Talk:Web design

Why write articles at all, they get merged with unrelated articles writen by more powerful users. Shame, shame shame. Time for google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarklem (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2008

Definitions Wrong

I hate to say anyone is flat wrong, but many of the "definitions" on this page are just that flat wrong. I just want to re-write them, but then it's gonna start some kinda war isn't it?

Can I display a rough draft of the new content here and we discuss (hopefully in a civilized manner) the new content here?texxsmith.com (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Website Design Styles Racist

There is blatant racism in the Website Design Styles section of this article. Unless someone can cite examples of how you can tell the country of origin of a website from the design, I'm going to delete the section.

Lobotomoy 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ITS NOT RACIST DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES> ART IN FRANCE IS DIFFERENT FROM ART IN CHINA> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.160.61 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read many design blogs such as Smashing Magazine, you would see that web design from around the world is quite similar, and that most good designers in any country take bits and pieces from the web as a whole.

Nonpr3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of Web Development and Web Design articles

The current articles for Web development and Web design have been listed in Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_rewrite. To facilitate this process, I am creating subpages of the Talk pages for the each article, named Web development (rewrite) and Web design (rewrite). Initially these two pages will be stubs only, while I take stock of the existing material offline. I hope to post some progress before the end of 2006.

My plan is to improve the content in four stages:

1. Provide a high level taxonomy of the subject area;
2. Reorganize the existing content according to that structure;
3. Edit and improve the existing material where appropriate;
4. Add missing material where it's needed.

That is the plan; in its execution, there will be some overlap within steps 2-4. And we can actually decide to replace the existing pages at any time after stage #2 is complete.

If you want to contribute content or suggestions, then please use the (rewrite) pages only for proposed new or updated content which is intended to eventually replace the existing pages. All discussion should be placed on the two talk pages. During the rewrite process, any internal links between the two artcles should use the names with the (rewrite) extensions. If the structure is right, I don't anticipate having too many such cross-references. So I plan to edit them manually when we eventually replace the current articles.

Chris Loosley 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Liquid Design needs its own page

I wanted a quick synopsis on how liquid design is different from other approaches, and instead I was redirected to all this very basic history...

There's very little to liquid design. It could easily be a single paragraph in this article. I don't see a need for more. --Ronz 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto texxs (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility and restrictions

Where did the following data come from? "The screen resolution and internet speed averages around 1024x768 and 768 kpbs, respectively." I think such a statement requires the backup of a citation. Lewisfrancis 20:22, 8 November 2006

This is just one of several browser statistic links online [1]. Oicumayberight 00:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a bad citation because it's the stats from one site, a site for tech pros, in fact. Of course they are going have bigger monitors and use firefox more that the general public.texxs (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking for some reliable stats on what browser sizes people use, can't seem to find anything current anywhere, if you know of some please post a link. texxs (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a disclaimer saying "The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures." So I guess it's a matter of trust. When you come up with a more accurate citation to compare it to, then you may be able to say with accuracy whether or not it's "bad." Oicumayberight (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There were a post on Mozilla Metrics blog some days ago with some stats from four monitoring sites. Dunno about screen-size though... On a side note, I wouldn't call W3Schools a site for tech pros. More like beginner designers. --Execvator (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should note that PNG alpha transparency is supported in Internet Explorer 7. There are numerous articles discussing working around the problem for older IE browsers using Microsoft's AlphaImageLoader filter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techisbest (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Download Time

The discussion of Web page download time in the section on "Comaptibility and Restrictions" is almost completely wrong. First, it assumes that a Web page is a part of single file, which is almost never true. Most Web pages these days contain imbedded graphic objects, CSS files, and script files.

But even for a Web page consisting only of an HTML file, you cannot compute download time simply as page size divided by bandwidth. That's because of the way the TCP slow-start protocol works, sending one or two packets (typically 1.5Kb - 3KKb), then double that, etc. up to the receive window size of the client. Every TCP transmission requires a separate "Turn", adding the Round-trip delay time (RTT) from the client (i.e. browser) to the server(s) and back. This behavior is widely documented; in fact there is a well-established formula for estimating Web page download time, namely:

Download Time = (Payload/Bandwidth) + (Turns x RTT) + ServerTime + ClientTime

A more detailed version of this formula was first documented by Peter Sevcik of NetForecast in 2001. Most Web sites today, particularly commercial sites, comprise many separate components. A 2006 study by NetForecast of the Keynote Business 40 (KB40), a collection of 40 well-known commercial sites in the US, found that the average number of Turns per home page for those sites was now over 60, and that the number of Turns had been increasing at 12% per year since 1996.

