Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Isaac on October 09, 2013, 01:17:39 am
-
Seems to commandeer the physical screen size which messes-up because even when the web browser window is "full-screen", the OS can restrict the browser window to part of the screen to allow for side bars (Mozilla Firefox on Ubuntu).
-
Ditto with Firefox 24 on a Windows PC. The browser doesn't resize the window to fit the screen. Tried emptying the browser cache with no effect.
However, works fine on my iPad and Safari with iOS 7.02.
Paul
-
Let's "see". The previous design had space for three ads along the top. Now there's seven "ads" with space for more along the side. Wonder why they went to this design? Oh ya, visitor readability.
-
just sucks
It took me some time after I discovered that there should be a top navigation bar (because there where some pics of the homepage on the home page!). The top navigation needs javascript even to be visible and this is disabled by me for very good security reasons.
Such a top navigation bar is perfectly possible without javascript.
When I go to the shop (to buy the new c1 tutorial) I just get a blank page with a lula banner on top.
You probably want the customers to allow a extra unknown third party to run javascipt on there computer.
Alain
-
Much prefer the white on grey. Generally an improvement as far as I can tell.
Jim
-
Hallo,
I really like the new design as far as I can judge after clicking around for some time.
What I found is that, to my knowledge, is hat a 'back to Lula' button at the shop is missing. You have to use the backspace key to come back to Lula.
Robert
-
A big improvement. Much easier to read now each line isn't 24 inches wide. Orange+red+gold+LIME+green text looks a bit garish (using Frontpage, eh?), but overall a welcome change.
-
Much easier to read now each line isn't 24 inches wide.
Ever thought of resizing your browser window ?
-
Well-designed sites don't force one to do so.
-
White on grey is definitely nicer to read and an improvement.
However the decision to put the advert bar on the LHS is a poor one.
I never see adverts because of the browser I use, so it's just become a big waste of space. The irony is that for a site devoted to photography, where composition is so important, it just looks a terrible design now. At least when the empty space was confined to the top of the page the overall layout remained elegant when no ads were showing.
One step forward, two steps back.
-
Much prefer the white on grey. Generally an improvement ...
+1
But would add a suggestion that the layout would have a 'more natural feel' if the ads were on the right hand side.
-
I don't speak for Kevin and the crew, but restricting the content to a certain width is very common (my own site does this). It ensures readability at any browser size. From a design perspective it's very hard to make a website look well when the content can be pushed and squeezed to fit every conceivable window width. Instead you pick one width that will fit comfortably on even the lowest common screen resolution and stick with that.
I think the new design looks very well and is a great improvement over the old one. Of course there's some time needed to get used to it, especially if you've been reading the site for years and know the old layout intimately.
Good job guys!
Cheers,
Peter
-
I'm sorry, but this new website has all the flaws (your pet-peeve, Michael) of a new camera that was designed without the input of a photographer or, in this case, the viewer. Not to put too fine a point on it, it sucks! It doesn't adjust to screen size, it is difficult to navigate and, as was mentioned in other posts, requires javascript, which many of us have disabled for security reasons. Finally, to be hit in the face with such overwhelmingly aggressive ads makes me want to immediately go somewhere else. This is very sad for me, because LL was, until today, my go-to website after checking my emails in the morning. Without some rather quick firmware changes, I might have to find something else to read in the mornings with my coffee. :'(
-
As others have said, the fixed width of articles is a major issue. It's great that it doesn't expand to ridiculous sizes when the browser window is wide, but it's a problem for windows that are less than 1280 pixels wide too. Having a design that scales to narrower widths would also make it work better on iPads etc.
Also, Arial, really? There's much better choices available these days with webfonts. Arial is just ugly and hard to read, and neither it nor Helvetica were designed for use in body text.
I also have issues with the CMS, because there's a lot of inline styling that doesn't need to be there, but this is more of an under-the-hood thing that most people won't even notice. Stuff like:
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">
should not be there. Also, '12pt'? This isn't print, fonts shouldn't be sized in points on web pages. Use pixels, ems or percent sizes.
FWIW I disagree with the complaints about requiring JavaScript to use the menu. It's fine to require it, and practically every site in existence does the same these days. Disabling JS in one's browser is more trouble than it's worth, for dubious security 'benefits' that nobody can seem to provide actual examples of.
-
Also, Arial, really? There's much better choices available these days with webfonts. Arial is just ugly and hard to read, and neither it nor Helvetica were designed for use in body text.
I don't think that's a big worry. But Michael has a Creative Cloud subscription, so a font from the Typekit service might look better.
-
I don't think that's a big worry. But Michael has a Creative Cloud subscription, so a font from the Typekit service might look better.
I disagree. The typography is absolutely fundamental to the experience of reading articles, and to use such a reader-hostile font speaks ill of the site, and furthermore implies, rightly or wrongly, that this aspect wasn't even given any attention, that the designer just used Arial/Helvetica because it's the default.
edit:
Lest I sound overly negative, I do think the background is a significant improvement over the light-grey–on–black.
-
... and furthermore implies, rightly or wrongly, that this aspect wasn't even given any attention, that the designer just used Arial/Helvetica because it's the default.
And probably the cheapest (from a licensing point of view)
-
Michael has access to TypeKit fonts through his CC subscription, so it may not add any cost. While Arial/Helvetica work perfectly well, it wouldn't take much effort to use something more distinctive.
-
Thanks everyone for your comments. They are appreciated, even when we disagree.
The redesign of the site was done over a long period of time, with a lot of thought and planning. We looked at current web technical practices as well as design idioms. We wanted to primarily add now capabilities (look beneath the surface and you'll see whole new navigation and publishing engine), plan for future products, (our new streaming video and subscription service, which just went live) and also address reader's past requests.
Importantly, we also wanted to update the look and feel while also keeping the site's familiar colours and design ethos. Not an easy task.
Now to some specific points. Fonts? The font is the same font that we've been using for 14 years. Helvetica. Easiest to read, used by the vast majority of sites.
Ads on the left? Well, we decided to move them from the top and had two choices. Left or right. We chose left. Some people don't like it. If we put them on the right, my guess is that there'd be those that would complain about that as well.
