Megan — Tue, 03 Dec 2002 03:29:18 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
I'm not a designer (quit laughing!) but I do think that page layout has a lot more to do with design than just pretty images. Good layout design AND pretty images EQUALS kick-*** graphic design.

I agree. I see design more as problem solving than visual prettiness. I'm uncomfortable with restricting the possibilities right from the start - and that includes things like frames and pop-up windows. Each project will have its own constraints and minimal graphics may or may not be a part of that. That's why I say "maybe" to graphic-less sites.

I think that many of the "graphic-less" sites that have been mentioned here aren't really graphpic-less at all. They may not use images for layout, but the better looking ones do have some here and there that help to soften up an otherwise boxy effect (lots of illustrations and a patterned background on opera.com, nav graphics and article headers on A List Apart.) They are using graphics in a different way maybe, which is interesting.

About not noticing images. I believe that people may not consciously notice images right away in some cases, but I do think that they have an effect on the look and feel factor. I also think that most regular people probably don't have a clear idea of what's an image and what's not. It would depend on how they defined "image" in their study. Seems like they're mainly talking in terms of advertising.

Busy — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 22:03:08 +0000

I found this the other day http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/images.htm interestng stuff,
you can also use the |< button to go to the start, some real interesting stats in there

Suzanne — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:00:06 +0000

I'm not a designer (quit laughing!) but I do think that page layout has a lot more to do with design than just pretty images. Good layout design AND pretty images EQUALS kick-*** graphic design.

Marrying K-AGD with good accessibility, good usability and good typography and whoa, nellie, you have something golden.

Add good content to that and we have nirvana! heh.

Megan — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:48:59 +0000

I agree, although I think Opera's site looks nice (but they do tend to use a lot of illustration graphics, which tends to break things up). When SVG comes along it may not be such a huge problem, but right now the thought of doing away with layout graphics feels very limiting. As a designer it's a rather scary thought.

The Webmistress — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:11:28 +0000

The tendancey though with graphicless sites is that they end up just looking boxy IMO.

Renegade — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 07:08:05 +0000

nice site necrotic, and yeah i agree, a graphic title would have helped

necrotic — Mon, 02 Dec 2002 00:55:35 +0000

I tried my hand at a graphicless site the other day. Doesn't look half bad, if I do say so myself. Though with graphics it could be improved a little, like a better logo. You can see it Here.
[/end shameless plug]

I usually go the graphical way, even if I do suck. Like Meagan said, it adds more depth. But if you're doing a simple site that you don't want distractions on graphicless can be a plus.

Busy — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:34:04 +0000

A lot of sites are going this way, using graphics for examples or products mostly, places like opera.com, zend.com, alistapart.com, w3c.com, hotscripts.com, google ... compare them with msn.com

but like I said before the content has a lot to do with it, the above are mostly information sites and don't require much in the way of graphic layouts.

Suzanne — Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:57:03 +0000

Anything linked will increase CPU usage -- there are a number of ways around that, but I don't think a well written CSS page will be slower to render than it's table-based equal. (For a heavy graphics and table based site, check out dilbert.com -- ouch even on dsl).

Depends, as usual, on the efficiency of the code as well as the server response time.

I use includes and other bits that crank up CPU usage, so the CSS isn't much of an increase, if any. The difference browser side is that it must download and then interpret the "rule list", instead of rendering on the fly. I think the load time changes are perceptual, not actual, since the user doesn't get line by line rendering (hopping images in IE anyone?) but rather the content and then the CSS.

*whoosh* no more coffee for me!

Abhishek Reddy — Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:44:40 +0000

Depending almost entirely on CSS/SVG/SMIL will require a lot more processing by the browser and the CPU. I find that most "CSS pages" I visit tend to take longer to render and kick up processor usage a lot more.

But that's not so bad, compared to download times on 56k.