where are all the images? an article on my webdesigning principles
Every webmaster or webmistress would have a certain way of designing a website. There are certain fetishes one would have. Perhaps one likes navigation bars to have smaller text, or that the scrollbar always has to be transparent, or that the image always needs to be this this this size. The following describes my set of webdesigning principles, and why I've chosen to design all my websites this way, barring those that I design for someone else. It would also perhaps touch on some of the techniques and elements of webdesigning that I disapprove of, but please remember, this is what I believe and think, so please do not take offence if you like something and I don't like it. If I do offend anyone, I do apologise.
There is a reason why I call my webdesigning principles "principles". They are like flexible rules, able to be appended to when I see fit, but hardly anything has changed them since I started designing on the web about 3 years ago (mid 2000). But they are rules. Why, you may ask, would anyone make rules and set restrictions on themselves, especially when it comes down to something that requires creativity like designing? And my answer is that: one, I have valid reasons for doing so, and they are, amazingly enough, still valid today, and two, I believe that only when put under pressure, when restricted, would true creativity emerge.
What are these rules then? Very simple. I try not to use any of these as much as possible, and never in the main layout: images, flash movies, javascript, frames and its derivatives, dhtml, and any other element that requires plugins or might be unavailable for some people. I also make sure each and every of my layout is viewable and decent looking from resolutions 640x480 and up, as well as try to test it with Netscape and Internet Explorer. I try and strike a balance between having too many pages and having too long pages (though this is hard to achieve sometimes, seeing how I type so much). I use web-safe colours. I don't have special fonts, and I try not to use images or scripts that do not belong to me unless necessary, to which I would credit them. Only very recently did I relax the rules and used CSS in this design, but I make sure that even those without CSS is able to view the site (it doesn't look that different with and without CSS). I try very hard not to nest tables too deep in, but sometimes I allow myself to break this rule. It goes without saying I try not to use blinking text, or the new era of animated gifs and blinkies, or marquees and java applets. All these can be boiled down to two main ideas: to allow anyone and everyone to access my site no matter which platform or browser they're using, and that simplicity is key.
Perhaps the most striking and identifiable trait about my websites is that I don't use images. Indeed, that must be the first thing one notices. It has been suggested in one of my reviews that I was too lazy to make a graphic for my site, that since I've already spent so much time on the content of the site itself, I should also spend more effort on the layout of the page. That comment sparked off the creation of this article. It was not the reviewer's fault that she should think that way, I guess it was partially my fault that I didn't clarify my ideas. But it showed me that this must be what the other people out there must think, so that is why I must write this article. Whether or not you're still convinced that I'm just being a slob in my layout after you've read this is not really the crux here; so long as I've clarified myself to the best of my abilities, that would be the best I can do. Well, let me just clarify this once and for all: I'm not lazy when it concerns my website. I pour everything I have into this site, yes, not only into the content, but also the layout. All my layouts typically take weeks in the planning and a few days of tweaking to get it just right. Days of staring at code, trying to manipulate it so that it can look right. Making my layouts is not easy. It may seem so, but I would then ask you to try for yourself, to try designing a site that is still aesthetically pleasing, with all the rules I have set for myself. Yes, the counter-argument for that would be that I didn't need to set those rules in the first place, but of course, I haven't gotten to my reasons for setting those rules for myself yet. Do not mistake a simplistic layout for an easy layout. My favourite quote is "Do not mistake composure for ease", and it applies to everything I do, because I believe simplicity is key for everything in my life, not only webdesigning.
So why did I set all these rules for myself? To really understand how it started, you might want to read this article: The Art and Zen of Websites (pop-up). Please be warned, this is a very long article. It was written, I guess, quite a few years ago. It inspired me to start designing the way I do, but of course, times change, and although I regularly go back and read it again, some of my original rules have changed. Firstly, a big chunk of my rules are there so that most people can access my site. Rules like no frames, no iframes, no chrome pop-ups, no dhtml, no flash, no javascript, web-safe colours etc. are all because I don't wish people's experience of the site to be dampened by the fact that they can't do this or see that just because of the browser they're on or their system settings. I like to think of Ricepaper as extremely user-friendly, at least in the initial experience. Navigation is made as simple as possible, and the layout is done is simple as possible too. I wanted to draw attention away from the design of the site, to the content of the site. I've spent endless hours struggling with the idea that I'm depending more and more on tables to do my layout, knowing very well that people using Lynx cannot see tables. But I think not using tables would really be the last straw, though occasionally I do come up with experimental layouts without tables. All this is done so that the maximum number of people can enjoy the website. I also design for resolutions lower and higher than my own (which is 1024x768, if you want to know). I make it a priority to design for people still using 640x480 resolutions, though some people tell me it's a lost cause and most sites have stopped even supporting 800x600 resolutions. I will not do that. From my tracker and site statistics I see that there are still people who use 640x480 resolutions who visit my site, and no matter how strong the argument, I cannot bring myself to deny them the right to view the site properly.
