Posts Tagged ‘web design’

No more IE6.

Posted on December 19th, 2010 by emdash in Opinion, Tutorials

For the last few web development projects I have worked on, I have become fed up with supporting Internet Explorer 6. Sometimes I start off with good intentions and attempt to make my layout work in that horrid excuse of a web browser, but after hours of frustration, decide it isn’t worth the effort – or my clients’ time and money.

Most popular, new-ish websites have limited functionality in IE6. Internet Explorer 6 is now over 6 years old; its last upgrade was in 2004 (source). Google, Facebook and Youtube have all announced they will stop supporting IE6.

Internet Explorer 6 is obsolete. It is okay to have a website that doesn’t support it.

Internet Explorer 6 is full of security holes and improper support for web standards – this is why web developers hate it. Unfortunately, people are inherently lazy with updating their computer’s software, and many non-internet-savvy people are still using the thing. You’ve gotta do something for these poor sods, even though they’re likely not your target market. (Such people tend to distrust shopping online, for example, and won’t shop from an e-commerce website.)

(Note: there’s also people on Windows 2000 at work – these unfortunate souls are forced to use Internet Explorer 6. Again, they’re probably not sticking their credit card number on a webpage at work. Since they soon can’t view YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or Google in the office, they’ll probably either look for a new job or we’ll see a mass productivity increase.)

So, what’s the solution for the 5% of the internet’s users, that clings to IE6 like a barnacle to a sinking ship? Enter conditional comments.

Put this at the top of your webpage after the <body> tag:

<!–[if lte IE 6]>
<div id=”IE6warning”>
<p style=”font-size: 13px”><strong>We’ve noticed you appear to be using an older version of Internet Explorer.<br /> To properly view this and other websites, we recommend you <a href=”http://www.ie8optimized.com/” target=”_blank”>update your web browser now</a>.</strong></p>
</div>
<![endif]–>

and style your IE6warning box using CSS to make it pretty. If you want to be sneaky about it, you can make it look like a browser warning along the top of the page.

If the user is running IE6 or (God forbid) IE5.5, they’ll see the warning. Other browsers treat the section like a comment and ignore the enclosed HTML.



Working for free: just say NO.

Posted on December 8th, 2010 by emdash in Opinion, Work

www.no-spec.com covers working for free better and more extensively than I can, but this is a subject I do feel strongly about.

Graphic design is a difficult market indeed for small businesses and freelancers. We have to compete with countless uneducated “designers” who consider their work a hobby and undercharge, either because it’s not their main career, or they don’t know any better. We also have to compete with poor-quality, quick turnaround “design services” at copy centres, web hosts, etc. There are also offshore “studios” that undercharge.

Part of the issue arises from the belief that all it takes is software (and the knowledge to use it) to make a graphic designer. If this were actually true, I could hold a hammer and claim to be a knowledgeable carpenter. In my opinion, clients who entrust someone with something as important as developing their business’s image through branding, web design, and more, have the right to expect and demand a designer who goes beyond a software technician.

To hire a professional designer who can truly enhance your business and improve its communication requires paying professional rates. Period. If you’re a small, startup business, and wish to hire a designer for your branding, website, or advertising, you shouldn’t have a budget of $0 to pay them.

On the flip side of the coin, eager young designers shouldn’t be accepting free work for the sake of keeping busy. I gained experience and skill while in school by doing freelance work – while my classmates continued to work as restaurant servers and baristas, I took on design jobs to flesh out my portfolio and create contacts. (I highly recommend this.) I took on paid jobs only – as a student, you wouldn’t charge professional rates, but your time is still valuable!

It’s easy enough, as a designer, to not apply for design jobs that won’t compensate you for your time and expertise, but how should you turn down a case where the client contacts you expecting you to work for free?

My usual tactic is to explain politely: “I’m afraid I can’t work for free for any design project unless it’s for a registered charity – it’s simply not fair to my paying clients to do otherwise. If you have a registered charity number, I’ll be happy to reconsider your project. If you have a tight budget for your business, I’d be happy to work out a payment schedule that works for you. Many of my clients have received a monthly invoice to pay for their design work by installments.  This might be a solution for you.”

