Jon Sachs on Web Design

Liquid vs. fixed: Should web pages expand to fill the browser (like this one) or stay a fixed width for all users? I like liquid because it lets me adjust the page the way I like, and also it acknowledges that web pages are NOT fixed, like print.
Navigation solutions: Cascading menus are often hard to use, and don't generally satisfy accessibility requirements. Flash navigation can be very cool, but also has accessibility issues. Old-fashioned link navigation is also the most Google-friendly.
Blogs: I don't get the blog thing. Seems to me that many columnists and cartoonists have run themselves into the ground trying to come up with brilliant new stuff every freaking day. Nobody has that much to say, and I don't have time to read people's ramblings. In fact, I will add to this site rather infrequently — on unusual occasions when I have something new to say.


	Jonathan Sachs Graphics 12 Oxbow Lane Burlington, MA 01803 781-272-1989 jon@jonsachs.com	web projects • web services • photography • print
		when to hire me • kudos for jon • resume • other stuff
		on web design • infrequently asked questions


			MY OPINIONS ON WEB DESIGN High-density, three-column web design is the corporate standard. I'm sure there is research that supports this solution, which I would dispute. In any case, this page contains some of my plentiful opinions about web page design. And yes, I do know what they say about opinions.


			So much else in the world is ugly, why should web sites be any better? I find most web sites to be confusing, ugly and depressing, just like most buildings I see, particularly commercial buildings. But there is a financial reason to build ugly commercial buildings — they are cheaper to build and you may even pay less tax on an ugly building. But web sites that are well-designed, easy to use, and attractive do not have to cost more. I reject the notion that you are paying a lot for each web page and therefore need to fill it with content. See the home page of Google for a counter example from a web technology firm that has done OK for itself.


	Typical headache-inducing web page This is a main section page (one click from the home page) from a very well-known corporate web site. I am well aware that this is intended to be a high-density, information-driven web page. That's not the problem. Here is the problem, as I see it: there are roughly 17 different kinds of presentation of information, so the user has to do a great deal of work to figure out what all this stuff is. When I get to a page like this, I tend to get discouraged and look to find the first reason to leave. The owner of this page may see it as a delightful smorgasbord of treats that no one could resist. And in fact, this page must work for a fair number of people, since most of the web looks like this. But I'll bet I'm not the only one who hates these pages. I once had a client who requested that his home page be extremely busy and dense because his company was in a startup phase, had nothing to offer, but wanted to look very busy and high energy. I doubt anybody was fooled.


	Somewhat better page. This is also a main section page (one click away from the home page) but from Apple. This page is equally dense with content but is less headache-inducing because it groups the information into a smaller number of boxed areas, each with a label, such as "Movie Trailers," Also, Apple chooses not to give you every navigation choice all at once. They give you the current main section and 6 sub choices. Already your headache eases. While the large center column does have lots of things going on, at least they all fall under a unifying header, "Quicktime 7" and there is a clear hierarchy. Nearly all graphics professionals use Macs, so if Apple had poor design they would be tarred and feathered.


	My version of a complex web page. This is also a main section page (one click away from the home page) — from my site for the Conservation Law Foundation. This page is much more complex than I usually design because we decided that we needed multiple forms of navigation, but for good reasons. We decided to separate topics about CLF from environmental topics in order to give them different levels of importance. We also needed a menu for each state office home page. The CLF topics appear in the top nav under the name and motto. The state menu is condensed to the right and works with the "New England as part of the Planet" graphic. The environmental topics are in a left navigation column, so they can grow as needed, and can have as many sub navigation links as needed. (Top nav limits the number of items that can appear.) The right-hand list is simply a list of hot topics that CLF wants to draw attention to. Admittedly there is less content here than in my previous examples, but I'll bet a nickel I could clean those up too.


			Yahoo vs. Google Here are the two philosophies going head on: Yahoo says, let's give 'em all the info they can handle and more. Let them drink from a fire hose! Google says, relax, be cool: let's deal with one thing at a time. Sure, we can find maps, images, bargains, groups — there's plenty of tools here. Seems to me Google is making a solid profit while wasting all that white space on their home page. Sure, they search better, but they also know better than to throw everything in the world at you at once.


	The newspaper comparison Here is the question: If I don't like crowded, information-full web sites, why do I have no problem with newspaper pages, all of which use the same high-density layout? Because below the banner, every single item on the front page is identical in nature: a news story. Important ones are bigger and closer to the top. That's all you need to know. You glance at the headlines and decide whether to read the copy. You don't have to figure out what anything is — it's all news. So I wouldn't mind if all corporate web sites looked pretty much the same, the way newspapers do. I just wish they hadn't all glommed onto a faulty model. I happened to find the D-Day front pages from two different newspapers (thank you Google images.) The one on the right is the Pocono Record.


			A terrific book about web site design This is a wonderful, short, clear book about these topics. Krug's point is that if people have to figure out your website, that is not a good thing. They should take one glance and instantly "get it." I have given free copies to my customers because it is such a well-done book. It is available from Amazon and elsewhere. Buy it and keep it handy.


	A few more opinions, just in case you're not yet aggravated Liquid vs. fixed: Should web pages expand to fill the browser (like this one) or stay a fixed width for all users? I like liquid because it lets me adjust the page the way I like, and also it acknowledges that web pages are NOT fixed, like print. Navigation solutions: Cascading menus are often hard to use, and don't generally satisfy accessibility requirements. Flash navigation can be very cool, but also has accessibility issues. Old-fashioned link navigation is also the most Google-friendly. Blogs: I don't get the blog thing. Seems to me that many columnists and cartoonists have run themselves into the ground trying to come up with brilliant new stuff every freaking day. Nobody has that much to say, and I don't have time to read people's ramblings. In fact, I will add to this site rather infrequently — on unusual occasions when I have something new to say.