Archive for the ‘Design’ Category
Getting carried away…
Wednesday, June 25th, 2008So for the third night in a row I’ve updated the design of my website. What’s new?
- More random pencil scribbles. Separators, bullet points, etc.
- Recent blog posts are now being displayed on the sticky note on all non-blog pages. Some character escaping still needed.
- Somewhat renders ok in IE. But then again, what sites ever really render properly in IE?
All this time spend and still no real content on my site…
Complete redesign! …sort of.
Sunday, June 22nd, 2008I redesigned my website. All of it except the blog part. While I only have about 100 or so lines of CSS on most pages of my site, the blog section has a lot more. And it’s laid out to fit my current modified wordpress template, which doesn’t exactly fit with my new website design. Arg. I’ll get around to updating it this week.
Why did I redesign it? Because I was sick of the old design after about a week. The same thing will happen with this one. Oh well.
Now I just have to put some actual content on my site.
Update (6.25.08 1:25am)
Blog redesigned as well. Now I’m going to sleep.
1024×768 is the new 800×600! (Screen resolutions)
Monday, April 7th, 2008
If you’ve designed, or at least have been somewhat involved in the design of a website, then it’s probably been hammered into your head that your site must be minimally viewable at 800×600.
Two or three years ago, I agreed with this notion. I don’t anymore. You’re pretty safe with using 1024×768 as a minimum screen resolution viewing size for your site. I’m not the only one that agrees…
W3Schools browser statistics lists computers with a 800×600 resolution at 14% in 2007, down 3% from the year before. It’s pretty safe to assume that it’s around 10% in 2008.
10% seems like a pretty significant number, but do you really want to limit the content on your site for a potential 10%? It will leave you much less space above the fold for images, embedded videos, web apps, etc. Is giving up some of that content really worth 10%?
I suppose it’s a trade-off you have to make. I made up my mind. I think I’m in pretty good company.
One thing to consider — if your site has significant readership from older and/or less technically savvy users, then it might be best to stick with 800×600. Those users are probably more likely to have smaller resolutions. If your site sways to the younger crowd, 1024×768 all the way!
Since I personally know all five people that view my site, I feel pretty confident in my decision.
(oh yeah, and of course Google Analytics will tell you everything you need to know about your readers)
Hybrid car manufacturers are missing opportunities
Saturday, April 5th, 2008After browsing several car company websites, I’ve realized something: car companies are missing opportunities with their hybrid models.
Let’s break things down…
Which consumers tend to be the more environmentally conscious? Answer: Young, educated.
What trim lines do young car buyer tend to purchase? Answer: Sporty, coupe.
What trim lines are hybrid cars typically offered in? Answer: Conservative, sedan.
Obviously, I’ve greatly simplified things, but still, there’s a disconnect here between marketer and consumer. And the solution isn’t all that difficult. Place a hybrid engine in your coupe trim lines, market along with standard engine coupe models.
OK, now someone make me a hybrid vehicle that doesn’t look like a cheese wedge or like something that my mom would drive.
My favorite websites still think it’s 1998
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008Back when the web was new and fresh, I was like a small toddler on a sugar high. I’d touch any shiny thing that came into my view. I’d click that flashy skyscraper ad, I’d punch that stupid monkey (admit it, so did you). But last time I checked it wasn’t 1998 anymore. I’m smarter now. So are you.
We’ve grown up. We don’t click on flashy obtrusive ads on websites because we’ve learned through years of conditioning that those ads aren’t relevant to us. They’re untargeted – a message blindly thrown to the masses. They’ve never done us any good, so we ignore them. This is especially true for pop-up ads. We’ve built up a strong immunity to them — and for good reason. So why do CNN.com and ESPN.com continue to serve pop-up ads to visitors that will almost certainly ignore them? Because they’re lazy.
Depending on what browser I’m using, and how well my pop-up blocker is working, I see this when I visit CNN.com :
C’mon CNN.com, you’re better than this. The fact that something called a “pop-up blocker” was invented in the first place should be a good enough signal that people don’t want to see pop-up ads.
But I understand why you continue to serve these ads. I’m sure for every 1,000 impressions, one or two weirdos intentionally (or accidentally) clicks on one. Woohoo! The ad space just became profitable (I guess). Hmm, a 0.1% response rate…I bet you could do better than this.
How about creating a myCNN.com? Where I can login and personalize my news content — and where YOU can keep track of my reading habits, likes, dislikes, interests, navigation style, page view time, etc, etc, etc. And then you can serve me RELEVANT, TARGETED ads that fit MY interests and viewing style — and you can place them where I’m more willing to click them (maybe I’ll even let you place them in my email inbox…maybe). Why don’t you just take the time to get to know me?? I’m betting you could easily turn a 0.1% response rate into a 10% response rate.
The point is, I already have a Netflix subscription. I don’t need another one.