Animated ads? We've had them for years. Ads come and go. Some are animated. Some aren't. Look at all the major sites. Most have animated ads. They're designed to catch your eye. Sometimes they're annoying. But they pay the bills.
Speaking of ads, We only accept advertising from products and companies associated with the photographic industry. Many peer sites accept ads from anyone. We also don't put ads in the middle of articles the way others do. We do the best we can to respect our readers while still accepting the reality of paying the bills and keeping advertisers happy.
Thanks everyone for your feedback, even if we don't accept all of your suggestions, we appreciate the feedback.
Michael
-
The home page looks like a 1990 chrismass tree web site type design. At the time people started to do web sites to push zillions of messages. What an advertising mess. I would say some photography composition rules could apply here to...
The menu on top is the cleanest idea.
My 2 cents
JD
-
I can't complain about the presence of advertisements, if they keep the site going, but I hate the *moving* and *blinking* advertisements next to the day's photo. How can you look at the photo with the Phase One ball (lens) that keeps coming in from the side? The front page is like looking at a pinball machine -- there's just too much on it, and in a fairly unsophisticated way (all little squares and blocks, some of them blinking.)
It will be interesting to see what happens, though. There's a sort of Darwinist survival-of-the-fittest fight going on among websites, as consumers demand more and more from the sites, but don't want to pay for them. Trying to monetize these things is turning into a nightmare. One possible option -- have two versions of the site simultaneously, one with ads, and one without ads...the one without ads available to subscribers, who pay a fee to see it. (I would pay.) On the other hand, I know nothing about website design, and that might be too complicated to pull off; and the people who *can* pay are probably exactly the ones the advertisers want.
I think what is needed is probably a serious designer (not an engineer, but somebody versed in aesthetics) to rationalize the page, and find some way to coordinate the ads with the editorial material.
-
John,
Look at other sites. Every one of them has similar issues. There are no simple solutions, only choices.
I resisted advertising for many years. I frequently wrote that for the site to survive people would need to buy our products (which many did), but eventually ads became an inevitability. They pay the bills. I don't know of any web site of any size or stature that now doesn't have them, and in every case I can find fault with how they appear and how they're displayed.
When something that's been around in much the same form, as LuLa for so long (14 years), people get used to it, and when it changes the new flaws (and yes, there are flaws) are glaring, while the old flaws are ignored, simply because they have become familiar.
We will continue to try and improve things, but making all of the people happy all of the time is an impossible goal. So far, based on correspondence that we're receiving, many people are pleased and excited about the new features, most like the new look, but a few dislike it.
Michael
-
Overall I find the new look an improvement, in good part because it is friendlier to the small touch screens of the mobile devices where I do a lot of my recreational reading; it is even tolerable on a phone, where the old layout was a struggle to read and navigate.
I also like the neutral gray background, which is easier on my eyes, and I think it is also more "neutral" than either a black or white surround in terms of perceived contrast when viewing photographs. (I often use a similar gray for my desktop when working with photographs, and for the backgrounds around photographs.)
P.S. As to fonts; I agree that there is room for fine-tuning --- but at least it is not Helvetica Neue Ultra Light everywhere!
Can the font choices be adjusted according the the resolution of the display in use, so that for example screens offering about 2000 pixels or more in width get a "print quality" or "retina friendly" font, while lower res. screens get a simpler sans serif choice like Helvetica? Sometimes I miss the days when HTML mostly provided a "logical description" of the text content and left most of the visual formatting details to preferences at the client end.
P. P. S. About ads: I completely accept the trade-off between advertising and good free content, but --- Safari Reader mode FTW!
-
Ooohhh my gosh...the ADS are driving me absolutely nuts!! Sorry but they are too huge and the Phase ad, for example, keeps moving which is very distracting. Makes me want to click on another web site. Sorry. Eleanor
-
We hear you (and others) Eleanor. Ad content and presentation is up to the individual advertiser, but we'll see what we can do about this one.
Michael
-
A big improvement. Much easier to read now each line isn't 24 inches wide. Orange+red+gold+LIME+green text looks a bit garish (using Frontpage, eh?), but overall a welcome change.
Eh?
I just tried to read the current newest article. The layout has substantially over 100 characters per line (optimum is established to be <65 characters) and doesn't re-flow with a resized browser window. I'm using Chrome. The line length criterion is just about the most fundamental typographic rule - undisputed as far as I'm aware and dating back to Gutenberg who used a two column layout.
WOB text (ok, WOG if you'll excuse the expression) is proven to diminish readability - in print media at least - and > 100 chars / line. Whatever else this redesign is intended to accomplish, improved readability isn't a by-product.
Overall, even discounting the fact that we become accustomed to a familiar format and resist change, the new design isn't an improvement, IMHO. And not just mine I believe.
Roy
-
I like the overall look! *Much* more readable, thank you! My biggest concern is that the site is not device agile; frankly I'm a bit surprised. By device agile, I'm referring to the site adjusting itself to the device displaying it.
Here some examples (resize your browser window, or flip your device sideways, to see how they "flow")
http://demo.gantry-framework.org/
http://wright.joomlashack.com/demo/
http://www.getskeleton.com/
Nearly all major CMS systems (Joomla, Drupal, Wordpress) support this. In addition all these frameworks are open source.
I read an article recently referring to an informal poll of internet users and devices; of those polled under the age of 35, 30% said their primary internet access was via smartphone......
-
I'm using Safari and don't have any issues with the new look. I might prefer a serif typeface for readability, but that's just my personal preference. I just read the new article on composition and didn't find it difficult at all. Advertiser supported Lula is my preference over subscription service for a number of reasons. I appreciate all the work that goes into creating an maintaining a site like this and come here to receive and share valuable information, but I don't live here. What I'm trying to say is this is a resource and requires compromises. There's nothing wrong that can't be adapted to. Of course I could be wrong. Your mileage may vary. ;)
-
Dear David,
You're not wrong. ;)
Michael
-
Looks like the site design has been "successfully" Raberized too.
Is this really necessary (see the attachment)? I mean, do we really need big, all CAPS, underlined, bright orange "instruction" under each and every article headline!? Unless the idea was Christmas tree, that is. Since the dawn of the Internet we've been used to click on the headline to read an article. Or, alternatively, there would be a discreet "Read more..." at the end of an intro.
