WHO DO I BELIEVE?
by Bob McElwain


Upon invitation, I recently visited a site that was
absolutely loaded with really great art. There was a splash
page, beautifully rendered, that took almost two minutes to load.
The main table on each page was fixed at 850 pixels, an odd
choice that assures nearly everyone must scroll horizontally to
see the entire page. The content was very well written, but most
of it was on a single long page.
I reported I felt these were serious blunders, and added a
bit about the why of it. When the fellow replied, he said he had
checked with the artists and been assured these were design
considerations. Then he asked, as if with a shrug, "Who do I
believe?"
A total novice to the Web, this fellow asked the key question
all newbies come to eventually. There is lots of conflicting
information on the Web and it often requires careful thinking to
sort the wheat from the chaff.
What I explained to this fellow is that site design comes
second to function. That is, if a site does not function well,
beautiful art will not help. Given any conflict between design
and function, scrap the design. He never replied to any of my
followup messages.
But in the above, and what follows, there is really nothing
to debate. Go to any successful site on the Web, and you will
find function comes first, that art work, no matter how lovely,
is secondary. Or ask those who work the Web. I do not know
anyone into site promotion who says design is more important than
function. Function rules. Period. If you accept this, then the
following must be eliminated from your site ASAP.
Horizontal Scroll -- I have never heard anyone say they liked horizontal
scrolling. I have never even heard anyone say they didn't mind
it. While I have no convincing proof, people are annoyed when
forced to scroll horizontally. If you disagree, try a poll on
your site and ask visitors to vote yes or no to horizontal
scrolling.
Monitors limited to 640x480 pixels are no longer being
manufactured. The minimum resolution being sold today is
600x800. And while many site designers have settled on a width
of 760 pixels as ideal, I can not recommend more than 600.
While this is changing rapidly, there are still some 640x480
monitors in use. (I have one on a system here in the office.)
And some people using 600x800 monitors have them set up for large
font, which amounts to 640x480. While there does not appear to
be a way to count such users, I choose not to annoy them by
forcing horizontal scrolling.
Another group consists of those such as myself who are less
than enchanted with browsers. I do not want the entire screen
filled with one. I have both Netscape and Explorer set up to a
640 pixel width so I can easily get to my desktop. Or change
quickly from one application to another.
However many surfers the above amounts to, your are annoying
them when you force horizontal scrolling; you are urging them to
leave quickly.
Frames -- I personally do not like them, and many do not. There is a
problem with WebTV users about which I am not clear. But I was
told it is difficult to scroll in any but the master frame.
Annoy 12 million people? Plus folks like myself who don't like
frames? Is it worth the risk?
Another concern I have about frames is the screen real estate
they chew up. Add another vertical and horizontal scroll bar and
you lose about 10% of the screen. Wouldn't it be better to use
this for content? Or maybe just white space?
But my biggest gripe with frames is that designers typically
blow out table widths, which forces horizontal scroll, often in
each window.
Finally, spiders won't like your page, and your search engine
position will suffer. Fewer visitors is not the goal.
Splash Screens -- To me, these are the greatest site killers of all. Put
yourself in the position of a surfer who is checking out a couple
of sites. The URL to your site is clicked. And up pops a splash
screen. Thud. When the URL was clicked, it was a request to see
your site, not a splash screen. Now the surfer must find an
Enter button and make a second request to visit.
Forgetting the fact that most splash screens are overloaded
with graphics thus take forever to load, consider what happens in
the surfer's mind. In the URL, there is an invitation to visit,
which was accepted. But at the site there is a barrier, not
unlike "Password Required."
If you use a splash screen, you are sending away at least
half of your traffic. Most surfers will click off within
seconds.
So who do you believe? Me? Others in the know? Fortunately
in this case you can answer the question yourself, and with
certainty. Just compare the hits on your splash screen to the
number on the page it links to. I have yet to hear of a case in
which even half those who hit the splash screen clicked on into
the site.
And There Are Others -- While the above are the most obvious site killers, there are
others. But pages slow to load can be fixed. Pages too long can
be spilt into two or more parts. With most such site killers,
there are solutions. The above are the most significant because
once built into a site, there is no easy fix. In most cases,
it's best to simply start over.
"Thou shalt annoy thy visitor" is not to be found in any list
of good business practices of which I am aware. Why do so?
_______________________________________________________
Bob has been marketing on the Web since 1993. He helps
newbie webmasters build great sites with less effort
by showing them how to work smarter. For loads of newbie
friendly site stuff, visit http://SiteTipsAndTricks.Com
For even more, subscribe to "STAT News!" Just send a
blank email to mailto:join-stat@lists.dundee.net