The above formula is not precise, because of other factors such as browsers spawning multiple TCP threads that download components in parallel. But even so, for many Web pages the second factor in the above equation can contribute as much or more to download time as the first factor. And one cannot ignore the time contributed by third factor (server delays) and the fourth factor (browser rendering) -- which is also increasing for sites that are adding more client-side functions in JavaScript.

I have not provided any citations because these are just comments, but I could help if this entry is being rewritten.

Chris Loosley 07:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but how much information do we want to give in what is an encyclopedia article? Isn't what is there a pretty good estimate of a best-case scenario, ignoring caching? --Ronz 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the present recommendations produce very poor estimates which will usually turn out to be overly optimistic. The estimate would only be reasonable for a Web page that consists only of a small amount of HTML, with no imbedded objects. But that is a very unrealistic example to use, especially in a discussion of Web page design practices.

If we are going to have a page about design, I believe it should mention all aspects of design. And the performance of the resulting page is a crucial factor in the effectiveness of the resulting page -- a factor that many who claim to be experts in Web design often overlook.

Good design in any field is always appropriate for the target medium, and on the Web, Internet bandwidths and latencies (RTTs) are environmental constraints that the good designer will take into account. Otherwise the resulting performance problems drive users away -- especially remote users, and those with dial-up connections, about 35% of US users in 2006. Entire industry segments (Content Delivery Networks and Application Delivery Systems) exist only because of the performance constaints I am describing, and the performance problems created by dubious design decisions.

So it is not appropriate to ignore the issue, and certainly not appropriate to provide incorrect information about how the Web actually works. Maybe more detail could be placed on a separate page, as may be appropriate for other design topics.

Chris Loosley 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe we remove more of the how-to. E.g. remove the details of how to design for download time and instead emphasize how it's important and problematic. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be doing original research. References on designing for download time would be helpful though. --Ronz 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not include details of any area of design. Otherwise it would become a book. I do not agree with your suggestion that the way Web page downloading works, and the implications for download times, are original research. Three relevant papers are:

-- "Performance Issues Facing the World Wide Web" by Peter Sevcik. This September 1999 article in Business Communications Review introduced the finding that ... "basic Web-page delay is largely governed by two key parameters: Payload and Turns". Since then, Peter has elaborated on this point in many articles and papers. He has also tracked and published updates on the growth in the average number of Turns required to download typical commercial Web pages. Any wikipedia post on the details of download time performance should cite Peter's work.

-- "Web Page Design and Download Time" by Jing Zhi. This March 2001 paper reports on statistical analysis of download time measurements, and establishes the importance of packet count and round-trip time. Two findings were that "the size (in bytes) of a page is a much poorer predictor of download time than the number of packets over which the page is transmitted," and that "there is a very clear near-linear relationship between (download time) and (round-trip time)." This paper was published in the Computer Measurement Group's Journal of Computer Resource Management #102, and later received CMG's award for best paper published in 2001.

-- "Web Page Response Time 101" by Alberto Savoia. This July 2001 paper provides a highly readable explanation of Peter Sevcik's response time formula (the one I quoted in my first comment above). It was published in STQE, the magazine of Software Testing and Quality Engineering, now renamed Better Software Magazine.

Chris Loosley 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look good, thanks. --Ronz 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. All I did was remove the text I believed to be incorrect. Eventually I would like to add back some material on the importance of download time. That material would refer to an article that contains a more complete discussion, including some of the material I posted here. But first I need to figure out where to put those details. The entire presentation of the Web design and Web development topics is rather confused, and I'm not sure how much effort to put into trying to sort them out. I think it would be easiest to reorganize/rewrite both articles, but (as far as I know) Wikipedia does not provide a "staging area" where I could work on that rewrite before replacing the present versions. What is the best way to approach such a project? Chris Loosley 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's described here Wikipedia:Subpages. --Ronz 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I will start a new discussion section about the rewrite project -- see above. Chris Loosley 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Web Page Analyzer

I propose you consider adding a link to our free web page analyzer service, is available to all at Web Page Analyzer. The analyzer sizes web page components, calculates download times at different bandwidth speeds, and gives some recommendations.