-
My first reaction is I like it. Layout looks way cleaner, the background makes text & images more readable, navigation feels more direct and intuitive. No sizing issues thus far with my browser (Firefox 24) on dual Eizo FlexScan L997s @ 1600x1200 each.
-
Needs to autoscale to narrower screens scrolling side to side is a non-starter.
-
I echo what Slobodan writes wholeheartedly.
Other than that, I don't mind the ads. I just slide the window over to the left edge of the screen so I can't see the ads. I'd rather have the ads on either side of the screen than show up through the articles, so no complaints about that here.
-
I also see that you are providing more information in the captions about the photos (including shutter speed and aperture).
Is this going to be consistent, or does it depend on the photographer? Michael never seems to provide more than focal length and ISO (which is fine, but I always welcome more information to learn from).
-
Screen is too wide. Unusable.
-
Now to some specific points. Fonts? The font is the same font that we've been using for 14 years. Helvetica. Easiest to read, used by the vast majority of sites.
A significant number of sites also still use <font> tags and inline JavaScript, that doesn't make it right. Furthermore, I'd strongly disagree with your assertion that Helvetica is 'easiest to read', when there are plenty of other fonts (Source Sans Pro, Open Sans, PT Sans, Ubuntu, to name just a few) that are much better, and actually designed for use at body text sizes.
For a long time I've resorted to things like Stylebot (http://stylebot.me/about) or, more recently, Clearly (http://evernote.com/clearly/), to give my eyes a rest when reading articles on LuLa.
When something that's been around in much the same form, as LuLa for so long (14 years), people get used to it, and when it changes the new flaws (and yes, there are flaws) are glaring, while the old flaws are ignored, simply because they have become familiar.
Old flaws, indeed ;)
-
"Click here to read the article" is obtrusive and maybe unnecessary and certainly repetitive to the point of being visually unattractive. Otherwise, while I can't say I like the new design, it doesn't offend me.
-
It amazes me that nobody but me appears to register the fact that 120+ characters on a single line of text is incredibly difficult to read. Take a look at almost any publication - newspapers, books, pamphlets - and you'll see that the "measure" is almost always restricted to <65 characters. This isn't a pointless convention; it's because longer lines are really, really, difficult to read. And the point of this stuff is to be read, isn't it?
On the overall layout the design criteria aren't so critical to one's ability to read and understand the text content. But presenting text in the format that these articles are currently presented actively impedes comprehension. (Turns round, bangs head against wall.) Ask any experienced, trained, graphic designer. It's the web, certainly, but it's still text and the same optical and neurological hardware are being employed to read it.
Jeeze.
Roy
-
I'm using Safari and don't have any issues with the new look. I might prefer a serif typeface for readability, but that's just my personal preference. I just read the new article on composition and didn't find it difficult at all. Advertiser supported Lula is my preference over subscription service for a number of reasons. I appreciate all the work that goes into creating an maintaining a site like this and come here to receive and share valuable information, but I don't live here. What I'm trying to say is this is a resource and requires compromises. There's nothing wrong that can't be adapted to. Of course I could be wrong. Your mileage may vary. ;)
+1
I find the new layoout is fine and I will adjust. ;D
Alan
-
I just have to say it's pretty obvious it wasn't designed by a web professional - lots of big design no-nos, but I don't think anyone there cares, since you guys seem to have made all the decisions already...but it's obvious to those of us that do sites regularly. For example - meta keywords have been useless for quite some time now...years. For such a high profile site you would do yourself wonders by spending some cash on a proper designer.
-
I just have to say it's pretty obvious it wasn't designed by a web professional - lots of big design no-nos, but I don't think anyone there cares, since you guys seem to have made all the decisions already...but it's obvious to those of us that do sites regularly. For example - meta keywords have been useless for quite some time now...years. For such a high profile site you would do yourself wonders by spending some cash on a proper designer.
Thanks for the compliment kaelaria, I see that some things never seem to change. The last time there was a big site update I think you said the exact same things ;) As far as meta-keywords being useless I think you might want to do a little more research in that area if you "do sites regularly" -- while some search engines supposedly ignore that's not true for all of them and there really are actual real good reason to have them there that go beyond search engines. It seems that you just really have a hate on, but if things are so bad here how did you still manage to rack up thousands of posts on this forum? ;)
I'd like to quickly address a couple of things that people have mentioned in this thread:
Javascript: It's not the 90's anymore and those couple of security issues that Netscape Navigator had back in the day are honestly no longer a problem. If you want to have any kind of web experience these days javascript is part of the deal. If you go out of your way to disable javascript because you are paranoid or think it's a security issue then you're going to have to deal with the consequences (like not having navigation menus and not being able to load web stores). Javascript is a pretty essential component of web design now that we're in the 21st century.
Fixed Width: This was a design decision we made and it is primarily about readability. A previous poster mentioned word limits per line and this is exactly why we made this choice. While we don't stay under the suggested words per line limit (and the jury is still out on exactly what that one is, some gurus suggest 35 as a max) we do try to at least keep it reasonable -- especially when compared with the older layout that was liquid. Considering we are a photography website and really do need to have at least a decent amount of pixel width for image purposes we compromised between "enough" width and readability limits. This is not something that we did arbitrarily.
Overall required page width: Again, this is a photography website. We need to use up some real estate if you want to see reasonably sized images instead of thumbnails everywhere. The site fits perfectly within the screen resolution on a standard 13" Macbook Pro (again a deliberate design decision) if you maximize the browser window. If you have to side scroll there are two options -- make your browser window bigger or upgrade your monitor (are there really still 1024 max width users out there reading pro photography websites?)
Font Choices/Colour Choices: This is not the end-all and be-all of it, it's just a step along the way. There is a ton of legacy content to consider here (and yes some of it was done with Frontpage way back when ;) ) and it's a work in progress. For now we've stuck with what we've had for all these years but that doesn't mean it will be this way forever ...
-
I think we found the 'designer' LOL
Seems some huge nerves were touched...
Nope not hate just truth. Sometimes it hurts though that's for sure.
-
I think we found the 'designer' LOL
Seems some huge nerves were touched...
