Complaint about Web pages

[richard_trochlil]

Have I missed a turn in the road somewhere? I get some Web page such

as the 'Unblinkingeye' and it's virtually unreadable. Surely the

author has read it and found it meets his requirements, so its pretty

but unreadable format must be deliberate. And that is only an

example. There seem to be lots of them out there. I am only picking

on 'eye' because he has some good stuff that is just plain too

difficult to read, you have to practically translate it.

 

One would think that people who work with light would know how to

make things easily readable.

 

Or do I have the only computer in the country that does that?

[john_kasaian1]

Richard, I've never found it to be unreadable. Of course I haven't read everything on the Unblnkingeye but what I have read, I have enjoyed. Some technical articles use jargon I'm unfamiliar with but I've found the writers generally do a good job of explaining the terminology in text,(incidently, when it comes to stuff like chemistry and math equations I am, as my past teachers have kindly put it: "stupid") One advantage for me, of delving into reading materially that is more difficult than I'm used to, is that it forces me to learn twice as much(terminology+information) though when such strains on my brain are driven by a topic that interests me it is education at its most rewarding level! ----Cheers!

[tim_atherton2]

there's a reason most of are photographers - if we could write, we'd be pumping out our next novel... or doing a woodward and bernstein. Instead, we take pictures...

 

tim

 

PS - actually, I have very very rarely come across and excellent photographer - the ones who were at the top of their game, who could write equally well. I can think of several who tried and failed abysmally... but I find it really hard to think of a good photographer who is also a good writer. Though occasionally it seems to work the other way round

[nathan_congdon]

Well, we've veered off topic a bit here, but Sally Mann would be an example of a photographer who is also an excellent writer. She frequently writes quite insightful intros to her books.

 

Nathan

[z_z1]

As a webpage designer, photographer and author (and yes I'm good at all three)most webpages are designed to be viewed at a resolution of at least 800x600. Many look their best at 1024x768.

 

I have looked at Ed's website and it seems he is trying to get as much advertising on his home page as possible. Most likely to defray the costs of running his website.

 

Ed has spent a lot of time as a moderator on one of the photo.net forums. I understand he has just resently resigned this responsibility to spend more time on his own site.

 

Ed has provided great feedback and information on this and many other forums on photo.net and other photo related sites. This community nature is commendable and appreciated. At least I appreciate it anyway.

 

Having said this I hope Ed does spend some time cruising some other websites to get ideas on how to make his site a bit better laid out.

 

Speaking from experience, I can say web development and coding is a VERY time consuming job with a fairly step learning curve to get beyond the quicky "hey I got a webpage" look.

 

To Ed I say good luck and happy hacking. In the mean time I will enjoy the great information contained within your existing website.

 

Eric

[bill_laidley]

I'm not sure if I want to wade into this... but here goes.

 

In Richard's comments it is hard to decide what he is discussing: one sentence suggests the textual content, the other the visual design. I'll try to speak to both (I've done technical writing and web design, so I do have some knowledge of both topics).

 

Textual content: To put it bluntly it is hard enough to write a clear, concise sentence - and much harder to write an entire article on what may be a fairly complex topic. I have no idea if Ed and the other authors are professional writers, but I have no difficulty reading the material on his site. Frankly I think the authors have done a pretty good job, and given that Ed is not charging us to read the material I wouldn't complain if the articles did take some study to understand. I've read photography articles in magazines written by paid writers that were much harder to figure out.

 

Visual appearance: Ed does choose some odd backgrounds, but so what. I've viewed the site using several versions of Internet Explorer and of Netscape. In all cases I was able to read the material fine. I'll admit I use a higher screen resolution (just checked - 1024 X 768), so perhaps a lower resolution might make the site more difficult to use. However, most PCs sold in the last 5 to 6 years support higher resolutions - so it is not an unreasonable decision to choose to design a site that works best at those levels.

 

If you want to see difficult reading try some of the early issues of Wired magazine. They went out of their way to make it physically difficult to read (odd choices for layout, font and colours). Other than allowing them to feel cool, I never did figure out why.

 

As to Ed's site - my thanks to Ed - I think it is a great resource. I browse it regularly.

