Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Well, for the URL design bit, I wrote a page about it a while ago, and this is the condensed version. Aside from URLs I think there's a convention that clicking on the logo of a site goes to the homepage. And it's popular to use an accesskey of ? to go to the search engine. Nothing else comes to mind though. // Designing URLs URLs should be simple, concise, and designed to last forever - reflecting the page's content and hiding the implementation. The days of an URL mapping directly to a file are gone. Instead people treat the URL like a command line - passing variables to a script that assembles a page - ending up with a bloated, confusing, and forgettable URL like http://somesite.com/book/9/index.php?anidifranco=neatojeffk=hackerslashdot=funnypoint=taken Filename extensions As browsers ignore filename extensions (.php, .jsp, .asp) it is unnecessary and detrimental to use them on the web (instead use MIME types). The URL becomes a legacy to uphold when users and search engines expect to find pages at that URL - especially when the URL is bound to a piece of software that may no longer be in use (such as .php3, .asp, or even .html). Changing the backend system now involves breaking the legacy or making a convoluted redirection scheme... to the new technology that - in the future - you'll have to redirect from again. A good URL, I think, should abstract from technical implementation. That said, browsers don't often reattach file extensions if they weren't given them in the first place so if the file is for download (rather than in-browser viewing) it's probably ok. Also, IE sometimes ignores mimetypes http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moniker/overview/appendix_a.asp *. So it's usually more practical to remove file extensions only for html. Certainly .asp should never appear in the URL. Apache's mod_rewrite URL Rewriting Engine can map external URLs to a different internal file (/about/tauranga to /about/tauranga.html). This allows you to hide the file extension. In three years XHTML will be much more popular but i'm sure that will eventually have a successor too - so serving .html is really missing the point. The technology has nothing to do with the content so remove it from the URL. K.I.S.S. A simple url is better than a verbose one, so choose your words carefully. A popular example is to use /job over /employment... /cv over /resume. Domain names are chosen to be brief, perhaps an acronym - but often people feel more comfortable choosing ludicrously long filenames like 0092115-The_Movie_Troll_ Character_Harry_Potter.html. Expressing Hierarchy Parent/child relationships are typically expressed by /'s (slashes). Using the URL as a command line has lessened this elegant simplicity. There are URLs that are /?year=2001month=3day=12pid=162340 when /2001/3/12/[pid] has the same information. Or take a link to a page that exposes internal logic, /?op=special;page=irc when /irc is enough of a unique identifier. It's more readable and far easier to remember and it doesn't become less flexible. When content varies by date a useful structure is year/month/day/ItemOfTheDay. With this, a user should be able to edit an URL to /2001/5/1, or perhaps just the month (/2001/5) and receive a list of all stories posted that month. In this way an URL becomes a hackable interface. Most programmers already do this. When getting a 404 they'll chop off the end to see if any parent pages remain. * IE seems to follow this scheme in deciding filetype, -- If the server returns a content-type, IE will remember that. -- However, IE also runs the beginning of the stream through a 'buffer check' to verify whether the data actually looks like the content-type being passed to it. If IE thinks the content-type is invalid, it'll just ignore it and do whatever else it can to parse the data, including falling back on the extension of the URL given. .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Title: RE: [WSG] Standards and site structuring This is already in development with WebML, as far as I know the project has re started. -Original Message- From: Rick Faaberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 22 February 2005 04:12 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring I think that becomes absurd really quick, and ultimately leads to software creating websites with no human intervention required. :-( Rick Faaberg
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Nick Lo wrote: Just out of interest what standards (in the sense of a generalised approach) are you all applying to site structuring? There is a well known article (that I cannot remember the URL for) that discusses the fairly accepted standards for a site like; Home, Contact Us, About Us, News, etc. So I was curious how people here apply those kind of standards to their site structure and also what they feel about doing them for the sake of usability, etc. Thanks, Nick These are more conventions than standards. It's good to follow if possible, but not necessary. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Ha ha, ok, welcome to the battle of the dictionaries. Yes I know it's not a formal standard as defined by any authority but it is a standard as established by it's common and accepted use. Anyway my question was what are people's thoughts about this. For example; I've heard developers complain how brain dead it makes sites. To reign it in to the realm of standards based development; do any of you feel there is a strong case for site structure to follow at least some standards or ahem, convention? Thanks, Nick Just out of interest what standards (in the sense of a generalised approach) are you all applying to site structuring? There is a well known article (that I cannot remember the URL for) that discusses the fairly accepted standards for a site like; Home, Contact Us, About Us, News, etc. So I was curious how people here apply those kind of standards to their site structure and also what they feel about doing them for the sake of usability, etc. Thanks, Nick These are more conventions than standards. It's good to follow if possible, but not necessary. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Nick Lo wrote: Just out of interest what standards (in the sense of a generalised approach) are you all applying to site structuring? Site structure... as in URL design? Or internal file structures? Or common interface elements? .Matthew Cruickshank http://holloway.co.nz/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