Nope not hate just truth. Sometimes it hurts though that's for sure.
No nerves where touched, I'm quite used to seeing this kind of response from you on just about any subject (there are thousands of your posts here to prove it). And sorry, but your wordpress sites really don't make me quake in my boots in terms of credibility :) Record speed on the response time as usual.
-
Something new to learn and I can manage. Overall the navigation seems a big improvement.
I installed Readability in order to view LuLa articles, but with the new background I could read Peter Cox's articles easily.
The biggest drawback could be the website not being responsive. In Firefox on a PA241 it reads just fine, but open in Internet explorer and I have to scroll. Not that it's a big deal, I only use Internet Explorer if I need Javascript. Firefox disables the Java Deployment Toolkit and if they think it's a risk then I'm not going to argue.
However when viewed on my laptop with a 1280 screen everything except the forum needs serious scrolling. And it's on my laptop during downtime at work where I do most LuLa reading. I'm not going to switch to Apple from Windows just for browsing now that I've finally got Windows to work for me. :)
Website design is a right royal pain.
-
Hi David
Java Deployment Tookit (aka Java JDK) is a whole different beast and has nothing to do with Javascript (aside from the unfortunate similar name) and older versions Java most certainly do have some big security issues -- which is why Firefox is actively blocking older versions of it).
Which version of IE are you using and on which OS version? I've tested with standard settings on everything from IE8 and up and it fits in < 1280 pixels everywhere (unless maybe you have bumped up default font sizes or browser zoom or the like). Should work on any reasonably modern 13" laptop or better resolution wise.
-
...
I'd like to quickly address a couple of things that people have mentioned in this thread:
Javascript: It's not the 90's anymore and those couple of security issues that Netscape Navigator had back in the day are honestly no longer a problem. If you want to have any kind of web experience these days javascript is part of the deal. If you go out of your way to disable javascript because you are paranoid or think it's a security issue then you're going to have to deal with the consequences (like not having navigation menus and not being able to load web stores). Javascript is a pretty essential component of web design now that we're in the 21st century.
Fixed Width: This was a design decision we made and it is primarily about readability. A previous poster mentioned word limits per line and this is exactly why we made this choice. While we don't stay under the suggested words per line limit (and the jury is still out on exactly what that one is, some gurus suggest 35 as a max) we do try to at least keep it reasonable -- especially when compared with the older layout that was liquid. Considering we are a photography website and really do need to have at least a decent amount of pixel width for image purposes we compromised between "enough" width and readability limits. This is not something that we did arbitrarily.
Overall required page width: Again, this is a photography website. We need to use up some real estate if you want to see reasonably sized images instead of thumbnails everywhere. The site fits perfectly within the screen resolution on a standard 13" Macbook Pro (again a deliberate design decision) if you maximize the browser window. If you have to side scroll there are two options -- make your browser window bigger or upgrade your monitor (are there really still 1024 max width users out there reading pro photography websites?)
Font Choices/Colour Choices: This is not the end-all and be-all of it, it's just a step along the way. There is a ton of legacy content to consider here (and yes some of it was done with Frontpage way back when ;) ) and it's a work in progress. For now we've stuck with what we've had for all these years but that doesn't mean it will be this way forever ...
Javascript is at the present day at least a clear privacy risk and thus a security risk. It's perfectly possible to do drop down menus with CSS, browsers support it for a couple of years now.
A site that's using now javascript for navigation does it on purpose to be able to get more privacy data. I often look at the source of a webpage and that's revealing.
I've seen lot's of fluid designed websites with a maximum width. No problem.
I'm very happy that the c1 video was still made in the old system and I even found a link to the old store that still worked ;-)
-
Looks like the site design has been "successfully" Raberized too.
Is this really necessary (see the attachment)? I mean, do we really need big, all CAPS, underlined, bright orange "instruction" under each and every article headline!? Unless the idea was Christmas tree, that is. Since the dawn of the Internet we've been used to click on the headline to read an article. Or, alternatively, there would be a discreet "Read more..." at the end of an intro.
I was a little surprised at this too. I tried clicking the title which looks like a button and to me seemed the logical way to link to an article. Most sites that use a click here link is when they use several lines of the article then followed with small text click here to read more.
Not that I really care, seems functional. Maybe a little tweaking. I don't see the ads, using the adblocker plugin for safari so they don't bother me.
Would have curious and maybe more interesting and exciting to see what they could have done by not maintaining the "look" of the old site ... I love seeing what people do with full refreshes. But I spend so little time on the home page anyway. My link is to the home page, if there is a new picture I look it over and then scroll down because it means there is a new article. Otherwise on to the forum.
Kudos for working on improving the site, the idea of streaming the videos instead of downloading sounds great.
-
Hi David
Java Deployment Tookit (aka Java JDK) is a whole different beast and has nothing to do with Javascript (aside from the unfortunate similar name) and older versions Java most certainly do have some big security issues -- which is why Firefox is actively blocking older versions of it).
Which version of IE are you using and on which OS version? I've tested with standard settings on everything from IE8 and up and it fits in < 1280 pixels everywhere (unless maybe you have bumped up default font sizes or browser zoom or the like). Should work on any reasonably modern 13" laptop or better resolution wise.
Hi Mark.
Okay, didn't know that about Java. We are getting into the area here where my brain fails. I just want stuff to work. :) There are whole websites that won't open in Firefox for some reason, possibly Java related.
I'm apparently using IE version 10.0.9200.16686 on both machines with Windows 7. The desktop is 64 bit and the laptop isn't.
Cheers.
-
Javascript is at the present day at least a clear privacy risk and thus a security risk. It's perfectly possible to do drop down menus with CSS, browsers support it for a couple of years now.
A site that's using now javascript for navigation does it on purpose to be able to get more privacy data. I often look at the source of a webpage and that's revealing.
I've seen lot's of fluid designed websites with a maximum width. No problem.
I'm very happy that the c1 video was still made in the old system and I even found a link to the old store that still worked ;-)
I'm still not sure I understand why you think javascript is a privacy risk. I think you are worrying about potential Cross Site Scripting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting ) -- but again this is something that's only a risk if/when the server is compromised and doesn't really have anything to do with your client at all. In fact most of the code injected into websites with that type of approach are still a risk even if you have javascript disabled on your browser.