[light-zone]

Looks like your out there all alone Richard...BTW, what's the link to your Website?

[steve_hovland]

Many sites have usability problems. Most of their owners don't want to hear about it.

 

If you want to do better, look at things like www.useit.com and www.uie.com.

 

My site is heavily influenced by usability concepts:

 

http://shovland.home.mindspring.com

[richard_rankin2]

I've been developing Web pages for fun and pay nearly since there WAS a WWW, and was 'on the net' long before that. Personally, instead of uttering such an ungrateful complaint, I'd rather say "gee, Ed, thanks for bothering to provide all this free info at your own expense so I don't have to spend my life chasing down this info".

 

And if his design offends your aesthetic sensibilities, you might offer to help him fix it up if he so desired. But if you find it such a horrendous problem to read, either offer to help fix it if you are even qualified to do so, or don't read it. Ed will survive without your patronage... Me, I'll take the articles and info any way I can get it.

[light-zone]

Hi Steve,

 

I took a look at your Site and it is very streamlined. But so much so that in order to see your work in it's entirity, you have to click on each and every button. This is where, IMO, a thumbnail system makes itsself useful. The viewer can see all the work (sure in postage stamp size, but what the heck) and the photographer knows that atleast his work was viewed completely, no matter how small.

 

But better a streamlined page than one that takes forever to load...

[richard_trochlil]

Well, I guess I am unreadable too. Note the phrase "pretty but unreadable" I was referring to the fact that I can't SEE the print,or the photos for that matter. In the case of 'eye', he has a background that looks pretty but breaks up the print so it almost is some sort of abstract art.

 

Another floating around has light gray print on dark gray background etc etc etc.

 

And I am the only one having trouble with this?

 

Something wrong with my screen maybe? Old age creeping up?

[rick_jones5]

Bill Laidley, I couldn't have said it better! Re your comment about even paid writers being hard to understand - how about Ansel Adams. If you want to understand and practice the Zone System do you read AA? As R.E. Behan wrote "---Adams the photographer and Adams the explainer were two altogether different Adamses: genius and underachiever, respectively". Ed Buffaloe, many of us appreciate your many contributions to the photo community in general as well as the information provided on your site.

[steve_hovland]

William- loading speed is the reason I don't do thumbnails, although it would be a good idea. I do use large thumbnails on the screen savers page.

 

The original idea was to provide access to a lot of pictures without having a lot of pages- the buttons trigger javascript to show the pictures, which are sized to load fairly quickly.

 

Usability studies indicate that people like to see pages load in 8 seconds or less. As bandwidth increases we will be able to do things we can't do now.

 

So here I sit, brain churning. Looks like I may have to start version 5, at least for test purposes...

[steve_hovland]

A few quick tips:

 

People read more slowly on screens than they do on paper, so the fewer the words, the better.

 

Print smaller than 8 pixels is hard to read- remember that a lot of the viewers are Baby Boomers who don't see as well as 20 year olds.

 

Things that move or blink make pages hard to read by distracting the viewer.

 

One authority on this is Jakob Nielsen, who wrote "Designing Web Usability."

 

There are thousands of web sites by photographers out there, so for competitive purposes it behooves us to do everything we can to make our sites user friendly.

[tom_westbrook]

I'll have to agree with some of what Richard says about readablility of text on textured backgrounds (it's an issue of interference, not resolution), but the problem is he's complaining to the wrong people. If you have a problem with a web site, send the complaint/problem to the web site owner. We can't do anything about Ed's or anyone else's site. <p>

 

I sent Ed a note about the same readablility problem a week or so ago & he kindly answered that it was his favorite background, and that he'd look into it. I think the problem is that people who use Times or another serifed font find reading particularly difficult since the thinner parts of the characters interfere with the texture of the background. I suggested to Ed that he force a specific font from his side that worked better with the backgrounds he uses, e.g. Helvetica, which might resolve the issue. I could change my default font, but I find Times much more readable in general and I feel it's the responsibility of the web site desinger/author to make their site easy to use. I personally think textured backgrounds should be banned from the internet and I think most site authors don't use them anymore.

<p>

Cheers.

