What Makes A Website Visually Appealing?

[Nancy OShea]

A good read.

https://enablewebdesign.com/makes-website-visually-appealing/

A nice place to go for inspiration:

https://www.siteinspire.com/websites

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

The stats, if true for Bootstrap = more than 250 million sites are using bootstrap. So should we (and Dw) even consider using anything else, (lets face it, I have promoted flexbox for years, and Bs 4 uses flexbox. So why should I complain, (open to discussion)).

Depends how many of those websites are built by amatuers, same can be said for Wordpress. Just because a product is popular, especially one which requires little knowledge to get up and running, usually spewing out junk in the hands of the untrained, and of course is free, doesn't necessarily make it a good solution, just a cheap/convienient one. Sometimes cheap and convienient is good but when 'professional' outfits start offering services pumping out crap that's when I start to question the integrity of those using such workflows and really what their motives are.

Do you think Bootstrap and Wordpress's popularity would drop like a stone if those that used it were to be charged a yearly fee or even a one off fee, of course.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

The stats, if true for Bootstrap = more than 250 million sites are using bootstrap. So should we (and Dw) even consider using anything else, (lets face it, I have promoted flexbox for years, and Bs 4 uses flexbox. So why should I complain, (open to discussion)).

Maybe because at some stage it will always be 2 years behind the curve of were web-development is. Look at how many that use Bootstrap in this forum didn't adopt flex, insisting it wasnt ready yet, until it was default in Bootstrap, whilst the rest of us had been using its benefits for around 2 years prior and some even more. That will be repeated when Grids finally get adopted main-steam...Bootstrap users will be playing catch-up again.

Personally, as a developer I want to be in a position to move when the time is right, not be held captive by soemone else telling when I can use a technology because I have no skills and am for all intense and purposes their puppet.

[pziecina]

The problem with wordpress or any free framework, is that no one knows who or why people use them. Add to that, how many such frameworks have been used for sites that have been abandoned by the owner, (for all intents and purposes).

Netflix is listed as one of the top sites using bootstrap, yet I cannot find any reference to bootstrap in the code. That also leaves the question open about how many sites are being counted as using bootstrap but have since abandoned it, any why.

Look at the typical Dw user now, and they are in most cases not interested in what is actually happening in web design/development. We can debate forever about bootstrap vs custom code, (or even extensions using flexbox) the simple fact is Dw native support, (both code and css designer) is even in the latest version terrible. Dw says it is for the designer who wishes to code, but then one must ask why pre/post-processors or git has been included.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

The problem with wordpress or any free framework, is that no one knows who or why people use them. Add to that, how many such frameworks have been used for sites that have been abandoned by the owner, (for all intents and purposes).

Netflix is listed as one of the top sites using bootstrap, yet I cannot find any reference to bootstrap in the code. That also leaves the question open about how many sites are being counted as using bootstrap but have since abandoned it, any why.

Well that's just it anyone can claim to be popular by virture of it mostly being freely available but its difficult to breakdown the figures as to who, what or why its being used....so I discount all credibility when its a 'jack of all trades and master of none' senario.

pziecina  wrote

Look at the typical Dw user now, and they are in most cases not interested in what is actually happening in web design/development. We can debate forever about bootstrap vs custom code, (or even extensions using flexbox) the simple fact is Dw native support, (both code and css designer) is even in the latest version terrible. Dw says it is for the designer who wishes to code, but then one must ask why pre/post-processors or git has been included.

I've kind of lost interest in DW to be honest. It brings nothing to the palying field for me anymore personally. I answer coding questions but as for anything specifically DW related I leave that to those who use it.

Ive tried every other editor under the sun out there but not the past 2 or 3 versions of DW. Its far too premium price for what it offers in my opinion, as I dont think its moved on much according to the posts I read here. If it were to come down in price Id give it another trial, just to see where its currently at. I'm sure its still a good code editor, which is the only thing I require, but its pricing policy is aimed at those who can't code and that is why they can charge a premium for it but don't take me for a mug.