I think there's a need to strike some balance between following a convention far enough so that even a first-time visitor finds the navigation to be familiar, and considering what the audience is and using words and phrases that are most appropriate. Or perhaps this makes better sense: follow the conventions of your audience. I think About Us, Contact Us, Home etc are pretty dry, but there are many audiences out there that subscribe to dry, that speak dry. Colophon on the other hand is not dry, but also not appropriate for every site audience. The blogging community is familiar with this term and knows that it translates to About Me / About This Site, but it wouldn't fit much anywhere else. My $.02 -John On Feb 21, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Nick Lo wrote: Ha ha, ok, welcome to the battle of the dictionaries. Yes I know it's not a formal standard as defined by any authority but it is a standard as established by it's common and accepted use. Anyway my question was what are people's thoughts about this. For example; I've heard developers complain how brain dead it makes sites. To reign it in to the realm of standards based development; do any of you feel there is a strong case for site structure to follow at least some standards or ahem, convention? Thanks, Nick Just out of interest what standards (in the sense of a generalised approach) are you all applying to site structuring? There is a well known article (that I cannot remember the URL for) that discusses the fairly accepted standards for a site like; Home, Contact Us, About Us, News, etc. So I was curious how people here apply those kind of standards to their site structure and also what they feel about doing them for the sake of usability, etc. Thanks, Nick These are more conventions than standards. It's good to follow if possible, but not necessary. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Well good question actually. I was initially just thinking of naming conventions (Title: About Us, file: about_us.html, etc) but that could well be extended. Common interface elements gets pretty in depth and likely well off on a tangent though. On the list we all spend a lot of time on what to the client are relatively hidden standards (those being the underlying markup or code) but in conversation with clients actually deal with a lot of other standards. Often they themselves will brief with a site structure they see as standard (sometimes dependant on the market, etc). I'm really not looking for any specific answers more just generally curious as I know I'm definitely following a fairly common approach even in working across different market segments. To kick off with an example would anyone say to a client We should probably call this Contact Us as everyone expects and homes in on that wording when they need make contact Nick Site structure... as in URL design? Or internal file structures? Or common interface elements? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Nick, I agree with John Wells that it has to do with your target audience. I'm in e-Learning where many users are not particuarly web-savvy so I stick with the familiar conventions over trying to be out on the bleeding edge of innovation. There are times when my design-self screams at the tedium, so I have to channel the inventiveness into either interface innovations to make them work better or into my personal/private clients' sites. For example, I try to stick with commonly used terms: Home or Main (I prefer Main, more professional in most contexts unless you want the user to feel some ownership of the site etc), Search, Help (rather than FAQ) etc. It is rather frustrating trying to find navigational style information (this is a project I am undertaking just now). There's some interesting stuff at http://www.webstyleguide.com/interface/navigate.html - but it's very generalized. No one seems to want to commit to anything, perhaps because the web is so fluid that you can't just say there is one way to do something. Overall, I think you need to look at your audience, decide what kind of other interfaces they are already familiar with (browser, Word, Photoshop etc) and figure out how good their web-savvy is. I think the link above makes one important point - we can rely too much on major navigational links. Put some context in your page so users know what you mean. Good luck, if I find out any more on my search I'll share it with you, Rosemary Norwood Blackwork Web Intelligence ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
On 2/21/05 7:53 PM Nick Lo [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: To kick off with an example would anyone say to a client We should probably call this Contact Us as everyone expects and homes in on that wording when they need make contact I think that becomes absurd really quick, and ultimately leads to software creating websites with no human intervention required. :-( Rick Faaberg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Nick, Ok, to answer your actual question not the one I thought you asked ... If my clients have a standard I go with that. Otherwise I try to be as descriptive as possible without getting overly long. Often the client wants to do their own content maintenance after I'm done so I have to try and keep things making sense. I try to sick with standardised abbreviations - navigation gets shortened to nav, small to sml, large to lge etc to try and keep file length down. Now I'm in the training sector where iterations are very important so I have to either include the date in the file name or in the file comments. Rosemary Norwood Blackwork Web Intelligence ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Hi Rosemary, Ok, to answer your actual question not the one I thought you asked ... Actually I wasn't really asking a question as such, more opening up the discussion of what people thought, how they work, etc. So your first response was as correct as the second one. You basically said you do to an extent due to your target audience. Out of interest how much (if any) feedback have you received to say your conventions are the expected ones and whether they helped at all. Thanks, Nick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Standards and site structuring
Hi Rick, To kick off with an example would anyone say to a client We should probably call this Contact Us as everyone expects and homes in on that wording when they need make contact I think that becomes absurd really quick, and ultimately leads to software creating websites with no human intervention required. :-( Hey that would be GREAT then I could actually go out and enjoy the sun that is shining so nicely outside my window! Seriously though I think that's carrying it a bit far as of course each site has it's own characteristics and it is common practice to establish naming conventions in websites as it is in programming. I suppose I was alluding to those common not just within a project or market but generally recognised too. Maybe this could result in a reference list of the most commonly recognised naming conventions ...I'm not sure. Thanks, Nick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