- Andy King

Web Designers of the Century

Many web designers and hosting associates have marked their claims early into the century. Designers for the web have become more popular as time progresses and modern ventures become more appealing. Top web designers such as Stephen Cheung and other hosting managers such as Ryan Watson have introduced profound ideas upon modern times.

The first paragraph of 'Web Designers of the Century' is unintelligable English. Can someone decipher it? What are "hosting managers" anyway? Htaccess 04:02, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Web Developer

Why does "Web Developer" re-direct to this page? A Web Developer is certainly not the same thing as a Web Designer (I should know I'm a Web Developer). It is like saying the guy who draws the plans for a plane is the same as the guy who puts all the bits together!

By popluar (and my) demand I have implemented this at Web development and linked from the first paragraph.

BTW, do you guys know how to capitalise? Yes, "World Wide Web" and "Internet" are names! Avochelm 23:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to add to this. This whole article confuses Web Design, Website Building and Web Development. There needs to be more discussion of Graphic Design, layout, typography, interaction and user experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.208.5 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 November 2006.

Design is part of development. Choosing the best technology is a design issue. I agree that more should be said about the communication design of web design. However visual and literal communications are not the only concern in web design. Oicumayberight 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The comments above are confusing the discussion a bit with personal opinions rather than looking at what the words really mean.

A Graphic Designer is not a Web Designer it is only through the fortitude of the market that they have been pulled into the role through their talents. A Web Designer is not a Web Developer because they do not have a need to understand the concepts of programming but the aesthetics and base structure of the site. I've worked in both roles, they do overlap in aspects of expertise but they are definitely separate roles as the main focus of each role is separately defined in a design brief. "Choosing the best technology is a design issue." is a design issue from the customer's perspective that does not mean it has anything to do with a Web Designer that is a decision that is made by the customer at the end of the day informed by a Web Developer possibly through a sales consultant.

On a personal comment/note: I think anyone in each role as a professional would know what they are and these details are really for a lay person so personal opinions iterated are ill informed. If you are reading this article please check communication design and you'll note that Web Design is an aspect of communication design and shouldn't be commented in this article.

--imag1nation (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is likely to be confusion for a reader wanting to find out more on some of the spcific roles in the web design/development process (as they all get redirected here).....Web designer and Web developer for example. On top of this there are other closely related role titles that can be used...Web builder or Web programmer for example. I think there is a need to define these roles as best we can within this article, though there is also a need to highlight the fact that there are definite overlaps between these ultimately fairly 'loose' definitions. A 'Web Designer' is often considered a 'graphic designers/XHTML CSS coder' but despite being a very small team, my company has already split the 'Web graphic design' role from the 'HTML/CSS' role. Reason being that quality HTML/CSS these days involves hand-coding in a text-editor which many (WYSIWYG/Table-based) Web-designers are not trained in. This (for us) results in a split of 'Web design' (Graphic designer with some basic HTML/CSS knowledge and an excellent knowledge of the constraints/unique challenges of the web) a 'Web developer' (CSS/XHTML/DOM JavaScript developer) and a 'Web programmer' (PHP/MySQL developer). For us this makes sense, but I know it isn't everyone's cup of bisuits. I am not trying to offer a definition here but rather I'm hoping to highlight the need for a general awareness of the flexibility and overlap of these roles depending on skill-sets/team sizes/Web standards adoption etc. I think this is worth communicating in an article on web design as its a common source of confusion.

A further complication: There is currently an equal overlap between the 'XHTML/CSS/DOM JS developer' role and the 'PHP/MySQL Developer' role - notably with regards to AJAX. As roles separate and solidify, new trends and technologies come along to stir it up again, making conclusive defintion very difficult. Suffice to say that part of a good Web designers/Web developers role is to be able to bridge these (shifting) gaps by a) knowing when and how to learn new skills themselves and b) knowing when and how to work closely with other skilled people in their team.