I usually don’t respond to the hook that the project would be “exposure” or “good for my portfolio” – I have worked for major companies around the Lower Mainland, B.C., Canada, and North America, so I don’t know that my studio would gain from including work from a company that doesn’t even have budget to pay a designer, let alone market itself properly.

As for portfolio work? If you need to flesh out your portfolio as a designer, create your own project. You’ll answer to no one for the design so you can truly make it good – without degrading the professional industry you’re part of.

Do you have any tips for politely turning down spec/unpaid work? Post them in the comments below!



7 reasons you should forget about those offshore “cheap design packages”

Posted on August 27th, 2010 by emdash in Opinion

In theory, it sounds good: because of the low cost of living in countries in Asia or Eastern Europe, there are countless designers and web programmers willing to work for less. On the surface, this seems like a great solution for your company’s budget: you can get your business’s website and branding done quickly for cheap.

I’m going to argue against going this route. Not only because the influx of cheap offshore “design firms” takes work away from skilled local designers like me (and yes, I have a bias here); I can think of several good reasons why your company’s public image shouldn’t be farmed out to people you’ve never met in a developing country.

1) Potential for sweatshops. Yes, the cost of living is lower in many parts of the world where these web-based offshore design companies are located. This does keep their price to their clients down. However, these countries also have different labour laws and regulations. One introductory (read: spam) email I received encouraged me to take advantage of a “design studio” in India, which was open 24 hours a day, 6 days a week. In my head, I’m picturing a dimly lit room, smelling of burnt silicon, full of old computers and exhausted malnourished teenagers. For all I know, it isn’t like that, but I doubt these “designers” are working 8 hour shifts with paid overtime to keep the studio running constantly. (As an aside, I think this would be an interesting topic for some investigative journalism. We know there’s sweatshop situations selling consumer goods, but are there similar setups for supposedly high-paid tech jobs?) If you’d hesitate before buying athletic shoes you know were made overseas by children, why would you risk buying your company’s image from a sweatshop?

2) There are good designers in every part of the world, in every country. But they’re not selling their services for $5/hour online. Any graduate of an accredited design school in any large city around the world would likely look for a job in an established advertising or design agency. They’ve invested time and money in education to work in their field. If they’re good, they’ll be doing projects for large national corporations and working their way up to art director. What they won’t be doing is selling their services at incredibly low prices over the internet.

3) There’s no local reputation, references, or network in place to give these offshore studios accountability. Working with a local freelancer or design firm, you know you have recourse if there’s ever a dispute over the work or price. Aside from the legal system in your country, you can also talk to the designer’s other clients and ask for professional references. You can physically meet them and see their place of work. You can gauge, person to person, if they’re someone who you can trust with your company’s brand image. You have none of this security when you outsource your work offshore. While you can damage an internet company’s reputation online, there’s nothing stopping these companies from simply changing their name and website and starting over with the same business formula.

4) It can be difficult to communicate with someone you can’t see face to face. When you’re working long distance with someone, you have to ensure your written communication is very clear. Not a lot of people are excellent communicators; it’s a rare enough skill that many design studios have a full time writer on staff. When you’re dealing with someone whose first language isn’t English and you only communicate through email, misunderstandings can happen. Cultural differences won’t help this either. What may start as a cheap project can end up costing more and more as mistakes have to be corrected.

5) There’s no ongoing relationship between designer and client. You probably won’t be getting the same designer working on your projects even if you do go through the same offshore company over and over. (You actually have no way of knowing who is working on your project; it probably won’t be the person you’re contacting.) If you work with a local freelancer or team, however, you know exactly who is working for you. This client/designer relationship is so important. I can’t stress enough how crucial it is to have someone who really gets your company working with your image. There will be no consistency in quality or branding standards if you risk taking your projects to an offshore “design firm.”

6) Copyright and intellectual property rights are different in the developing world. Knock-off consumer goods are everywhere, and so is copyright infringement. Someone who is only being paid $5/hour might be lazy enough to plagiarize or outright copy existing design work. They may not even know they’re doing something wrong, because attitudes towards this are different in different areas of the world. Unfortunately, there’s no way for you to know this is happening, and your company will be the one threatened with legal action, not the offshore company.

