Skip to main content

Evaluating Web Sites

What makes a Web site readable?

As the Internet moved from the ASCII texts of the USENET and FTP repositories towards HTML, no one really cared about appearance. The notion was that content was everything — and most content files were journal articles and scientific research. The early notion of specifying fonts on the World Wide Web was a major shift from the original notion of the Web. You can look at changes from HTML pre-1.0 to our current standards and the shift towards visual content is obvious.

The reality is that there was no stopping the drift towards a visual medium.

Given basic HTML 2.0, designers resorted to complex tables-within-tables to mimim familiar print designs. From the earliest handwritten manuscripts, artists have known how words are placed on a page (or screen) affects how they are read. No one was about to settle for no control over a Web site's appearance.

Temptation to experiment can lead to innovation, but on the Web it also helps to keep a design simple.
I don't surf the Web much. Like most people, I have destinations I have bookmarked and seldom explore beyond those now. My "start page" is Google News because it is simple, mostly white, and easy to read. The two-column design is easy enough to read on my screen, especially if I can enlarge the text.

Designers want the control they are accustomed to, but some choices they think important for aesthetics make a Web site useless for me. Too many Web sites rely on specific fonts, even locking sizes so those of us needing larger type cannot use the pages. Google never makes this mistake. Most news sites do, though — so I stop visiting them.

I'd actually be okay with a return to the past. Give me text. Let me select the scale of the fonts on my screen. Allow me more control as the reader so I'm not locked out of a site by my blurry vision or inability to focus on some colors.

The past isn't going to return though. My own Web sites are visual. I have spent days and even weeks altering colors and typefaces. I tweak the smallest elements of the pages, trying to make them as visually appealing as I can while still allowing users to magnify the text. (That's not always possible, but I definitely do my best to make sites accessible.)

I often wish Web designers would study why people use Wikipedia and Google. They are simple, fast, and easy to read. Don't add sounds (I prefer my iTunes music), don't force me to watch videos, and don't use wild color schemes that are trendy for a week.

Even what some designer thinks is simple can be a mess. Yahoo is a good example of too much at the top level of a site. Microsoft and AOL are even worse. No wonder most of us use Google!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Comic Sans Is (Generally) Lousy: Letters and Reading Challenges

Specimen of the typeface Comic Sans. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Personally, I support everyone being able to type and read in whatever typefaces individuals prefer. If you like Comic Sans, then change the font while you type or read online content. If you like Helvetica, use that.

The digital world is not print. You can change typefaces. You can change their sizes. You can change colors. There is no reason to argue over what you use to type or to read as long as I can use typefaces that I like.

Now, as a design researcher? I'll tell you that type matters a lot to both the biological act of reading and the psychological act of constructing meaning. Statistically, there are "better" and "worse" type for conveying messages. There are also typefaces that are more legible and more readable. Sometimes, legibility does not help readability, either, as a type with overly distinct letters (legibility) can hinder word shapes and decoding (readability).

One of the co…

Let’s Make a Movie: Digital Filmmaking on a Budget

Film camera collection. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Visalia Direct: Virtual Valley
June 5, 2015 Deadline
July 2015 Issue

Every weekend a small group of filmmakers I know make at least one three-minute movie and share the short film on their YouTube channel, 3X7 Films.

Inspired by the 48-Hour Film Project (48hourfilm.com), my colleagues started to joke about entering a 48-hour contest each month. Someone suggested that it might be possible to make a three-minute movie every week. Soon, 3X7 Films was launched as a Facebook group and members started to assemble teams to make movies.

The 48-Hour Film Project, also known as 48HFP, launched in 2001 by Mark Ruppert. He convinced some colleagues in Washington, D.C., that they could make a movie in 48 hours. The idea became a friendly competition. Fifteen years later, 48HFP is an international phenomenon, with competitions in cities around the world. Regional winners compete in national and international festivals.

On a Friday night, teams gathe…

Edutainment: Move Beyond Entertaining, to Learning

A drawing made in Tux Paint using various brushes and the Paint tool. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Visalia Direct: Virtual Valley
November 2, 2015 Deadline
December 2015 Issue

Randomly clicking on letters, the young boy I was watching play an educational game “won” each level. He paid no attention to the letters themselves. His focus was on the dancing aliens at the end of each alphabet invasion.

Situations like this occur in classrooms and homes every day. Technology appeals to parents, politicians and some educators as a path towards more effective teaching. We often bring technology into our schools and homes, imagining the latest gadgets and software will magically transfer skills and information to our children.

This school year, I left teaching business communications to return to my doctoral specialty in education, technology and language development. As a board member of an autism-related charity, I speak to groups on how technology both helps and hinders special education. Busin…