[BenPleysier]

If we talk about best practices in web development, how come no one has mentioned HTTP/2? With most browsers now supporting HTTP/2 should we not be looking at that? Should our websites not be shielded by a secure socket layer? Aren't these topics more important than how a web site is constructed?

Nearly 100% of the visitors to the sites that I am hosting use HTTP/2 enabled browsers and the advantages that they obtain are humongous, About a year and a half ago I transferred the sites to an Nginx box which has HTTP/2 protocol enabled. HTTP/2 pleads to have SSL as company. The two combined are worth much more to visitors to the site than lean code and beautiful smelling websites. Don't get me wrong, I still feel the need to watch out for good coding practices as well as eye appealing designs.

I wonder, how many of us use servers which are HTTP/2 enabled? Netflix is not and Adobe is not.

[pziecina]

The only bootstrap I can find in the netflix uk site are for the use of bootstrap components, not for the actual html and css. But we digress, your sugestion about http2 is discussion worthy, but not as essential as discussing the original topic, 'design best practices'. That to me would include everything from downloadable fonts, to the use of srcset for images or even css animations.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

If we talk about best practices in web development, how come no one has mentioned HTTP/2? With most browsers now supporting HTTP/2 should we not be looking at that? Should our websites not be shielded by a secure socket layer? Aren't these topics more important than how a web site is constructed?

Nearly 100% of the visitors to the sites that I am hosting use HTTP/2 enabled browsers and the advantages that they obtain are humongous, About a year and a half ago I transferred the sites to an Nginx box which has HTTP/2 protocol enabled. HTTP/2 pleads to have SSL as company. The two combined are worth much more to visitors to the site than lean code and beautiful smelling websites. Don't get me wrong, I still feel the need to watch out for good coding practices as well as eye appealing designs.

I wonder, how many of us use servers which are HTTP/2 enabled? Netflix is not and Adobe is not.

I dont really know much about servers and technical stuff such as that mention. Im primarily a web-developer, not a server protocal engineer. If its important and brings added benefit and security for users, it should be default. I cant see the point in any one selling hosting now without SSL, yet it's still happening. These kinds of questions should be directed at hosting companies in my opinion.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Problem in my case is, I do not care about eye candy, I care about content and the information that I can get at a glance without having to wade through countless images and other graphics. I am in, grab the info and I am out. Simple.

That depends on what you're researching of course. IF you have a wart on your head and want to find some information about warts fast you want that information quickly, without elements animating in from left and right each time you scroll or copious amounts of eye candy. If on the other hand you are wanting to spend 30k on a top of the range car you're more likely to entertain and accept an all singing all dancing experience which shows that product in its best light, that may be videos, animations, 3d imaging etc.

If I purchase something on the web I look for a website that says to me - 'We can provide the service we say we offer', 'professionally produced', 'reliable', 'instills confidence', especially if there is not much difference in pricing between websites............so its NOT always only the content which is important, it can be the visual experience and the content and one would hope whoever produces it shows just as much concern about the code that provides that experience.........it should be a package rather than a set of individual modules.

I dont think we need to be 100% perfect, none of us are, but its obvious to me those that are trying their best to follow/learn/provide some decent workflows/products and those that are blatantly wanting to ignore them. You can deduce you're own reasonings for this but all will be unacceptable. Nothing in life, done well, is a quick fix and I firmly believe its the scabs that infiltrate a profession  which drag it down to gutter levels which is what we are seeing today in web-development.

[ALsp]

I am of the meaning that Dreamweaver did the right thing to replace Fluid Grids with something that will stand the time. Bootstrap is not FG, Spry, ADDT et al. that were reliant upon Adobe to be maintained, Bootstrap has a huge community behind it all of whom want to keep making it better.

