Web Design: Complex Or Simple? Which is better?

[everydaysushi 0]

I was just having a discussion at work the other day about the pros and cons of advanced web design... great to look at! Hey, I love it, but I have DSL and a relatively new computer... but still, shouldn't we keep in mind the vast majority of people out there who still have dial-up and/or old/cheap comps (they're making them so cheap nowadays, which is great, but there's serious skimping on resources... at least in my experience)?

[Darren1405241470 0]

I think its definately best to have an option for both, therefore having the best looking page you can for those who want to view it and still not excluding those with slower connections/comps from viewing a more content specific version. If you only have one of them then you are most likely to be blocking potential viewers/customers depending on what your site is about.

[pbolduc 0]

In a previous post I stated that Flash sites, althought plesant to look at, were not as search engine friendly as static pages. This to me is flash's biggest problem. It is a catch 22 however, the people want both flash, and sound.I have gone to mixing it up using small pieces of flash embedded on static pages. What I have started to do is to support the flash sections with text hidden throughout the page, usually at the bottom of the page, that is colored the same as the background. While invisible to the viewer, the spiders are able to pick it up and index the page accordingly.This seems to work well, the customer is happy because they have some flash, I am happy because the page ranks in the engines, and for those on dail-up and with slow computers are still able to see the majority of the page while the falsh loads.

[jcguy 0]

If you really want the best experience for your website's visitors regardless of their surfing speeds, you may want to consider setting up Flash and non-Flash versions for your visitors.

[Dizasta 0]

I pefer allowing the user to choose between flash and html. it is also a good idea to use stylesheets and avoid tables where logically possible to make for easy access across a wide variety of media, especially now that PDA's and other small "computers" are accessing the net regularly.

[Hercco 0]

For my own sites I never do flash. I tend to keep changing content all the time and with flash this'd be a bit more difficult in it self plus I'd have to do changes to two places. I am not a huge fan of flash sites. If well done and in right kind of sites it's okay and I often opt to view the flash version of a site if asked, but many times the flash stuff is nothing amazing and thus kind of pointless. Flash is nice for sites like official band websites. People often go these sites to get to know the music and the musicians better and usually are not in hurry. Instead of speed a more pleasant viewing experience is more important. Also band websites (with flash) are usually done by professionals which usually means good quality. But still, a flashless or a "lo-fi" version of a site should always be available. Sometimes people want just check some facts and don't need that 2 minutes loading flash menu. Sometimes people a) don't bother to don't know how or c) are not allowed to install flash plugin. And, like earlier mentioned, we shouldn't forget people using handheld devices.

[everydaysushi 0]

I am not a huge fan of flash sites. If well done and in right kind of sites it's okay and I often  opt to view the flash version of a site if asked, but many times the flash stuff is nothing amazing and thus kind of pointless.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a good point. I have to visit a lot of different business' websites at work, and it's amazing how many of them have these snazzy flash intros... some are obviously not tech-savvy because they look horrible simply because the connection is too slow or something. It's like, everyone wants to have the best-looking stuff so they automatically think it's the newest invention or the thing with most bells and whistles. Some of the sites that've stuck out in my mind are simple and most importantly, EASILY NAVIGATED. I hate having to wander around looking for something so simple as a FAQ!!

 

And even when I'm at home, looking at music or movie websites, I find myself skipping the flash intros just because I'm so impatient nowadays. Ironic that technology makes us so impatient that we can't even enjoy the fruits of technology's labor. :oP

[NilsC 0]

This is my opinion. :)If you compare web-sites to books, most books are simple with a lot of information. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have "Kid’s books" and "Magazines" with little or no information but a lot of ‘flash’ (pun intended).So the golden middle way should be the rule, a little flash and lot of well organized content. If the site are not missing the alternate text for all the scripts and flashes that are there then that is an added bonus.There are a few web-sites I go to once and never again because I have no way of maneuvering around in the site. I click buttons on links and nothing happens, it may be because I’m not allowing scripts  in some of my browsersNils

[r3d1405241470 0]

simple but complex :)i like to design in this way, which lead to fruastration and stress. a simple design when novices visit a page. but for real designer it is complex as hell.

[NilsC 0]

simple but complex

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one...

 

I'm starting to hate pages with continously runing scrips. One iteration is OK but when the whole page and your menubars are jiggeling the whole time you visit a site it something wrong.

 

I load minimum of plugins on my work computers browser. I had to install java because our website uses it and I have the 'plug finder' option turned off.

 

Nils

[Abystar1405241473 0]

I think complex will attract more visitor than simple. but must be fast to browse too. this will not make your visitor boring~

[danagym 0]

My opinion is that no metter what web-design is used: simple or complex it has to be attractive, pleasant, and no metter what techniques are used there won't be abuse of it!What I don't like when is used flash, because very few sites have really qualitative and cool design! Most of the site have flash because it is actuall, but not because there is a need for using flash!I preffer html sites with interesting and atractive layout! It is an art!

[everydaysushi 0]

I'm starting to hate pages with continously runing scrips. One iteration is OK but when the whole page and your menubars are jiggeling the whole time you visit a site it something wrong.

 

I load minimum of plugins on my work computers browser. I had to install java because our website uses it and I have the 'plug finder' option turned off.

 

Nils

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on.

 

I think web design has progressed in stages. First it was simple, when Windows was first designed and all that (CAN YOU REMEMBER LIFE BEFORE WINDOWS? crazy)... Then years later, there was more and more you could do. I remember when HTML was THE thing to do, and it was so exciting seeing words scrolling across your screen. Then came Flash and Java and all that JAZZ, and it got real crazy. We're still feeling the after-effects of that, at least those with dial-up are still loading them!! Now, I think we're backing away from the EDGE of possibility... web design is more about balancing potential with design... I think there's a serious "simple but complex" philosophy going on... hey some of the most simple things are deceivingly complex... think in terms of modern art!!

[r3d1405241470 0]

That's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one...   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

youve forgot to quote the last line

a simple design when novices visit a page. but for real designer it is complex as hell.

do i mean scripts? lolz your soo noob

[everydaysushi 0]

Aaagh why is my internet so slow right now... anyway, this is kind of on topic, but I didn't want to make a whole new thread, so here's an ADDENDUM of sorts to this topic...

 

What is the average speed of the typical internet user's connection?

 

I'm working on this webpage for my boss and it's a bit tricky because we want a short video on it. This vid is only like 500kb because he only has dial-up at the office. And at the office, I was playing around with the website and it took about 3-4 minutes to load the video. But I have DSL at home, and here I am, with a click of the mouse and the vid's loaded and playing beautifully. Boy it'd be so much simpler to design this thing with DSL speed in mind, but it would NOT look the same on a dial-up.

 

Basically I want to know what you think can be considered the SPEED to design for. Dial-up or DSL? I know there are higher speeds, but for the past decade, dial-up was stuck around 28.8 and 56. Then came the DSL/Cable revolution and I'm not sure if I'm overestimating people's speeds now. Because there is still middle-America to consider (and don't even get me started on worldwide, because then I have NO clue). I know it's always safer to go for the lowest speed, so then EVERYONE can enjoy your site, but that's surely sacrificing a lot of creative freedom.

 

I should just split the pages in two, one entrance labeled "The tortoise" and the other "The hare"?! But it's just tough because the whole reason the boss wants to revamp the website is because it's too static... and you just can't get away from that if you have lower internet speeds.

 

Obviously I need help. Thanks for it, everyone!