James Jeffery wrote:
When i said design, i was referring to the hi-end graphical content. The sites that are there to amaze people and go 'how did they do that' which is they way alot of people seem to be heading due to convention.

That's the "visual design" part of a visual design. Much like 'CSS Zen
garden' and with the same weaknesses as many visual designs there.
Visual design doesn't have to get in the way of overall design, but it
tends to.

A client generally knows nothing about anything, he tells you what he
wants and expects the result. This is what im talking about. The clients see sites with some eye candy, and want something 'better' than that. If you give them a site that looks like, say the microformats site (which is a perfect example of the way websites these days should be) then there usual reply is ('Its boring, there isnt much to it').

Boring but informative.
You may have to add some "eye candy" - for the client, after the
usability/accessibility sides of it are in place.
Of course: too much "eye candy" may turn it into "interesting, but not
worth a revisit", but a client who knows nothing about nothing may not
be aware of - or interested in - that part.

I understand it is possible to create some amazing sites with usability and accessibility at the front of the line, but the only people that know this are people like you and me, again a client knows nothing and 90% of them don't care.They just want what they asked for. If you question why his navigation fonts are very small, his reply is something like ("becuase i need to fit them all on the one line so it dont look like the navigation is taking focus") and you cant really argue the point, because they dont tend to listen.

All you can say to that is: "Ok, but it can't be guaranteed to work like
that in any browser on earth, no matter who on earth creates or designs it".
You may of course be challenged to prove such a statement from time to
time, but that isn't hard if you know how browsers work.

I dont know what clients others have worked with, ive worked with some right nasty ones, they tell the designer onthe other end of the office how they want it, if you attempt to pick at it, they tell you there going to go elsewere, no i cant argue, ill get the sack.

It's definitely hard to argue about quality under such circumstances.
Making a living in web design can be hard, and it isn't the browsers and
their bugs and limitations that add most to the workload.

Again, you may have to add some "eye candy" - for the client, after the
usability/accessibility sides of it are in place.

Tis why i said, if there was a law the client would have no choice.

Laws may easily act as limitations on an open web, so I don't think
there should be anything but sensible guidelines.
OTOH: there's no laws against creativity on top of a solid "canvas"
either...

regards
        Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to