The last thing we should do now is attempt to rewrite history. Fluid Grids was simply a name Adobe slapped on top of Boilerplate. And Boilerplate was used for the same reason Bootstrap now is... it was a dice roll. Adobe simply did not carry off the transition from a prior in-vogue, fashionable CSS framework, to the one that supplanted it very well. The time will again come when Bootstrap will lose favor, and when that happens, let's all sit back and watch how Adobe handles it. Programming, by the way, is always best accomplished in small groups, with someone clearly in charge. Huge teams usually result in huge problems, huge mistakes, and without a clear leader, anarchy, whether the outside world sees it or not.

I've said this before, and it bears saying again...

If we can write a visual interface that allows you to lay out a page, then use that same interface, at any time, to modify that layout, by adding or deleting columns and row, or by reordering them, by assigning background colors, box separation, borders, roundedness, text alignment, vertical alignment, et al, then why can't Adobe do that and provide a means for all users to easily lay out a modern, responsive web page regardless of coding skills?

These are the things all ACPs should be pushing for, rather than polarizing users into coder/non-coder camps and extension-lover/hater camps. And....

This is very important, so do listen up. If a couple of guys (Project Seven) can devise a modest style sheet, from scratch, using modern CSS, to drive said visual UI in Dreamweaver, why can't Adobe do the same thing? Why does Adobe need to rely on a huge, open-source framework, to provide a non-automated means to lay out a page? Why are they using third-party code, when history clearly asserts that said code could lose its appeal? Why, when writing their own CSS is the clear answer to their problems?

Lazy:

la·zy

/ˈlāzē/

adjective

adjective: lazy; comparative adjective: lazier; superlative adjective: laziest

unwilling to work or use energy."I'm very lazy by nature"

synonyms:

idle, indolent, slothful, work-shy, shiftless, inactive, underactive, sluggish, lethargic;

Adobe has few chances left to save Dreamweaver. This forum, and its collective mindset, is not helping.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

These are the things all ACPs should be pushing for, rather than polarizing users into coder/non-coder camps and extension-lover/hater camps. And....

....

....

Adobe has few chances left to save Dreamweaver. This forum, and its collective mindset, is not helping.

I'm not an acp, I do not polarize anything into coder vs none coder, and I could not care less if somone uses extensions or not. What I do try to do, is promote that an understanding of code and good coding practices, will enable people to better understand what is possible and help them go beyond 'off the shelf' offerings.

Extensions, as I have said, I could not care less, just don't try to tell me that I should use them, or that it is the only or best way to produce web sites, static/dynamic or even browser based apps.

As for Dw only having a few chances left, in what way?

I ask that, because I cannot see it going beyond begginer or casual user, or being for bootstrap users.

[ALsp]

I'm not an acp, I do not polarize anything into coder vs none coder, and I could not care less if somone uses extensions or not. What I do try to do, is promote that an understanding of code and good coding practices, will enable people to better understand what is possible and help them go beyond 'off the shelf' offerings.

That's wonderful. So why are (seemingly) responding so aggressively to me? I was not addressing you personally.

Extensions, as I have said, I could not care less, just don't try to tell me that I should use them, or that it is the only or best way to produce web sites, static/dynamic or even browser based apps.

I didn't ask you. But your tone is sure polarizing... bordering on vindictive. Wow.

As for Dw only having a few chances left, in what way?

I ask that, because I cannot see it going beyond begginer or casual user, or being for bootstrap users.

I'm shocked that some people don't get it. I have no words that will not really piss you off, Paula. Sorry.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

I'm shocked that some people don't get it. I have no words that will not really piss you off, Paula. Sorry.

Come on, you can do better than that .

The reason I took your post personally, was because of the comment, 'this forum and its collective mindset'.

[ALsp]

The reason I took your post personally, was because of the comment, 'this forum and its collective mindset'.

Exactly.

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

The reason I took your post personally, was because of the comment, 'this forum and its collective mindset'.

Exactly.

Believe it or not AL, I cannot understand why the  Dw team, the acp, cab and prerelease forums are not interested in the modern web.

