| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 57127 | 2005-04-24 10:09:00 | What would You like more in websites? | CreightonBrown (5692) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 348264 | 2005-04-24 10:09:00 | Just a poll to learn more about what people like | CreightonBrown (5692) | ||
| 348265 | 2005-04-24 10:23:00 | Content is king! As long as it is presented well, that is. The lesser the number of clicks to get to what I want, the better. No sideways scrolling either. Simple, fast sites are better. Interlaced images instead of the bloody page continuously re-arraging itself as it loads. A text-only/print alternative CSS. What about what people hate? I hate Flash, and most multimedia that startup without user interaction. Ditto all MS proprietary stuff that don't work so well with every browser. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 348266 | 2005-04-24 10:30:00 | Content is king! As long as it is presented well, that is. The lesser the number of clicks to get to what I want, the better. No sideways scrolling either. Simple, fast sites are better. Interlaced images instead of the bloody page continuously re-arraging itself as it loads. A text-only/print alternative CSS. What about what people hate? I hate Flash, and most multimedia that startup without user interaction. Ditto all MS proprietary stuff that don't work so well with every browser. I agree flash can be a nuisance at times, i could sort of see it though if brand or style impressions are greater as opposed to content maybe sometimes. The amount of sites with flash adverts taking over most of the screen can be a little bit frustrating now. Where Popups were disabled 'Flashups' are becomming a bit of a hinderence. I found one site which was actually quite good side scrolling, but was well outside the normal firms ability. I think it was on www.computerarts.co.uk (http://www.computerarts.co.uk). It may have been 'borg' keyboards or something like that. Not very often i encounter side scrollers and when i do not very often they are good. Print CSS is a good idea too :-) |
CreightonBrown (5692) | ||
| 348267 | 2005-04-24 17:16:00 | Pages that fit the viewer's resolution. I have just changed my res from 1024x768 to 800x600 to aid my poor old eyes, and find a lot of sites too wide. I hate horizontal scroll bars and it is easy to create fluid width by using percentages instead of points or pixels to set page width. Even here I get horizontal scrolling. <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1"> <tr valign="top"><td width=100% width="697"> Outer table set at 100% then nested table set at 697. Why? |
phstpok (7856) | ||
| 348268 | 2005-04-25 02:18:00 | The thing I hate most is sites that aren't fluid and compatible . I use Mozilla, Firefox and Internet Explorer and I hate it when I have to switch browsers because a page won't load or when it looks distorted because of conflicts with my resolution . Perhaps someone with web-design experience could e-mail me some code or point me to a tutorial which offers some insight on how to create auto-sizing HTML pages . I'm a semi-newbie to web design after all . EDIT: My Email (xochi_quetz@hotmail . com) |
Aurealis_ (7897) | ||
| 348269 | 2005-04-25 02:27:00 | I use percentages for measurement values - works with FF and Opera . As for websites, I mainly cruise w3schools . com, webmonkey . com, and look at the designs on oswd . org, particularly those of "haran" . Haran only uses standards-compliant strict XHTML code, and he lays it out well and it is easy to follow and modify . As a results, the pages are clean, simple and fast . Kame pointed out another site, but I forgot what it was . |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 348270 | 2005-04-25 02:32:00 | i like an orginised site. there is so many that it takes forever trying to figure out there menu sructure. often the info you want is in under the wrong heading ! also built in search features and site maps are good. the other thing is is resolution. mine is 1280x960 which works fine for most sites. some you still have to scroll sideways but the worse are the ones that have a set size. eg you have a page thats 1/4 of your screen with tiny tiny writing. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 348271 | 2005-04-25 02:41:00 | Pages that fit the viewer's resolution. I have just changed my res from 1024x768 to 800x600 to aid my poor old eyes, and find a lot of sites too wide. I hate horizontal scroll bars and it is easy to create fluid width by using percentages instead of points or pixels to set page width. Even here I get horizontal scrolling. <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1"> <tr valign="top"><td width=100% width="697"> Outer table set at 100% then nested table set at 697. Why? That's the trouble with tables, especially when they are nested. They are unpredictable because browsers seem to inteprete them differently. Do you have an example site? |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 348272 | 2005-04-25 03:13:00 | I have just changed my res from 1024x768 to 800x600 to aid my poor old eyes, and find a lot of sites too wide. I hate horizontal scroll bars and it is easy to create fluid width by using percentages instead of points or pixels to set page width. Opera 8 is able to fit pages to the width of the browser window now so you might like to give that a try. I am unsure whether fixed width tables will still cause horizontal scrolling but I haven't come across any such pages yet. |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 348273 | 2005-04-25 03:15:00 | i am seeing more and more sites that are loaded with flash and massive pics and it takes ages to load,just like the ZM webpage, have a bit of sympathy for the dial up users :rolleyes: | Prescott (11) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||