I’m reading some reviews on Yoursite.nu, and some of the sites being reviewed have fairly simple layouts. Or to be more honest, I felt like something else could’ve been done about it to make it look a little nicer. But that’s just me. Some reviewers were telling the webmasters things like “It’s simple, but too simple. Add some (xyz).” While something like that would make it less simple, I’m sure the webmaster wanted it to be simple with no extra frills (and adding (xyz) would take away that simplicity they were looking for). For simple layouts, I think it’s not about adding some extra stuff to save it from being too boring; it’s about paying attention to little extra details. I’m not talking about adding little shapes to your header image or sidebar, but things like text color, background color, margin/padding in the content area, alignment (and the entire CRAP principle), line-height, typeface, etc. Things people often overlook. So yes, you can stick to your original idea, without having to make it what it’s not.
The same goes for grayscale layouts. Most people seem to not like them, because they look so boring, gray and drab (reviewers often tell webmasters with these layouts that they should spice them up with some other colors, which wouldn’t make it grayscale anymore), but you can have a nice-looking grayscale layout. For me, I found that using lots of white and really light gray helps and using black and dark gray only for thin lines and text colors. In other words, keeping dark colors to a minimum. (But that’s just me. I might say “it would look better when it’s like xyz”, but I always end up seeing someone who manages to go against what I just said, while making their layout look good. So it’s always good to experiment and play around. ^_^)
In the end, the way you find all this is out is through practice and experience. You won’t become a fantabulous designer overnight (I’ve been doing this since ‘01, and I still have a long way to go before I become a great designer :P). And unless if your livelihood depends on you having a good web designs (i.e. if you’re a web designer or if you’re advertising your services or products through your website), having a good-looking layout probably isn’t the most important thing. Finding your style or what type of layouts appeal to you the most won’t come overnight either. And even that might change as you experiment further with different colors, textures or images (or lack of). So give it time and don’t rush.
If you’re looking for feedback, and you seem to be getting none from your visitors, you can try WPRs (like Yoursite.nu). They have people who are willing to review your website. Of course, because people’s personal preferences differ, webmasters shouldn’t have to take every negative feedback to heart if you like what they criticized (i.e you might like using only a limited color palette, but the reviewer thinks it’s too boring, or vice-versa). And reading up on design helps too (The Non-Designer’s Web Book is good if you’re just starting web design, and there’s also Writing for the Web: Geek’s Edition).
(And having a bad layout won’t keep me from coming back to your website. :))
May 09th, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Hm… maybe simple is not quite the best term. I like simplistic layouts, but some are dowright boring, i.e. what we call bland.
For example, take your own layout. If you would not make use of the Flickr photos, it would be incredibly bland, despite padding and color use and all CRAP which you employ.
It’s those picture that make a difference. Of course, I have actually seen a grayscale layout I liked. It’s a free template that Sarai offers (chiklita.net/gray/).
Still, I found that visitors very much like having some short of shape which can attract their attention. Eye candy if you will.
For the record, YS.nu is a WPRC (web site reviewing comunity), which is different from a WPR. It’s good if you’re just looking for opinions, and not suggestions, however in that case it is very important to be able to read between the lines. But if you genuinely want to improve, I’d say you go to WPRs (like petshowgirlsreviews.com )
May 09th, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
Yeah, that’s those are the types of layouts I’m talking about. The owner wanted it to be simple, but didn’t know how to go about creating a layout that was looked like it was supposed to be simple, which results in a lot of “it’s too boring” comments. Erm, is that what you were talking about?
As for the shapes as eye candy, I think it’s all just a matter of personal preference. For me, I’ve seen layouts that didn’t use any kind of shapes or images and they still managed to look good (WordPress template Hemingway Reloaded is one). I think the thing that has to catch the visitor or the thing that has to stand out can be text (i.e. like the site title) or an image, just as long as something stands out (although I’m not sure if I integrated it very well in this layout…), which is the Contrast part of CRAP.
