PDA

View Full Version : Survey:

cg9com
10-03-2002, 03:30 PM
What would YOU rather see?

A. A more dynamic or (heavy) website that could only be viewed by the newest and/or newer web browsers, and possibly only certain brands.

or

B. A more (light) website that is made to be viewed by most every browser of every brand and version. thus decreasing the amount of creativity and custimization the site can bring.


A or B, heavy or light
tommysphone
10-03-2002, 04:06 PM
Simple is often best.

PC's are faster and capable of viewing heavy site's but there is a trend reported in the register that suggests buying powerfull pc's is dropping off, might the desire to build heavy sites drop too?

Believe what you like but I personally hate cluttered sites and flash drives me mad! Its so over used.
whackaxe
10-03-2002, 05:52 PM
A, i would prefer a heavy site personally. and to do surveys make a poll at the bottom of the new thread page
brothercake
10-03-2002, 06:16 PM
It depends on your user base. Entertainment, multimedia, design etc sites can get away with being larger and more flashy. News, shopping etc sites need to be simpler and fast-loading.
webmarkart
10-03-2002, 08:46 PM
I agree, it depends on your target audience. When choosing between A and B, I would go with B+
cg9com
10-04-2002, 02:55 AM
cmon i know more people have an opinion!
TheTree
10-04-2002, 03:46 AM
I pick "B", cg9com!! I don't think it decreases the creativity and customization!! I'd take COLOR, convenience (as in maneuverability/simplicity), and "straightforward" over "Bells and Whistles", ANY DAY!!

Good Luck!!
joh6nn
10-04-2002, 07:27 AM
why does it have to be either or? i try to make sites i do as creative as possible, and still viewable in as many browsers as possible. i choose "BA" ::insert bad sheep sound-effect here::
ionsurge
10-04-2002, 12:25 PM
I personally prefer that you would use something that is quite heavy, seeing that it does not matter much if you are using somethign like a highbandwidth connection. BUT the problem is for all the millions that have the slower connections, like a 56k.

The majority of surfers have those sorts of connections, so it would be a good idea to actually build a site that is optimised for them.

That is what I had to do, when I had to scrap my original design that used Flash & HTML as a combo. This meant that there would be an increase in users as the 56k users wouldn't have to waste a lot of time. (www.angelfire.com/realm2/thedarkangel is where I have uploaded the original design to)

By the way, dynamic content may also not take as much time to load via a 56k as Flash does, but it is all the same, as that much longer that an individual waits, the more impatient that they get as a result of that.

You could try to have the user make sure that they actually can select an option somewhere on the main page, so that they can choose that. But something like that can be annoying when you think about for you, who then will have to do everything twice.

The choice is yours, and what you do is up to you. But personally, I would go for a lighter approach that would suit the masses.


Hope this helps.


Good luck!

:thumbsup:
Alekz
10-04-2002, 12:57 PM
Definitely A! There's no reason to waste hours coding for an old browser and no reason to make pages look as if they were designed years ago for Netscape 2 for example...

Alex
ionsurge
10-04-2002, 04:05 PM
It's generally built for browsers that are IE5 + and NS5 + too.

Not Netscape 2.

By the way, more people use IE 5 than they do IE6 at the moment. There are a few that still use IE4...


PS I have now (I think - I am not too sure about the posting boundries) become a senior member... wohoo!
Roy Sinclair
10-04-2002, 05:00 PM
The demands of the audience override any personal opinions I have when coding. For example, I personally despise Netscape 4 as the worst browser on the planet but since there are people using that browser in the audience for the pages I usually write I also insist that those pages work well for those users. I'm also responsible for reviewing the work of many others and I check their pages for problems with Netscape 4 too. If I could get rid of Netscape 4 by making pages that wouldn't work I would do so but there are valid reasons (ie: non-MS machines) for not doing that yet. I am really looking forward to getting Mozilla onto those machines but I'm not in charge of that.
ASAAKI
10-04-2002, 09:42 PM
A any day!

ps. to ionsurge : i noticed ;)
redhead
10-05-2002, 12:15 PM
hmmmmm............

it completely depends on the site methinks.... there can be a very plains site that looks absolutly awsome... or a plain site that can look absolutly rubbish.

on the other hand, you can have an amazing "heavey" site that looks great, or one that looks cluttered and awful...

as for flash... i think its pretty much the same. some webmasters can make flash look good... others make it look baaaaaad.... personally... i like a site with a good bit of flash...

:thumbsup:
firepages
10-05-2002, 01:05 PM
A-

"and possibly only certain brands. "

I think IE only is a bad move at this point as Moz/NS might actually start to get somewhere, Moz/NS only is a worse move at this moment as its little used.

sooo stick to IE4+ and moz/NS5+ compatible stuff and you will only lose those who cant afford a free browser - no great loss ;) .. (Justamom exempted)
ionsurge
10-05-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by redhead
some webmasters can make flash look good... others make it look baaaaaad.... personally... i like a site with a good bit of flash...


Yeah, I agree, but it can often be hell for those with low bandwidth connections...