Finally, since 'Web designer' is (unfortunately still) the laymans term for all of the above, I think it would be wise to recognise and acknowledge this - but still then to develop this and make the further distinctions discussed above. Explaining that, depending on your defnition, a Web designer can be 'master of the whole process' (think evening class go-er who's making websites for friends) or they can be the one person in a series of specialised roles within a full Web development process (standing shoulder to shoulder with Web developers, Web programmers, Information Architects, User-Experience engineers, Usability specialists, Photographers, Typographers, Project managers, Animators etc etc) (think large-scale digital marketing agencies).

It's clear that the old-fashioned 'sole Web designer' role is fast diappearing, but helping the layman to understand how the role has changed and developed over the years might also be useful on this page. testing text..

Liquid web design

I believe my 1998 proposal of this idea predates Glenn Davis's: My Usenet post --robotwisdom 00:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been removed. ¦ Reisio 08:59, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Adobe Flash

In reading this article, it reads like an advertisement for Flash. Although Flash is a part of web design, it should only be considered a part of web design, similar to graphics, or forms. It should not be considered a replacement or substitution to HTML, although as stated some use it as such. I also think (and have added) some information on dynamic techniques such as Ajax and Remote Scripting should be discussed at some length.

Components of Web Design

I propose adding a section that covers this topic. Then subtopics could be "Macromedia Flash", "images" including a brief summary of GIF/JPG/PNG, "Forms", "Menus", "Client Side Scripting (Javascript)", etc.

Seven C's of Website Design

Unless someone can strongly defend this section, I'm taking it out soon. This simply isn't a wide spread means of looking at web design (at least not wide spread like the 4 C's of picking out a diamond). It sounds like it's one person's attempt to define all aspect of web design in a cutesy manner.

Plus it's just wrong, not every website needs to worry about commerce, many sites aren't meant to have a sense of community, and very few sites allow customizations.

- Lifefeed 14:40, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest substituting a survey of design principles like the survey of design controversies, for things like "readability" that are universally agreed-on. Others, off the top of my head:

• platform-independence (page design should not make assumptions about what the surfer's browser is capable of)
• predictability (surfer should be able to guess what does what)
• avoid lost-in-hyperspace via simple, clear navigation --robotwisdom 16:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. And to follow up this removal thing, I'm removing the following two links: Open-Source Web Design (because templates aren't about web design), and BD4D (By Designers For Designers) (because it's a small community and not at all authoritive). Also 2 other links over to Web Development.

- Lifefeed 14:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree, since we're talking design here, I don't think these things are quite inline. Things like easy navigation, content, and what the viewer is seeing when he arrives should probably be discussed.

Controversies: short vs long pages

One school of thought, led by Jakob Nielsen, argues that surfers don't (like to) scroll, so long documents should be broken up into many screen-sized pages. The opposing view is that long pages are more efficient for readers, quicker to scan and easier to search. --robotwisdom 16:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External Link Spam

I re-added (again) the (link removed. This diff contains the link if needed external link as it adheres to Wikipedia:External links (e.g., non-commercial, valuable information, not my private site). --uriah923 13:03, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content and reference from ON article have been removed. A conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

World Wide Web Virtual Library link removed.

I see that the link to the World Wide Web Virtual Library pages on this topic have been removed. It may be that the Wiki user who did this is not familar with the World Wide Web Virtual Library - "The VL is the oldest catalog of the web, started by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the web itself. Unlike commercial catalogs, it is run by a loose confederation of volunteers, who compile pages of key links for particular areas in which they are expert; even though it isn't the biggest index of the web, the VL pages are widely recognised as being amongst the highest-quality guides to particular sections of the web."--Daedelus 12:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if...

1. the markup of the site validated
2. the links didn't utilize an SEO-optimizing script for personal gain
3. it wasn't hosted on a (poor) web design site
4. half the links weren't to w3.org pages
5. the remaining links weren't biased or just plain worthless
6. it didn't mention FrontPage as something worth using

...then it'd be worth including. ¦ Reisio 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting new Wiki rules? I'm not going to get into a deletion argument but the basic issue should be the suitability and usefulness of the link rather than newly made up wiki 'rules'.

      1. the markup of the site validated

Its an interesting point - should links be removed from the Wiki if they display in mainstream browsers but you can see using - say Marc Gueury's HTML Validator in Firefox, that there are some invisible errors? You are right though that the WWW-VL should generally be making sure the HTML in their pages are validated.

