The NEW LuLa Look

[mguertin]

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 ...

[kaelaria]

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. 

[mguertin]

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.

[David Sutton]

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.

[mguertin]

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.

[alain]

...
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 ;-)

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[David Sutton]

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.

[mguertin]

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.

[mguertin]

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/

[BJL]

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.

[AlanG]

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.

[David Sutton]

(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).

[John.Murray]

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 .....

[caerphoto]

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.

[BJL]

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".

[caerphoto]

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 (me included, although it's not really my area of expertise, more of a general interest)

[kaelaria]

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....

[BJL]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.