact', etc. If you employ good IA principals your users will naturally be able to better find what they are looking for, and that is only for starters.

In a large site this might be of some relevance, although I tend to doubt it as the largest and most expensive (Fortune 500) sites tend to be by far the worst as far as actually finding anything useful, this despite the fact that they have millions of dollars to spend on experts and consultants.

So its, use standards, use conventions, avoid unnecessary use of features that may break for some users, consider other browsers,

In other words, use text-only. Garbage.

consider IA, consider colour and typography, consider layout,

Well, duh. My clients and their customers have never reported difficulties in finding what they needed in the sites I design, because I follow the conventions that they are used to. If you couldn't find things in my sites, it doesn't say much for your competence or intelligence I'm afraid, they aren't very big even.

design for accessibility where possible (Really it is always possible if you are careful, accessibility doesn't mean you can't make a nice site.),

Wrong.

design sites to be as fast loading as possible (Take css for example, around 98% of users now use a css1 enabled browser. Using css will cut down on page loading times and speed up construction and maintenance. Also it will enable more flexible design. But remember using css doesn't mean you must convert everything. You may use it to simply set page margins and font style, there is nothing wrong with this.),

Hey, a paragraph with which I actually agree 100%! Again, I must wonder if you actually looked at my site, because you just explained my own design philiosphy as far as CSS, and site design in general. ALTHOUGH, remember that the most important point is to please the client. The fastest loading site would be one with no graphics at all. Would that be the most effective? I design the graphics to get the most bang for the download buck. And, that means FRAMES.

use resources out there (Whether it be to see what else has been designed for similar clients to your current project, to talking on discussion boards when you are unsure about something.), don't shoot down experienced designers so fast, use lessons learned in print (An understanding of design principals in print can be translated into web for great benefit.),

Unfortunately, it is this erroneous belief that has led to some desperately confusing sites. Print and the Web are so different that only the most basic principles can apply to both (like, have enough contrast between your text and your background that it can be read.)

don't be scared to try new things (While they may not always be appropriate for current work you may find new and better ways of doing old things.), expand your knowledge of graphics programs (Having a nice looking site is most certainly not pointless, and at the very least think of how happy your clients will be. You will find most clients don't expect their web site to look as nice as a major corporations, but its not hard to do so. Think of the smile on their face ), and how I could go on so much longer but this is already far too long.

Most clients want their sites to look BETTER than the notoriously ugly and confusing ones of big corporations, and it is trivial to do so if you don't try to meet every concievable sub-percent borowser and configuration.

Also sorry I should have PMed my initial comment.

Not to worry, no offense taken.

In conclusion, I am somewhat disappointed. I had hoped to hear specific suggestions of things that you did not like about that site, then we could have intelligently discussed why I did it the way I did and why you think it wrong. You might have had a worthy suggestion, after all. But the very few specific code suggestions you made, are in fact ones I already use, and use in that site. I must wonder what site you looked at.

If you looked at my old "East Asia" site, then I must apologize, that site is not a monument to anything but quick-and-dirty. I would never charge anyone for that. I knocked it together just to display the information, I didn't expend any effort in making it pretty. My real site which would be a better example is here:

http://www.as-st.com

If that is the site you were looking at, then I must wonder if you know how to do "View Source" when in frames.