New WotC Web Site Look

[cybertalus]

And of course the new site only works properly in Opera if I make Opera tell the site I'm not using Opera. Sigh, grumble.

 

[RFisher]

Most computer users these days run their desktop at 1024x768 or above.

1. I'd like to know the source of that data.
2. That doesn't tell you how much of that real estate they're willing to devote to a web browser window.
3. Smart web designers for commercial web sites want to accomodate much, much more than 50% of visitors.

 

[buzz]

1. I'd like to know the source of that data.

Here's one:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

The point though is that it's not an overwhelming majority, and flexible designs are good, while inflexible ones that make assumptions about the user's capabilities (or force them to work with their browser a certain way) are bad.

 

[MerricB]

Current stats put the number of people browsing at 800x600 or lower at about 40%. They're a minority, but not by a wide margin as yet.

The stats for my D&D Miniatures website are as follows:

N/A - 4646 - 7.6%
640X480 - 65 - 0.1%
800X600 - 9551 - 15.7%
1024X768 - 32066 - 52.7%
1152X864 - 2944 - 4.8%
1280X1024 - 9734 - 16%
1600X1200 - 1814 - 3%

So, at most that's 23% browsing at 800x600 or lower, which is what I use...

Cheers!

 

[John Crichton]

Not bad. It is a tad busy, but only compared to the bare bones of the old site.

The header bar I think is what makes it look "busy." I have many years of designing sites and since the top is the first thing most people look at (and happens to be where another nav bar is) it needs to be a little more simple. The left nav bar is functional, the right side where the books are highlighted works for me. The main content section is clean and well done.

I will agree with the folks that say the res should accomodate 800x600 users. I run at a very high res so it looks pretty good to me but one of the keys to good site design is that 99% of people can see it.

The 3rd column could be merged with the far right column to make it 800x600. That would be may suggestion if they asked me.

But overall, I like it. They did a pretty good job and it looks better than the old site. If we are handing out grades - I give it a solid B.

 

[Coreyartus]

I will agree with the folks that say the res should accomodate 800x600 users. I run at a very high res so it looks pretty good to me but one of the keys to good site design is that 99% of people can see it.

I totally agree. Someday, consumers are going to get peeved at business opting to "impose" their sense of "what's best" for everyone. Catering to the majority is easy. The majority of their previous customers are going to consider purchasing their stuff without much effort on their part because they'll at least hear about it through promotional channels. Instead their big challenge is getting new customers. And hampering ANY percentage of that possible consumer base in their endeavor to investigate probable purchases is a bad idea.

To me, this smacks of lazy web-folk too enamoured with their own sense of ingenuity to acknowledge the needs of their consumer base. "Look at our pretty website. Isn't it cool? Oh, too bad for you if you have to trudge through it to see it all! Buy our stuff anyway!!" Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy...

Hearkens back to the mid-80's TSR, don't it?

Coreyartus