Web stylin' - first impressions do count

One of my previous posts was intended to be about the differences between the visual design and layout elements required for online publishing (i.e. a website) and those required for print media. Unfortunately, as my blogs are sometimes inclined to do, it kind of turned into a mini-rant about other topics. So here I will endeavor to stay 'on topic', as a political adviser might suggest.

Anyway, I was recently attempting to explain the above to someone not in the field, and in doing so had one of those epiphanies - in this day and age most people expect and demand that almost anything in print will be available in the online forum. It's a scary thought, but one which we are all going to have to get used to. So it may serve us well to get acquainted with the 'rules', such as they are.

As I have mentioned in the past, first and foremost there is font selection. In the tactile and tangible world of print, we all know and love Times New Roman, along with related serif typefaces. This is what most of us have known and are used to. But poor old Times and serif friends don't do so well in the online environment (except perhaps for mastheads, headlines, graphic effects etc.) Here it is the sans serif which prevail, and more importantly, are easier for your reader.

And then there is design...quite frankly, Web 2.0 has a fair bit to answer for. OK - interactive and animation are good, but not when it comes to irritating pop-ups! Or, for that matter, web designers who clearly either have a crack or LSD problem (or both).

Naturally, though, we are all experts on graphic design and layout, aren't we? Similarly perhaps, we all have informed and educated opinions on art - but it doesn't mean that we can bloody well do it as well as the artist, does it? For example, I have never stumbled upon a block of granite and thought to myself, 'Hmmm... I bet I could sculpt something better than Rodin out of this', or looked at an outback landscape and said 'God, I could do something way better than Streeton/Nolan/Roberts/McCubbin with this lot!' This is because I could not. Whitely maybe, with drugs and alcohol...anyway, I digress.

The point is that if you want to look at least half-decent on the internet, then follow the example of those who are really good at it. I would strongly suggest a visit to Smashing Magazine for the would-be website designer - it's a good site which uses plain non-nerd language (for the most part, but even then a little editing wouldn't go astray).

Getting down to the theoretical, as I suppose we must, knowing something of 'Visual Grammar' is also useful. It's all about giving people what they want and are expecting in any given context, be it 'real' or virtual. The way that people read websites versus a newspaper, for example, is very different. An 'eyetracking' study of how people read a webpage I found fascinating - but of course, artists, painters and graphic designers have known these tricks fo centuries. A bloke named Jakob Nielsen has written a fascinating article which further expounds upon this subject.

As yet, unfortunately there is nothing akin to the Style manual for web designers or publishers - perhaps there ought to be. There are a few worthy tomes out there, though, and many conveniently (and appropriately) appear as hard copy along with either CD-ROM and/or website links for your enjoyment. Indeed, a harbinger of things to come.

But as with most things, that old adage of 'keep it simple' is never more true than here in the online world.