All the most of them want to do is focus on the past methods and specs.

[ALsp]

I'm not sure what that means, Paula. I've had the luxury to have managed some very large traditional business over the years. What ails Dreamweaver is a very rudimentary marketing issue. They simply need to make Dreamweaver unique again. It's not rocket science. Adobe cannot compete against the current crop of free or nearly free code editors. What it needs to do is to identify its market and capture it by differentiating itself. That requires unique features. Bootstrap is not unique. Adobe has got to take ownership of Dreamweaver. If they do that, the rest of what needs to be done will logically flow and Dreamweaver can thrive. If you want to argue the details, I can accommodate you, but my forte is in person, rather than electronically. But I can try.

Gosh, it would be so simple.

[pziecina]

I agree that Dw is missing a unique selling point.

Maybe others will disagree with this, but I also think that Dw has lost its appeal to coders simply because even us coders liked such visual aids as the old css styles panel used to have, (drop shadows, etc). Coders will not pay for open source editors, or any other open source feature, unless something extra is offered to make it worth our time, (and money).

I've never been able to understand why editable live view was never improved upon since its initial intro. I know it is based on the editable content specs first introduced by IE, (IE5 I think it was) but there is nothing stopping Dw from introducing new features except that they would have to add the code to CEF every time it was updated, (or submit the new features as a level 2 spec to the W3C).

[ALsp]

But "you coders" were never the primary market

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

But "you coders" were never the primary market

That's right. I realised that once I became a coder and abandoned it. It still would have been nice to see DW be more innovative in its offerings to non-coders like some of the other more advanced non-coder editors which seem to have taken great leaps forward while DW has been stuck in mud for some years not really offering much in the way of improvements other than vanity.

Given the organisation behind the product it should be up there with the other non-coder editors. You could argue FGs and Spry were innovative but they should have been in a position to replace those quickly with their own solutions when it became evident that they had failed or been superceeded. Certainly I dont buy into this rubbish that the Server Behaviours, which were its distinct selling point, some would say only selling point, would have been too intensive to replace, they have had years and years and done nothing.

I would assume that the majority of 'useful' websites built by non-coders require a back-end database these days so to me its fairly obvious you keep that feature alive and the more useful features you can provide to non-coders the more will use that product. 

[pziecina]

ALsp  wrote

But "you coders" were never the primary market

That's what I am pointing out in my post. Coders are also looking for 'something more' all the time though, as we all want an ide that does the hard work for us. Even VS Pro offered a visual tool to help its users in using css grid layouts and css animations, (amongs other things, it was called VS Blend).

As for everything else, Osgood has said most things in his reply, all I have to add is that Dw's SB's were best removed anyway. If they had been updated the problems of pdo vs mysqli plus the incompatability between all 3 (if one counts mysql) would probably have caused complete chaos amongst users. That removal should have only lasted 2-3 versions though before updated SB's were introduced.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

all I have to add is that Dw's SB's were best removed anyway. If they had been updated the problems of pdo vs mysqli plus the incompatability between all 3 (if one counts mysql) would probably have caused complete chaos amongst users. That removal should have only lasted 2-3 versions though before updated SB's were introduced.

Probably could have just worked like it does now. I believe the old server behavours can still be brought back if nesessary or could be up until a short time ago, so if you had a legacy website using mysql you could still manage it. At some piont you will have to move to pdo or mysqli.

pdo would have been an obvious replacement choice and as non-coders are unlikely to care if they use pdo or mysqli it would not be an issue as far as I can see.

[osgood_]

Chocolate Chip Cookies and Toffee Ice Cream is the correct answer I think

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

Chocolate Chip Cookies and Toffee Ice Cream is the correct answer I think

Taken me a while Os, but I finally got it .

[osgood_]

I forgot...... Chocolate Marshmallows...............and Beer of course

[ALsp]

That's pretty disgusting.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

That's pretty disgusting.

I should be fat, have a beer belly and have no teeth.