      2. the links didn't utilize an SEO-optimizing script

I don't think that there is a rule banning counting clicks on pages linked to from the wiki. The site is to be judged by content and relevance. In fact if you look at an example such as links from the wikki Debian article sites like http://www.debianplanet.org/ have a very prominent linking to their commercial sponsor whilst perfectly worthy sites like linuxhelp.net and http://distrowatch.com are amply covered in commercial google ads.

      3. it wasn't hosted on a (poor) web design site

Is this a new rule about forbidding commercial hosting of sites linking from Wikipedia? WWW-VL sites have traditionally just been subdirectories off someone elses site

      4. half the links weren't to w3.org pages

Is there a reason why a section on Web Design Standards should not refer fairly heavily to w3.org? Again if we look at an example like the debian entry in this wiki we will see multiple links into debian.org - which for the same reasons is only natural. Nevertheless I'm sure that there are other links that would be highly valuable?

      5. the remaining links weren't biased or just plain worthless

I think you'll find LAMP, PHP, osCommerce etc worth reading up on before deciding that they are "biased or just plain worthless" - unless you are purely Microsoft oriented. I can see a lot of room for expansion in terms of it linking to proprietary resources, but basically open source resources listed in a web design index seem fine. Likewise if you are at high school a list of forthcoming web design conferences are pretty useless - but for professionals I imagine that as long as they are kept updated they a useful resource.

      6. it didn't mention FrontPage as something worth using

I don't think that it did mention (or recommend) FrontPage as something worth using. I can only assume that Frontpage was mentioned because of its popularity. It would be a pretty uninformative (and uninformed) site that talks about Web design in 2005 and refuses to link to sites that even mention FrontPage or Dreamweaver.

Anyway I can see where you are coming from - and this isn't a big deal - I'm not going to mess with the links - but why not find a better site to replace it with? --Daedelus 22:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

but the basic issue should be the suitability and usefulness

That's what I addressed.

should links be removed from the Wiki if they display in mainstream browsers but you can see using - say Marc Gueury's HTML Validator in Firefox, that there are some invisible errors?

The point is that a resource for web design made by people that aren't very good at web design probably isn't that great a resource.

I don't think that there is a rule banning counting clicks on pages linked to from the wiki. … In fact if you look at an example such as links from the wikki Debian article sites like http://www.debianplanet.org/ have a very prominent linking to their commercial sponsor whilst perfectly worthy sites like linuxhelp.net and http://distrowatch.com are amply covered in commercial google ads.

Neither of those two sites use covert SEO-specific linking such as this.

forbidding commercial hosting of sites linking from Wikipedia?

Wikipedia has always been (afaik) rather anti-commercial (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine), but the notion here is once again not wanting to link people from a web design article to a page whose host is a web design company that isn't very good at web design.

Is there a reason why a section on Web Design Standards should not refer fairly heavily to w3.org?

None at all. The point is that going to w3.org directly would be smarter than going to a page with a bunch of links to w3.org, and that we can (and already do) link to w3.org from this article.

I think you'll find LAMP, PHP, osCommerce etc worth reading up on before deciding that they are "biased or just plain worthless" … I can see a lot of room for expansion in terms of it linking to proprietary resources, but basically open source resources listed in a web design index seem fine.

Then where are the links to Perl, Ruby, Python, Java? Where are the links to PostgreSQL and SQLite? Apparently MySQL and PHP is the only way according to these guys.

I don't think that it did mention (or recommend) FrontPage as something worth using.

I think being mentioned at all is promoting its use.

It would be a pretty uninformative (and uninformed) site that talks about Web design in 2005 and refuses to link to sites that even mention FrontPage or Dreamweaver.

Ah but it doesn't mention Dreamweaver (or any other WYSIWYG editor), just "Front Page" (with an alien space inserted into its name).

why not find a better site to replace it with?

I think the current links to http://alvit.de/handbook/ & http://w3.org/ are more than sufficient. ¦ Reisio 19:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Blink tags are phat

XSLT is listed under server side

Isn't this semi-misleading? While it can certainly be parsed server-side, it's originally intended to be rendered by the browser.