I'm glad you found a link to the store that didn't require javascript. We will investigate having some sort of options for the users that do disable javascript in the near future.
-
Hi Mark.
Okay, didn't know that about Java. We are getting into the area here where my brain fails. I just want stuff to work. :) There are whole websites that won't open in Firefox for some reason, possibly Java related.
I'm apparently using IE version 10.0.9200.16686 on both machines with Windows 7. The desktop is 64 bit and the laptop isn't.
Cheers.
Thanks David, I will investigate this.
Just for your info, here's a little writeup about java vs javascript: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/01/16/java-is-not-javascript-tell-your-friends/
-
It amazes me that nobody but me appears to register the fact that 120+ characters on a single line of text is incredibly difficult to read. Take a look at almost any publication - newspapers, books, pamphlets - and you'll see that the "measure" is almost always restricted to <65 characters.
I have long preached the doctrine of about 70 characters per line, and yet I find the longer lines quite readable here, so what is going on? My guess is that there is some difference between print and screen reading: the 70 character guideline developed for printed matter, typically viewed from a distance more than twice the column width, whereas when I read a website I typically view from a distance comparable to page width.
Still, I would prefer some flexibility on this, enabling more reflowing, to have fewer characters per line when the browser window is narrower. This would be of particular benefit for this site's apparently numerous hypermetropic(*) readers: the ones who claim a need to hold a camera at arm's length in order to compose on the rear screen. This should be easy enough, since the line breaks are already different on my phone (with less characters per line) and I can also force fewer characters per line on my computer by setting a large minimum font size.
Meanwhile, we can also add fonts and javascript to our list of ongoing religious debates.
* Farsighted or longsighted, depending on where you live.
-
Are you going to wait another 14 years to lose the crazy bright orange, green, and yellow stuff? IMO, that would be much more of a new look.
-
(unless maybe you have bumped up default font sizes or browser zoom or the like).
Hello again Mark.
You've hit the nail on the head with IE on my desktop. I tried Cntrl 0 and it now fits fine. However on the laptop it made it worse in Firefox. I remember recently I had to reduce the LuLa website size to avoid so much scrolling. I haven't had to do that with other websites (except, ironically, my own in the portfolio section. I just wanted to get it up and running, but one day we'll work out how to make it responsive).
-
Fixed Width: This was a design decision we made and it is primarily about readability. A previous poster mentioned word limits per line and this is exactly why we made this choice. While we don't stay under the suggested words per line limit (and the jury is still out on exactly what that one is, some gurus suggest 35 as a max) we do try to at least keep it reasonable -- especially when compared with the older layout that was liquid. Considering we are a photography website and really do need to have at least a decent amount of pixel width for image purposes we compromised between "enough" width and readability limits. This is not something that we did arbitrarily.
Overall required page width: Again, this is a photography website. We need to use up some real estate if you want to see reasonably sized images instead of thumbnails everywhere. The site fits perfectly within the screen resolution on a standard 13" Macbook Pro (again a deliberate design decision) if you maximize the browser window. If you have to side scroll there are two options -- make your browser window bigger or upgrade your monitor (are there really still 1024 max width users out there reading pro photography websites?)
If this site was primarily about displaying images i can see merit to your arguments. In point of fact, it's not. It's a site about photography - the major content being the written word.
When buying a book i can either:
1) buy the hardcover edition
2) buy the parperback
3) buy the e-book
all 3 are different sized containers and wrap the content accordingly
i'd love to see LuLa do the same .....
-
Javascript is at the present day at least a clear privacy risk and thus a security risk.
Can you provide an example? I'm a full-time web developer and I'd like to know about any possible threats; perhaps you've read something I've not seen yet.
It's perfectly possible to do drop down menus with CSS, browsers support it for a couple of years now.
Sure, but the experience might not be what the developers at LuLa want, and besides, a JS menu might have been much less effort than a CSS one, and when it's a only a vanishingly small (but highly vocal) minority that can't see it, it becomes not worth the effort.
A site that's using now javascript for navigation does it on purpose to be able to get more privacy data. I often look at the source of a webpage and that's revealing.
That's a pretty tall accusation to make without any kind of evidence to back it up. JavaScript is not evil, it's just the programming language that's used to enable dynamic content in the browser. The vast majority of sites use it in completely benign ways to improve the user experience beyond what's possible with just HTML and CSS.
I've seen lot's of fluid designed websites with a maximum width. No problem.
Lots of sites that aren't LuLa. No two sites have the same needs, and while I personally prefer ones with a responsive design, I fully understand that actually implementing that is a huge undertaking, especially for a site with as much content as this one. Plus as Mark said, the minimum width allows for decently large images in articles. Although the reasoning behind it isn't immediately apparent, they made a perfectly valid design decision. Could the minimum width be reduced a bit? Perhaps, but who knows what effect that might have on older articles? It's not at all a simple change.
-
are there really still 1024 max width users out there reading pro photography websites?
My non-retina iPad says hello!
But then again, it handles this new site design just fine with no horizontal scrolling, as does Safari with my Mac's display set to 1280x960, even when not in full screen mode. So I am puzzled why some 1280pixel-wide screens have problems: it is all "chrome" (window frames, scroll bars and such) that some browsers insist on?
Another feature request though: make the titles of articles on the home page clickable links to the article, even if you also spell it out with another link below. That is just what most people have come to expect: the "principle of least surprise".
-
I have long preached the doctrine of about 70 characters per line, and yet I find the longer lines quite readable here, so what is going on? My guess is that there is some difference between print and screen reading: the 70 character guideline developed for printed matter, typically viewed from a distance more than twice the column width, whereas when I read a website I typically view from a distance comparable to page width.
In an ideal world the text on the screen would be much larger than that of the printed material, to compensate for the generally longer viewing distance, a la http://ia.net/blog/100e2r/
Still, I would prefer some flexibility on this, enabling more reflowing, to have fewer characters per line when the browser window is narrower. This would be of particular benefit for this site's apparently numerous hypermetropic(*) readers: the ones who claim a need to hold a camera at arm's length in order to compose on the rear screen. This should be easy enough, since the line breaks are already different on my phone (with less characters per line) and I can also force fewer characters per line on my computer by setting a large minimum font size.