And as I said earlier, there always seem to be exceptions. Some people have said gray (or any kind of monotone color layouts) are too boring, but if you play around with it a little longer, maybe use a different variation of the color or use white, it might not look so overwhelming and people won’t notice it as much. Which is why I think people should experiment with layouts as much as possible. If they make mistakes (as we all do), they’ll learn from them.
I’m aware that Yoursite is a WPRC (I probably should’ve made that clear in the post…), but I really don’t go to get opinions and the like on my layout. I mainly go so people can spot any technical errors the layout might have (they can comment on the layout if they want. I won’t stop them), like if something’s acting a little weird or if there’s a validation error. (Although I’m not sure why reviewers’ opinions on Yoursite seem to be seen as lower than one on a WPR. Someone care to explain that to me? I’ve seen some reviews that looked as though they could go on a WPR.)
This post wasn’t really meant to be an actual How-to (even though the title says “How to blahblablah”) or tutorial. It’s just some suggestions I have for people starting out or who are struggling with creating web designs. It’s kind of a response to other articles I read written by amateur web designers like myself. Ones that tell the visitor how to find their own style (take an image, study it and find out what you like about it), and the trick to coming up with a good layout is to get something that’s both professional and simple (both are actual articles/reviews I read). What I felt like they should’ve said was that even if you manage to find your style—it may change in the next two months to a year once you experiment more or see other layouts. And it looks like the second one was left by someone who is into simple layouts, because I’ve seen some elaborate layouts that were done quite well (i.e. still had the frills everywhere without overdoing it).
May 10th, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
By shape I also mean text. In the example you provided, my attention keeps being attracted to the search box, because that’s one thing that stands out from the header. I like it, but I wouldn’t choose that as a focal point for my design.
I was talking in general, about YS.nu. I’ve been a member there for about 2 years, before I gave up because the review quality got lower and lower. Sure, you’ll find one or two members who can give good reviews. And in the good ol’ days when Ys.nu was opened (3 and 1/2 years ago), a lot of the reviews were better than what I can get from most WPRs.
Nevertheless, YS.nu has largely been abandoned by the owner, so not much is going on there, anymore. Most reviews are just one paragraph long there. Unless the site reviewed is not using any stylesheet and has dreadfully boring content, I really don’t see how one paragraph can do it justice.
Plus some of the reviews were along the lines: Oh such a nice site… 3/5. When I actually dared to ask the reviewer why it was a 3/5 if she liked it, she got all butthurt and changed my score to 1/5 (probably would’ve put 0 if it were possible).
Granted, a lot of WPRs these days believe that they’re God’s gift to the Internet for deigning to write one measly line over your layout, content and a conclusion respectively.
I didn’t take this as a How-To either. It was just my input, having been a member at Ys.nu for over 2 years, and a reviewer for 3.
May 10th, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Oh okay, I see what you mean. As for this layout, I was hoping the “Giantpaper.org” title could be a focal point (if the Flickr thumbnails weren’t there), since I’m still playing with different styles.
Actually, I agree with you about Yoursite’s reviewing quality (or near lack of? :P). Nowadays, it seems like I mainly get “Nice site. It’s so simple and clean and easy to navigate” with a four or five star rating. While I don’t mind the positive feedback, I’m pretty sure there must be something wrong with it, but I don’t know… Although I do get some helpful pointers from some folks (however short it may be), like “The background’s bright green for some reason” or “The navigation doesn’t show up for me”. These are primarily what I’m looking for. Even if they don’t tell me how I could fix it, I wouldn’t mind looking it up myself. That sucks about the reviewer lowering your score though.
Someone can’t handle having their “reviews” being questioned?
Heh, I’ve run into some WPRs that are like that. They seem to be disappearing off the Internet though (and it looks as though the one WPR that managed to stay strong is Rhiannon’s).
Ehe, sorry. It wasn’t directed at you personally. I just wanted to mention it before people got the wrong ideas…
May 12th, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Oh don’t worry I don’t mind. I used to love YourSite.nu a lot. I believe Jem once called me a ys.nu-aholic for always being online. I loved reviewing there and made some great friends… but then. All good things come to an end I guess
May 12th, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Yeah.
I think I just go there now just to review other people’s sites. :3