Mentioned in UserFriendly

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051212 -- Might explain the "Blink tags are phat" :) -- 69.181.90.49 05:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Would it be useful to add to each issue, the point of view Wikipedia has taken? e.g. Wikipedia uses CSS layout on all pages except the front page.--Joris Gillis 21:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, not particularly. It doesn't help that Wikipedia actually uses tables inappropriately on so many pages (every page with a TOC, and tons of pages with box-looking templates and infoboxes). ¦ Reisio 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a good portion of design is doing things "inappropriately" in cases where it is either faster to develope, more stable on various platforms, or just easier to do. The "correct" method may not be the preferred method. Bytebear 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Web Design - Should there be more info on the actual process of creating websites?

I think it would be helpful to the user to include at least a little bit of information on what web design actually entails. I believe some mention of the specific tasks involved and the types of programs used in designing a typical website would be helpful. I'm going to write up some brief descriptions and add them later on this week. Please let me know if you think this information would be more appropriately included in a separate article on web designers. After looking at the information that's currently there, I'm leaning towards including it in the web design article and reorganizing what's there a bit more.

Solomonrothman 23:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment That sounds fine, as long as it's not too much of an instruction manual, and doesn't contain adverts for products. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly has some scope for extra information, or rather expansion of the information that is already there. However, bear in mind there is a perfectly good Wikibook for instructions in creating a website. I would also be wary of starting what could become a long list of web-design software. I think this article should try and retain an element of overview, rather than detail. But by all means have a go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Approx. half of the 50 most recent edits were from anonymous editors, and most had to be reverted. Is there consensus on the main article being semi-protected? -- Robocoder 14:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you protect just a section, such as the external links? Seems like that would solve most problems. I'd be in favor of the article being semi-protected, either way. — Soupisgoodfood 05:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

XHTML

I think there should be something about XHTML, as the most "modern" coding you could use for a website would be a combination of XHTML 1.1 and CSS.--Donutey 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

External Link Suggestions

I have read on the following page Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided that commercial sites are generally not linked to (but can be proposed on the discussion page). I understand and in most cases would support this because users of Wikipedia do not want to wade through adverts, but rather have access to good definitions and articles. Therefore, I unashamedly propose the following external link http://www.coza-web.co.za/blog003.htm on not only this page, but also the jargon page. Yes, it is my commercial website, but the content is relevant and helpful to the user. And ultimately, the user is what Wikipedia is for.--cozaweb

As it happens, most of that information already exists within this encyclopaedia in much greater detail, and what isn't already here could and probably should be. Why not help make Wikipedia content relevant instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz. I have been wanting to contribute an article but lack the time, so I figured the least I could do was submit the external link to a page that I update all the time. (the prior mentioned jargon page). I would have proposed it here first, had I known of the correct procedure, but did not. In truth, I was not terribly concerned about it until the editor James (ohnoitsjamie) accused me of spamming. I regard spammers as rather low creatures indeed, so naturally I found this highly offensive and have since become quite determined on having that link approved.--cozaweb

I agree. Just adding links adds little value to the encyclopedia, and most of this content already exists. If there are terms that you think should be in the encyclopedia, feel free to add them to Computer jargon or List of computing and IT abbreviations or other related articles. --mtz206 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Like, I said to Zzuuzz above...would love to, but lack the time, and I resent being called a spammer by that other bloke. With all this talk of time, I suppose I should get back to work! Haha.--cozaweb

I have read the guidlines and noticed that it mentioned to propose links on the discussions page. If a persone looks for the term wen design he probably wants to know what he will need to be a web designer too. I found this really good website which provides quality information on recommended systems for web designers. Visit it here: http://webmasterdemos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=61 . This article was written by the famous Ben Hunt who apparently designed the BBC, Freeserve, HM Revenue & Customs, ProQuest, Morrisons, Which? Online, Sky, Reebok, Bechtel, France Telecom, J P Morgan, and Breathe.com. Ben was recently listed as one of 9 Persons of Notable Reputation in the Usability Industry by industry website UsabilityEffect.com. --colddog

I understand the concerns about commercial listings. Still, there are some superior web design sites out there -- a list apart and boxes and arrows come to mind -- I think readers of this article would benefit from the wealth of information available there. I think they arguably transcend the commercial moniker as they are community-contributed resources and references. --strangethingintheland

Having heard no objections for several weeks, I placed the "a list apart" link as an external reference. For the record, I have no affiliation with "a list apart" whatsoever. I simply recognize it as a superior reference for web designers.