Simply using a wider font would help matters, since Arial/Helvetica is really narrow; changing the font to Verdana, for example, reduces lines to ~90 characters, and using a larger line-height (1.5, say) helps too.
Meanwhile, we can also add fonts and javascript to our list of ongoing religious debates.
Folks can get awful passionate about typography :D (me included, although it's not really my area of expertise, more of a general interest)
-
My non-retina iPad says hello!
This is where using a professional would have helped also - being aware of the HUGE lower res device market like tablets and phones. Oh well....
-
In an ideal world the text on the screen would be much larger than that of the printed material, to compensate for the generally longer viewing distance
Agreed about font size, because what matters for readability of individual characters is their angular size [apparent size]. BUt note my point about the ratio of screen width to viewing distance, which is typically greater (viewing distance is typically greater with screens than print, but screen width is often greater by a larger factor, or "greaterer", so the angular width of the screen is larger than of a book). That allows having more characters per line while still having the characters big enough to read.
Next though is the issue of how much eye and head movement is needed to scan those wider lines.
-
Another feature request though: make the titles of articles on the home page clickable links to the article, even if you also spell it out with another link below. That is just what most people have come to expect: the "principle of least surprise".
I think you should do this, and it'll let you get rid of the ugly orange "click here" links.
You might also increase the line height (just a touch) for those who find the lines too long.
-
... being aware of the HUGE lower res device market like tablets and phones.
And yet if you read on to the next sentence of my post that you quote, I observe that the 1024x768 iPad has no problems. Also, the only other comment about tablets or phones is Paul Sumi in post #2 saying that it "works fine" on his iPad. As to phones, the only comment so far is mine that it works fine on my phone (which has an even lower pixel count of 960x940) by giving different line breaks. So your fears for low-res. mobile devices seem unfounded.
Instead, all the problem reports I see in this thread are with "non-mobile" devices. In particular, in almost all complaints that cite a specific browser, it is Firefox, though that might be a coincidence.
-
This is where using a professional would have helped also - being aware of the HUGE lower res device market like tablets and phones. Oh well....
Your back-handed insults are not appreciated. Please stop, or just stop visiting the site. Your comments are no longer appreciated.
Michael
-
Hooray! While the content is always first class, the look was getting tired. The new look is a great step forward.
There may be some unanticipated bedding down issues, but overall its a great job.
-pw
-
- In Firefox 23.0.1 the top menu changes height when I mouse over (due to the change to italic font).
- The column sticking to the right due to the Alchemy API Advertiser feels awkward and I would just center it.
But overall look, font sizes, header, general intention, is ok and the right direction.
-
- In Firefox 23.0.1 the top menu changes height when I mouse over (due to the change to italic font).
- The column sticking to the right due to the Alchemy API Advertiser feels awkward and I would just center it.
But overall look, font sizes, header, general intention, is ok and the right direction.
Hmm ok this is odd. The top menu shouldn't have italic fonts and the alchemy API logo and link should be centered. On FF 24.0 it's fine for me in both windows and OSX. What OS are you using?
-
Actually I just double checked and there is italic, but only when you actually click (it shouldn't happen before then) and the italic font really shouldn't be any taller than the standard one. Are you running Linux per chance?
-
Win 7 64 Bit.
//edit: Yes, when you click, exactly, then the menu height changes. I'll give you screenshots.
-
Win 7 64 Bit, but cannot reproduce it any longer. As if it only occured at first load. Will report back if I happen to find it out.
Ahh ok, no worries. It was probably something cached or that didn't fully load in terms of the stylesheet. Glad it's working as expected now.
-
Now here its reproduced, it occurs when I click lmb on any top menu item and HOLD the mouse. Thats also the reason it didnt get noticed, usually you click and release LMB, and then the height change is just for a briefer time.
Best Regards
-
Hmm ok, thanks. It seems like it may be an actual issue with your version of Arial. The Italic font should not be any taller than the standard font. I'll see if there's anything I can do about this (like maybe just eliminate the italic when clicking on things), but I can't reproduce this on my setup so it may be something local with your windows setup.
-
Yes maybe its a local issue, cant compare to a fresh install at the moment. But not using italic in the menu probably is a good idea.
-
IMVHO the new look is simply... horrible. So much so that I'll use the site less.
-
I like the change.
Lots of options to click on the homepage,
forum works as it always has,
in fact the forum is easier to reach from the homepage now as it is a navigation option in the top instead of the side.
I can't tell you how hard that side forums button was for me to find the first time :)
oh and
FLOWING FALL COLORS is beautiful
-
Ok until now I only saw the "whats new" section since this is my landing page and my positive reaction was only based on this page.
But now I clicked through all pages, and I have to say Im a bit shocked about the plethora of different font sizes and inconsistent looks. (Different sized links, reading text and image captions).
This design does not adequately reflect the very high photographic standard of this site. It lacks clearness and consistency.
-
All in all, I think it is a clear improvement on the old site. Clearly there are a lot of sometimes conflicting requirements to satisfy, but they've been well resolved. Well done to all concerned.
-
Firstly, the annoying animated Phase One ad has been changed to static ones. Sorry about that.
Secondly, we really wish that you all would agree whether or not you like the new design. About half of you do, and half of you don't. Seems like the American political system with a 50/50 split between the left and the right.
Consensus? Apparently not.
Therefore thanks to everyone for your comments, one way or the other.
Michael
-
Hi,
I can live with the new design...
Best regards
Erik
Firstly, the annoying animated Phase One ad has been changed to static ones. Sorry about that.
Secondly, we really wish that you all would agree whether or not you like the new design. About half of you do, and half of you don't. Seems like the American political system with a 50/50 split between the left and the right.
Consensus? Apparently not.
Therefore thanks to everyone for your comments, one way or the other.
Michael
-
Hi,
On Safari, the new site works just fine. And, old site, new site, what I care most about is the quality of the content. That Michael Reichmann and friends make this site accessible for free is a gift. The ads are relevant to our industry or hobby, and can be ignored if one wished to. I may or may not like the look, but it is what it is and it is most definitely easy to navigate. So thank you for your work.