The rationales for some other rules are slightly different. Though initially, I didn't use images and frames because of some people who might not be able to view them, over time, it has become personal. I detest frames. I say it out loud. I detest frames. I despise frames, I feel animosity towards iframes, but I really do detest frames. I'm not so sure about the exact reason, except perhaps the fact that they almost always screw up. Well, if anyone likes frames here I do apologise, but I do not like frames. I also do not approve of splash pages, and go at lengths to avoid having one. This, I believe, stems from the fact that previously splash pages were a rage just because they provided a gateway, an extra page to look cool. Everyone had them. I do admit that nowadays splash pages are so popular because there is a need for them, that one needs to cite requirements. I understand that. But I still don't like splash pages, and thus all my sites are almost totally compatible with any system you throw at them, just because I don't want a splash page. The I-do-not-like-splash-pages factor also helps a lot in making my site user-friendly. (I know lots of people love splash pages, I'm sorry I seem to be bashing them here.)
Lastly, images. The exact reason for not using images varies: articles telling me that some people switch off their images, my own experience with slow loading images, and the unique and strange pride that stems from making a site without images. I do not disapprove of using images in a layout, sometimes, when it is well-done, which is getting to be more the case than the exception nowadays, it really looks good. But I can't bring myself to do it. In a way, I'm trying to be different here. I'm trying to make a layout that looks good even without images, though how many times I've succeeded in doing so I'm really not sure. Perhaps none. I don't want to be dependent on images to make a nice layout: I've seen too many sites that look lost and disconnected when you switch images off. Of course, you might argue that why would someone want to switch images off? But doesn't it disturb you that your layout is just so dependent on an image? If anything, layouts with images are starting to lack originality. How many different ways can you use an image? The way I see it, the personal sites nowadays normally fall into two groups: One type is having a large image on the top of the screen and then a table at the bottom. The other is to have an image in the background and either have an iframe in the middle or have the words scroll independently from the image. I do not disapprove of images in a layout, what I do disapprove of is the lack of originality that seems to show particularly well when one uses images in a layout. There are quite a few sites out there with perfectly original and sometimes quirky layouts utilising images, and I admire them for that, but the rest seem to blend into the same crowd. As for me, I'm happy living without images. Text and tables for me, baby, though it has been said in a review that tables and text are hardly a layout (which I would of course, refute, but that's beside the point).
Also, in a way, I revel in the fact that I'm being restricted in my designing. It clears out a lot of options, and helps me focus on just what is necessary: how to present my work in the most flattering yet most simplistic way. For it is that I set out with two fundamental purposes: to be user-friendly and to be simple. Like a painting in a gallery that looks best set in a white frame, I like to put my work in somewhat simplistic settings. For I want to emphasise the fact that the content ought to be more important than the layout. I make an effort to rewrite my comments and descriptions as well as about pages and link pages every time I redesign or change a layout. When I produce a different version, it is not just the layout that changes, but also the content, and sometimes the structure and architecture of the site. With every layout change, I try to do better than the last design in a certain field. Previously, I had wanted more colour, then more white, then bigger words, then smaller words, then longer pages, then shorter pages, then more sophisticated, then more simplistic. Each layout makes me sit down and really think of a different way of placing the navigation bar, the heading, the main box, the bottom links, the disclaimer. I try to switch the placing of each to get a new feel every time. And I love it. I really love webdesigning this way. I've tried switching, I've tried designing with images. But always, I gravitate to this style, because after so long it has become what I do best. It is at once challenging and calming. And not to mention extremely rewarding when it does come up and people say nice things about it. And it is most delightful when people tell me that they really don't understand, the layout is so plain, but they find themselves undeniably drawn to it. That means I've succeeded, and another day for my strange webdesigning principles to live on and propagate.
So, where are all the images? The answer to that, perhaps, is that there are none in the first place. Thank you.