Would anybody have any aversion to my adding http://www.web-design.co.za/ to the bottom of the web design article under external links? Why is there only one link there at present...I seem to recall seeing a lot more web design resources last time I visited this site?

My braindamage?

Designing the internal mechanisms of ones web(-site, -page, -log) and the external visuals are different things, yet a person who does either would be called a web designer. Am I wrong when I state that there's too much focus on the visuals in the article?

Will be fixed after the rewrite. Chris Loosley 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Endless link spam

Anyone who has this page on their watchlist will doubtless be aware of the seemingly endless attempts to insert advertising links in 'external links'. I note that semi-protection has been proposed above. It seems an obvious solution to the problem, though it would probably need to be applied indefinitely. I don't personally see this as a problem, but how do others feel? Is there a consensus to semi-protect? Jakew 10:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

there is a user trying to add a commercial link to this page at the moment. I support semi protection Lucasbfr 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also support it (if any admins can do it?). Bgold4 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now get to that rewrite, people! —tregoweth (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CSS versus tables

I believe this section goes into entirely too much detail on an issue that is currently a mute point. The vast majority of web designers use CSS based designs. It's becomming rare to even find an up-to-date website that has a table based layout, yet alone a serious web designer who designs with tables. Why give it so much attention on the main web design page then? There is already an article that goes into a lot of detail on the historical information on this issue Web design (Tableless). I think the CSS versus tables section should be reduced to one paragraph or less. Solomonrothman 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am shortening it during the article rewrite. Someone can still suggest further pruning, or merging parts into tableless web design, or both. Chris Loosley 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On an off-note, check out the CSS userbox I made in my userpage. I figure I'm not the only web designer in here... Thomasmallen 20:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the vast majority of web designers use CSS positioning. CNN.com and Apple.com for two still use tables. Vbulletin froum software uses tables. Dreamweaver does a poor job of displaying many CSS-based designs and Explorer at least through version 6 displays CSS in very non-standard ways. --studioJMC 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I swear some designers are so snobby, the section regarding css liquid design and html/table fixed design, sounds like it was written by someone who has decided to make this their own personal battle. The truth is, there are times when a liquid design is appropriate, times when a fixed design is appropriate and a time when a mixture of both is appropriate. It depends on the page, desired structure and the amount of content. Roxie Yasoxiez 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unintelligible?

I've given this comment its own heading, because it did not seem to be related to CSS. Hopefully it will be moot after I complete the rewrite. Chris Loosley 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is wrong with this article? Much of the english in several sections is completely unintelligable! It looks as if it has been translated from some other language. 209.173.14.125 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Line Length

"The best available research suggests that users will read fastest if the line lengths are longer (up to 10 inches). If the line lengths are too short (e.g., two and a half inch columns), the line length probably will impede rapid reading. Users tend to prefer lines that are relatively short (about four inches)." [2] See also [3] and p 56, guideline 6:12. --Ronz 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph on optimal line length, which was based upon outdated and incorrect information. The most up-to-date information that I could find is above, which isn't easily incorporated into the current article and probably doesn't need to be. --Ronz 05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cross Browser/Cross Platform support

An issue alluded to here but never adequately addressed is the need to create pages that work with a variety of browsers and platforms. A good, current breakdown of browser use, monitor sizes etc. would be helpful as well.

Also the need or at least possibility of using CSS to offer alternate designs for mobile/pda based browsers and for printing should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StudioMeister (talk • contribs) 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

There is a Comparison of web browsers in the HTML series. I don't know if enough could be done or said about making web pages display consistently across platforms and browsers. It really comes down to design for compatibility with the browser least compliant of the oldest standards. Then you know it works on the more compliant browsers. There is some issues covered in the HTML editor page about the difficulties in achieving WYSIWYG as well. Oicumayberight 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Planning documentation