Jean-Michel
-
That Michael Reichmann and friends make this site accessible for free is a gift.... So thank you for your work.
Jean-Michel
Yes: thanks for this fabulous resource!
-
I think there are plusses and minuses with the new design, but overall I'm in the don't like camp.
For my usual a large-but-not-quite-full-screen browser window I don't quite get the entire vertical height of the home page photo any more, so I need to scroll fairly precisely to look at it.
So all I get "above the fold" on the home page is few adverts, a masthead, some social media buttons, a welcome, and most of a photo: so the only complete variable element to look at is the adverts, which I guess makes them prominent but perhaps too prominent to the point of overshadowing the content.
I appreciate ads are needed to pay the bills, but left hand ads before any content are very rare in my experience -- major ad supported sites seem to use above the masthead and on the right much more than on the left so I presume there's some research behind that. Certainly I find that makes the ads interfere less with the content, which after all is why I visit.
-
To add to my last post, as I said I have a few remarks about what could be done different, but nevertheless I greatly esteem the knowledge and the work wich went into this site, and I want to thank Mr. Guertin, Mr. Reichmann and all the others for their continued efforts.
Christian Miersch
-
Too early to say for me, getting used to the new look, improvements are nice. Much better for reading. Big plus.
Very nice shot from Kevin on Home Page.. I would welcome and think it good if the homepage images remained clickable with a large version for viewing.
Take care everyone,
-
Secondly, we really wish that you all would agree whether or not you like the new design. About half of you do, and half of you don't. Seems like the American political system with a 50/50 split between the left and the right.
Michael
Oh for heaven's sake Michael Reichmann, do you like it?
"You" plural.
You should all be proud of your work. If I were coming to the new site for the first time, and hadn't spent years with the old one and was just stuck in my ways, I'd say it was cool.
Well, it is.
David
-
My gut reaction is that it's better than the prior version, although still not the most aesthetically pleasing design.
The ads on the left layout bothers me, not because there are ads but because it forces the main body text column too far right on my screen, moving the text away from the normal/comfortable reading position. I'd cast my vote for ads on the right.
Overall I come here for content, not layout, so it's not the end of the world.
-
I am delighted with the gray background instead of black, and the static versus horribly distracting animated Capture One ad.
It does seem a bit easier to find things with the new menu system.
Some of the quirks others have complained about are slightly annoying, but no big deal. I'll get used to them.
Thanks for updating it, and thanks for the great site in general.
-
I agree with Eric about the distraction of the Phase One ad and am glad it's stopped blinking!! I also like the gray background...very nice. Now there are a few ads remaining that are still jumping around. This is an elegant web site with creative content and any time one has ads that blink, flip flop, get animated or whatever...it cheapens and degrades the site in my personal opinion. I would hope that ALL the jumpy/hyper adds would stay still so we can enjoy the content on the site! Eleanor
-
Secondly, we really wish that you all would agree whether or not you like the new design. About half of you do, and half of you don't.
Well Michael, a simple yeah or nay is probably bound to be indecisive. I think you'll get more consensus over specific details. Personally, the two items I find most displeasing are (1) the excessively long line length and (2) the ads on the left.
We read left to right, ads on the left disrupt the natural flow. I've now installed AdBblock (safari extension) so I'm not overly bothered but I'm fairly sure that the left placement will not result in an increase of 'hits' for advertisers nor, increased advertising revenue for the site. Ads that irritate or bother their target audience in some way usually fall short of their hoped-for objective.
The rest will evolve over time, I'm sure, but for now - congratulations on all those details that are indeed an improvement.
M
ps If in doubt, how about a poll on the more contentious issues ?
-
In regards to ads on the left or right. We opted for ads on the left because that was where they were on the old site. The old look we had a left column with menu selections and ads. So, we thought rather than shake things up too much we would use the left side as we had done for a very long time. Advertising is important to LuLa as we have bills and such that need to be paid. We will only be working with vendors that have something that is of interest to our readers as far as products or services. We will not use Google ad sense or other means of advertising revenues. In doing research we looked at some photography sites that jammed ads between articles and such. We also saw ads that were pop ups. None of that is something we do. Also, we looked at ads on the right of the screen and reading left to right you always ran into the ads when reading left to right. No easy answer. We were sure that either way we were going to hear about it. And, for those that commented early on about the flashy ads, we have now gone all static. We appreciate all the constructive comments and assure you we are listening.
Thanks,
Kevin Raber
-
I find the new design quite festive. After all, both Halloween and Christmas are just around the corner. Horror in, elegance out. Kitsch is the new subtlety. Christmas tree: abundance of colors, fonts, sizes, backgrounds, ads, ads for ads. Redundancy.
Do we really need five ads for ads? I mean, anyone interested in advertising understands from the moment they lay their eyes on the site that advertising is possible and highly desirable. And even if they live under a rock and do not get it, there is a subtle (finally!) reminder at the bottom of the home page: "Advertise with us." Instead we have it repeated five times. It reeks of fire-sale desperation, even if not true.
Redundancy: "Click here to read the article" repeated five times. Square previews on the left of article announcements contain no useful information, yet often repeat the very same ads on their own left, contributing to the overall sense of clutter and everything-but-a-kitchen-sink esthetics.
One of the latest articles (by Peter Cox), however, had a very good advice of its own:
-
Advertising is important to LuLa as we have bills and such that need to be paid.
.. and reading left to right you always ran into the ads when reading left to right.
Kevin, I understand that - no-one (I think) is suggesting that ads be abolished. But there comes a moment when they are too intrusive and that results in a negative for all parties. The ads are too big, they interfere with a pleasant reading experience - ads on the right, leave the viewer with a natural option to continue 'along the line' or continue reading the next line down, just as one would a book.
Another alternative, apart from RHS, is a mixture down both sides, similar to TOP - but TOP has a much shorter line length and one's eyes are focussed on the centre column - consequently, reading TOP you get a feel for a [Top-Down] eye movement as opposed to a [Left-Right] one, particularly one with an irregular left hand (ad) column. It's far less irksome to 'automatically' find the beginning of the next line down ...
But again, not withstanding the above, congratulations on all the good points.