7) If you’re a design firm, studio, or freelancer who outsources client work offshore, you’re lying to and ripping off your clients. I don’t care if you’re busy, if it’s just a small project, if you agreed to more work than you have time for, etc. There is no excuse for charging your clients your studio rate, then farming the work off to some $5/hour offshore web company. Your valued client believes they’re getting the care and attention of a design school graduate, when in reality you’re just being greedy. Now, outsourcing is part of the business for sure, and I frequently work with outside developers, illustrators and copywriters on my projects, but surely to God you have a local network built up of skilled professionals whose work you trust and don’t mind putting your studio’s name on.

I’m sure these statements don’t apply to all/some of the offshore companies out there. I’m writing mainly about the cheap branding and design packages out there from web-based companies referring to themselves as “design firms” or “design studios”. Regardless of their location, these companies undermine the importance of design work in our society. They are not contributing to a competitive market for design services.

If you’d still consider going this route for your business, cavaet emptor. You get what you pay for. Be prepared to pay a second time to get a local professional you can trust to fix the offshore work.



The trials and tribulations of royalty-free stock photos

Posted on June 14th, 2010 by emdash in Work

Recently, I was approached to create a website for a new staffing & events planning company. Because the staffing/events division is brand new, they didn’t have any existing photos to demonstrate their services – the site also didn’t have a lot of content – and they needed images to help flesh out the site.

They also had barely any budget for stock photos.

I’m getting frustrated with the photos on the old standby, istockphoto.com, and decided to try an alternative. I went with bigstockphoto.com for inexpensive, royalty-free photographs for the project. I find that site easier to look at than istock, and on the surface, the quality of photograph generally seemed higher.

Well, I found the perfect image for the front page of the site. Or at least, it was perfect in my head… in reality, it needed a bit of post-production work.

Bigstock Photo #2867129

I knew how I wanted the image to look, and this was the closest thing I could find to an image featuring helpful, happy, friendly and professional staffing. The price was right for my client, so I went ahead and bought the image.

I did notice a bunch of stuff once I got the high-resolution version. This photo is actually two stitched together: the pretty girl in the foreground is pasted over top the out-of-focus people background. This isn’t a problem as such, since the depth of field is faked well enough in this photographer’s work that you won’t notice it’s actually two images. However… the girl was cut out of her own photo in such a way that she’s got a white halo.

bigstock: photo issues 01

Naturally, I had to go in and fix this. Not just because I’m a perfectionist, but also because the image was going to be fairly large on the finished site, and the white outline would be visible!

Then there was the girl’s outfit. On closer inspection, she wasn’t wearing business at all… she was in a black corderoy fashion jacket with brass features, and a skirt more suitable for a nightclub.

bigstock: photo issues 02

Okay, so the skirt had to be lengthened, and that side lacing had to go. (I ran out of time, but if the project had more budget and a friendlier timeline, I’d also have fixed her salon-length fingernails and eliminate the sleeve zippers.)

Lastly, the corporate colour for this staffing agency is a businesslike royal blue, not red… so those folders had to be recoloured.

The finished website

All in all, the changes made to the image were perhaps subtle to the average viewer, but they made the difference between an obvious stock photo and something harmonious with the website and the company image.

The moral of the story? Stock photography is a matter of getting what you pay for. In this case, a lower budget meant I used a photograph that needed a bit of work to bring it to an appropriate level… however, a good designer/production artist can make this happen.



cspixelfoundry.com launch

Posted on May 18th, 2010 by emdash in Pixel Foundry, Work

Few things are as satisfying – to a small business – as getting your own website launched. Like business cards or a physical office space, it lends credibility and a feeling of being “official.” Chestnut St. Pixel Foundry was looooong overdue for a site that was more than just a mailing address and meta tags… and finally, we’re live!