[steve_hovland]

Usability research indicates that sans serife fonts are easier to read on line.

 

My preferred approach is to not specify a font and let the user choose size and style at the browser level.

 

It costs a lot of money to tweak the fonts on a site, and I think a lot of that money is wasted.

[ed b.]

Obviously, I do not make my site deliberately unreadable, and the increasingly large readership I enjoy must mean that most people do not have a problem viewing Unblinking Eye. 99% of the complaints I have received about viewing my site are from people who are using a Netscape browser, which defaults to a very small font size and generally displays my site poorly. I'm not a Microsoft booster, but in this case their product works better. I have also found that Opera works quite well with my site.

 

I apologize to anyone who has trouble viewing Unblinking Eye, but I'm self-taught in the area of web development and working with limited means. If there is a particular article that you really want to read, but simply find too difficult, write to me and I will be happy to send you a text file of it.

 

As for advertising, I have only made money from selling books for Amazon, and I am almost to the point where the site can pay for itself through book sales. I am a member of the Light Impressions and Travelocity affiliate programs, but I've never made any money from them. All other advertising (for instance, Photographer's Formulary, Bostick and Sullivan, Bergger, etc.) is free at this point--I do it because I like the people who own the companies and they are performing a valuable service to the photographic community. Thus far, in almost three years, I have sold exactly one print via the web--it is not a good medium for selling art, which people generally want to see in person before they buy.

[tom_westbrook]

Research is based on averages. I must be an exception.<p>

 

It costs no money to specify a standard font like Helvetica with a web site design program like NetObjects Fusion (which is what Ed seems to use for his site). It's just a matter of implementing styles, which is pretty painless with that software. Of course, that's up to Ed, not me. I just mentioned it as a possible solution.

[ed b.]

I started using backgrounds because my wife complained that my site looked too boring with no backgrounds. One thing I can do is to reduce the color saturation on the backgrounds so they don't interfere quite so much with viewing text. This will take some time, so please be patient with me--the site is quite large.

[bob.]

I.E. = View menu > Text Size > Largest.

 

End of problem (to the extent that there is one) - great & useful site Ed.

[steve_hovland]

Thanks to William's input, here's a revised "Recent Additions" page with thumbnails:

 

http://shovland.home.mindspring.com/recent.html

[per_volquartz1]

To design a webpage, brochure, annual report or any other piece of visual communications material requires an understanding of design, perception, reading preferences, and typography, to name a few things...

The graphic designer - just like a large format photographer - needs to understand his/her "tools", in order to create something that communicates the concept of the site / printed matter.

Being a great graphic designer takes a lot of practice - just like being a serious photographer. Photographers in general could benefit from studying - or learning about - simple principles of effective design - just as graphic designers in general should develop a better understanding of photography.

 

Per Volquartz

 

http://www.volquartz.com/pervolquartz

[bill_laidley]

Further to Per's comments I would add that the first (to my mind most important) thing is to understand your audience. As a technical writer I give careful thought to the level of reading comprehension, vocabulary, etc. that my readers will have (generally speaking one assumes a grade 7 or 8 level of capability). I write to the lowest reasonable level. That way I know that my audience will be able to understand the material. I also give thought to how the document will be used, for example if sections will be faxed to people I will use a slightly larger font and more white space so that it will still be readable as a received fax.

[richard_trochlil]

Well, I have no trouble UNDERSTANDING what I read, what I have trouble with is READING it. I put this on this forum because given the large number of WEB pages out there practically undecipherable to me, I thought maybe it was just me. I could not imagine that all these people were deliberately making things hard to read just to be arty or something, or just plain didn't know any better.

 

BTW, I use Outlook Express.

 

Well, it was an interesting discussion. If it leads to just one more legible WEB page, it was probably worth it.

[henry_a]

Richard, can you set your browser to display the type larger? That helps me a lot. I use iCab and set the font larger. BTW, iCab and Mozilla both display unblinkingeye.com very nicely. Ed's site is really quite good in my opinion, I consider it a valuable resource. I chuckled at Ed's explanation for the backgrounds as I recently got a similar comment from a client. Her friend told her "I know a guy designed your site". I added backgrounds later that week.