-
...
Do we really need five ads for ads? I mean, anyone interested in advertising understands from the moment they lay their eyes on the site that advertising is possible and highly desirable. And even if they live under a rock and do not get it, there is a subtle (finally!) reminder at the bottom of the home page: "Advertise with us." Instead we have it repeated five times. It reeks of fire-sale desperation, even if not true.
Redundancy: "Click here to read the article" repeated five times. Square previews on the left of article announcements contain no useful information, yet often repeat the very same ads on their own left, contributing to the overall sense of clutter and everything-but-a-kitchen-sink esthetics.
One of the latest articles (by Peter Cox), however, had a very good advice of its own:
This is common in advertising. Each of the four square is an empty "ad slot" and presumably each one of those smaller "ad slots" is cheaper than the larger ones. Similarly because they may not all be filled at the same time, each is advertised separately with its own picture...
-
This is common in advertising...
Care to show us an example?
-
Im really appreciative of the somewhat softer gray backgrounds having replaced the somewhat more severe black pages.
Thank you.
-
Care to show us an example?
Billboards by the side of road saying "Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX to advertise" or empty "plates" in trains, trams and buses saying "This space available to rent", etc.
The only difference is that they're alone but each one is one of those squares albeit a different size and location.
-
Billboards by the side of road saying "Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX to advertise" or empty "plates" in trains, trams and buses saying "This space available to rent", etc...
Thanks for making my point. That style of advertising is indeed suitable for "trains, trams and buses," not for one of the top 100 Internet sites, nor for, arguably, the best photographic site on the planet. If the goal was to compete with Grayhound buses for advertising space then... mission accomplished.
-
I do not see any problems with the new look. The site is just as enjoyable as it was before.
I use Firefox and have it configured where I do not see any ads. That was my choice so I would not be bothered by the ads. No problem. The blank space on the left that I have in place of the ads does not bother me....I made that choice. I think the text is as easy to read as anything else. I understand the words and do not have to squint or strain to read them. I don't need anything else.
So, good job to the LULA team.
It is ok to offer constructive criticism, but some of what has been written so far is not constructive. To those that are not capable of offering constructive criticism: the door to the www and other photography websites is wide open. Don't let it hit you in the butt on the way out.
-
Site works fine here under Windows 7 and Chrome.
And I do like the new appearence.
-
The new face of the website is fine with me as is the layout of the of the various areas. I particularly appreciate the elimination of the black background when reading articles and essays. It's not about the gift wrapping, but about the product and information inside.
Mark
-
Billboards by the side of road saying "Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX to advertise" or empty "plates" in trains, trams and buses saying "This space available to rent", etc.
The only difference is that they're alone but each one is one of those squares albeit a different size and location.
Doesn't anyone have a sense of fun any more?
Except for those of us who shoot for a living, photography should be fun, and even then it should as well.
Reading about, studying and thinking about our art and our craft should all be fun as well.
That's the attitude that Kevin and I bring to LuLa. Little jokes, amusing ad space promos and so forth. Yes, this is a business, but it's also what we do because it gives us pleasure to do so.
Debbie Downer is not welcome here.
Michael
-
Just sayin'.
-
The only improvement I see is the gray background and corresponding text font colour. Everything else was better before. The text is too big, the headings are too big, the 'Read…' should be redundant, I have to scroll horizontally to see the whole page width, and the column width is too wide for readability.
It looks like a student first attempt at a website.
Brian A
-
Sorry, but I don't like ads at left and top. They completely mess up the display on a small screen. I'll soon get tired of scrolling around to find what I want. Then I'll stop using the site. Life's too short to fiddle around.
-
I have been Lula supporter from the beginning and bought many/most of the videos.
The new Lula look gets a big thumbs up with me, even without the viagra adds ;)
Dave down in NZ
-
Couldn't care a less about the adds - I've developed a super power over the last few years to just mentally tune out internet adds on websites. :D
Thumbs up for the new look. The soft grey background is far more pleasing on the eye than black.
-
Doesn't anyone have a sense of fun any more?
Except for those of us who shoot for a living, photography should be fun, and even then it should as well.
Reading about, studying and thinking about our art and our craft should all be fun as well.
That's the attitude that Kevin and I bring to LuLa. Little jokes, amusing ad space promos and so forth. Yes, this is a business, but it's also what we do because it gives us pleasure to do so.
Well looking at it in a different light, the ad space looks like a tower a child might build with wooden blocks.
:)
-
I've developed a super power over the last few years to just mentally tune out internet adds on websites.
My super-power is a double tap on an iPad screen, or the trackpad, or touch surface of a "magic mouse", which zoom in on the column of the actual article while pushing side-bar adds off screen quite nicely.
P.S. LuLa team, thanks for the toned-down "read..." links!
-
White on grey is much better. Still not as good as dark text on a pale background but at least it's better. Why not have a dark and light theme if you insist on believing that dark is better?
Sorry, that's the only positive thing I have to say about the change. Having the adverts on the left is a huge mistake. Throws the entire site out of balance, what on earth were you thinking?
Drop downs? Really? It's 2013 you know... okay if you must? But code that jiggles the text around as you move the hover? Poor attention to detail. As for menu options that can be clicked on but don't do anything. Laughable bad. Try clicking 'Latest Articles'.
Bright green background. Bright yellow text. Big obvious drop shadows. How 1999 of you.
White text. Grey text. Yellow text. Orange text. Small type face. Normal sized type face. Dark yellow text. Dropshadows. Italics. Bold. Normal weight.... All on the one page. My eyes hurt.
I'm not even going to mention how 'nice' it is to use on an iPhone as clearly it's not something you care about.
You've taken a site that looked like it was built in 1998 and updated it to make it look like it was built in 1999.
Quite possibly the worst refresh of a big name website I've ever seen. Ever. Ever. Ever.
-
Thanks Guinevere for your comments. They will be added to one side of the balance scale.
Oh look – the scale appears to be just about evenly balanced by those that like the redesign and those that don't.
Humm. What to do?
I know what. We'll continue to do with we think best, take those criticisms that we agree with and adopt them, and otherwise enjoy our new layout.
I think it's time to move on.
Thanks all.
Michael