I’m going to offend a few people I know by informing you all that I, personally, cannot stand the web 2.0 aesthetic in web design. At a certain point it crossed a line from friendly and easy-to-use to simply insulting the intelligence of the user. I mean… 24 point type telling me to login just makes me feel like I’m being unnecessarily babied… and I don’t like it. I also feel the excess gradients, reflections, etc are going to look pretty dated in a few years, forcing another redesign/refresh of the site… I like classic and timeless design that carries a business or organization through any period of time.

So, web 2.0 was out for the Pixel Foundry’s website. Instead, we looked to Victorian inspiration: scrapbooks, photo albums, wallpaper and decor, etc. We came up with the idea of using a page for the background… a literal interpretation of the website as a page of information.

There was a lot of technical stuff here to solve. Earlier versions of Internet Explorer hate transparent .pngs… but there are still people out there unfortunate enough to be using IE6. The paper “page” background takes a while to load, and until it does, the site doesn’t look right (this was resolved with a “loading” script that wouldn’t display the site until the page was finished.) We wanted to feed JUST ONE post at a time from our tumblr but tumblr’s default embedding script is fairly inflexible.

We took a bit of liberty with facebook and LinkedIn‘s logos… which I think is fine since almost everyone else does it too. There’s probably as many graphic variations on the facebook icon as the rss icon.

My favourite though are the vintage-looking pictures of Kelly and I. I was tempted to add more members of the team (eg. Leeloo and Godiva, my two black cats) with similarly-treated photographs, but held off ‘cos that would just be silly. And of course our website is 100% serious.

Next step: iPad version.



web designers versus developers

Posted on March 15th, 2010 by emdash in Opinion

It’s always interesting to see the differences between web designers and web developers in the way they view project solutions. In my time spent in this industry, I’ve seen a lot of designers frustrated with developers, and vice verse. I’ve heard a lot of developer friends complain about the designs they’ve been handed by others, and designers annoyed they “can’t do something” they think would be spectacular… because the developer doesn’t want to code it.

Any larger-scale web presence is going to require at least one designer and at least one developer working on it. It isn’t in the interest of the client to have an ongoing war between these people. They generally just want their site up, as quickly as possible, and as cheaply as possible. It’s best for them if the designer/developer work well together and understand each other. Judging from what I’ve heard and seen from both my designer and developer acquaintances, this doesn’t often happen.

I have a theory about this. My theory: both designers and developers have egos. (Who doesn’t?) A web designer might become enamored of their layout and not want to change a thing. Being told something isn’t possible with the way the back end of a website works, or that it’s not possible to template the layout, is the last thing they want to hear. On the development side of things, you have programmers who view their work with more importance than the designers’, to them, the layout may simply be decoration. (It works both ways. Designers have a tendency to go on about branding importance. Branding is important. So is a functioning site people can navigate and use to find information.)

I’ve really seen both sides of it all. My formal educational background is in print design. But I’ve been making websites since high school in the mid-late 1990s. I started with a free/limited version of Photoshop 5.0 and Notepad. I found since graduation from design school, I kept getting asked, “hey, you build websites, right?” Now, online content is about 70% of what I do. (Last year I’ve been learning more .php to work with open source database-driven CMSs.)

I’ve worked with print designers to build their clients’ websites, and outsourced back end to developers. I’ve been fortunate with who I have worked with, personally. I think the fact I do both design and development has helped me communicate with both types of people. I’m able to see their side of things because I do their side of things.

If you want to become a better web designer: stop using Dreamweaver/WYSIWYG software. Learn how to actually code for the web, to write properly marked-up HTML, to use styles correctly for layout in all browsers. Take a beginner/intermediate level course in it. Don’t expect to suddenly be able to do the job of a web developer… just learn a bit about it for the sake of knowing what those terms are they like to throw around so much.

If you want to become a better web developer: take an art course, like painting. I know this sounds bizarre, but understanding the artistically visual mind is integral to learn how to talk to the designer who believes their site layout is amazing. I don’t want to say “get creative”, because to me, coding is creative. It’s creative problem solving and that is why I can write scripts but not do calculus.

Overall, the thing to keep in mind: you both have the same goal, that of the client’s: to produce a functioning, attractive website that fits their needs. Remember that, and you’ll do fine.