I renamed the story boarding section to "Planning documentation" since it was expanded to include more than storyboards. The section and related articles are in bad need of rewrite or cleanup. The contradiction between "Website Wireframe" vs "Wireframe" needs to be fixed. One is talking about comprehensive layout and the other is talking about site map. Either both need to be included in the one website wireframe article, or separate articles need to be named with less contradiction. Oicumayberight 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a comprehensive list of terms used in web design, including wireframes, storyboards, and comps, all useful in the design process. We should get references from several of the top web design books and resources. This article has been a hack job of design concepts (much like most websites). Bytebear 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little bit and used the expanded definition of site map according to the O'reilly book "Information Architecture on the World Wide Web" page 58. I don't know where the usage of the word "wireframe" came from in the context of web design, but I made the word a disambiguation page to clear the confusion. It sounds like another unnecessary buzz word used to repackage the definition of comprehensive layout. Oicumayberight 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a word used all the time in my line of work. It should redirect to website wireframe directly as that is the context it is used. Bytebear 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to delete web design mistakes section

The section on web design mistakes lacks the formal tone and neutrality expected from an encyclopedia. It's more WP:SOAP. It lacks examples of why some of the practices would be mistakes. It assumes that every web page has the same goals. It needs reference or statistics to makes such strong claims. The paragraphs don't need numbering. It has more of the wikibook instructional tone. I would say it needs to be written in the 3rd person; but instead it needs to be deleted. Most of what is attempts to address is better addressed in other sections of the article. Oicumayberight 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the article style written section!

The Web Design Mistakes section is pretty awful. It's already been flagged as an unencyclopaedic tone, and I see no way to rectify this as it builds further (and perhaps elaborates too much) on information that has already been published multiple times on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.84.147 (talk • contribs) 200706151607.

Less about specific technologies, more about the process & standards

There's too much gory detail about specific technologies, some proprietary other transitory. Like any software development, good web design is a result of good processes that incorporate well established standards.

If the process and approach is built about accepted industry standards, then it should be able to accommodate, or at least anticipate, any type of technology that comes down the street.

For example, why so much about Flash and so little about semantic (x)HTML?

I would like to see this article re-factored along the lines of web standards - ordered by some type of high-level, generic process that includes discovery, design, etc ...

Meandean 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Self reference

A liquid design is one, like Wikipedia, where the design moves to flow content into the whole screen, or a portion of the screen, no matter what the size of the browser window.

Should this self reference be deleted, per WP:SELF? rbonvall 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It just looks odd to single out Wikipedia when other popular websites (Google, for one) use fluid/liquid/dynamic designs. I've removed it accordingly. -kotra (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial Section?

I wrote a very elaborate website design tutorial located here: www.garysimon.net/webdesign_tutorial/1 (4 pages). It has received a lot of attention and seems like it would be a reliable / valuable free resource for those interested in web design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.145.22 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. --Ronz 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

      Should we consider linking to W3 Schools for a tutorial area?

      Nonpr3 (talk)

SIlverlight

I placed a small blurg about silverlight.. I think the entire page should be re-structured to include a general section about web design technology, and inside that section we should have a short blurb about flash (much shorter than what is there now) and we should include a brief synopsis of the different technologies that come into play.

Just my two cents

Nonpr3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pervasive Usability

I do not think that Pervasive Usability should be merged into this article. Actually I wonder if the Pervasive Usability article should not be scheduled to be deleted

Just my 2 cents Nonpr3 (talk)

This section should not be merged!!

I am a web designer, and I do not know what Pervasive Usability means or even what it is used for, and therefore, I think that the section should not be merged. By Dinesh Kumar Mohanty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.130.224 (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So few sources for such a huge article?

Since this article is pushing so much content, I am surprised to see that it has only four sources. I believe it was right of whoever did it to tag this as needing references. On the whole, it leaves me doubting the content that all there seems to be is four articles, all online. Where are the books, research papers, newspaper articles, interviews? For something apparently this big, there has to be some authorities or someone well-researched to lean up. Come on.

As a side note, the article is indeed also messy. =/ Necz0r (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph

Not all user interfaces are graphical in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weedeater64 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Download became faster with the use of vector graphics

Another problem when using a lot of graphics on a page is that download times can be greatly lengthened, often irritating the user. This has become less of a problem as the internet has evolved with high-speed internet and the use of vector graphics.

?? The most used formats, JPG, PNG, GIF, are not vector graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimnl (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No reason to exclude mention of vector graphics as a solution. However minute, the problem has been lessened with vector graphics. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be a solution indeed, but internet hasn't evolved with vector graphics.. Pimnl (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)