There’s nothing quite like good clean design– artistic design crafted by a skilled, talented artist. The best examples of good design in web publishing have an affect on the viewer, not in an obvious way, but such that the he or she is drawn to the page content. In the most remarkably successful use of good design, its affective results are perhaps not even immediately recognized by the viewer because it just seems to belong there. Certainly, the best design imagery doesn’t distract the viewer from the true substance of the page, the textual content which the author intended, after considerable effort in writing and publishing, for the reader to consume as the primary, most important element of the page. Design, in terms of imagery, color, and virtually anything other than the very text of the page is of critical to winning a reader’s interest. However, one mustn’t forget that inherent to this definition of design, no matter how powerful its effect on a reader’s attention span; no matter how affective was the choice of color to contrast or compliment the subject matter; no matter how en vogue the technique; no matter what the skill of the artist, it is all subordinate to the textual content. Without text, (in this context) there is no reason for design– unless of course that page is meant to display only design examples without text.

I wanted to demonstrate for the web author who considers the web page “design” (good design in any case, here or otherwise) Here’s an example of a designer who chose to draw the web site’s core navigation with a “paint program”– or some sort of digital image editing software– as a substitute for markup and text.

Does this designer have the right idea, or what!? I mean– why didn’t I think of this before? Why should anyone struggle with all of this XHTML markup, and CSS positioning, and all this cerebral stuff?

I’ve captured a screenshot of the way it appeared to me very “minimalistic” when I first viewed it when i merely stumbled upon it– without knowing that there was more to it (fortunately, experience has taught me to investigate such suspiciously scant discoveries):

I do not mean to be so crass as to suggest that there is no reason for imagery in a web site, or to discredit the importance of graphic design, and photography. I do not claim that good design, or Design in general it is unimportant in any way. Reading the first paragraph again will reveal my opinion on the critical importance of good Design. The reason I wrote this article is so I could illustrate my belief in the Web Standards Design Theory. There actually are rules on the use of Images in HTML, that is if you wish to be considerate to the inevitable, Non-Standard Minority. By Non-Standard Minority, i mean someone who might not have the financial resources to purchase a PC system capable of running the latest web browser software, such as Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer 7, and their lesser-known counterparts. Because of the forward momentum of change in visual web technology, such as Macromedia Flash (a medium for creating animated imagery with audio) and Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), all the way to the increased popularity, and pervasive use of the .PNG image file (Portable Network Graphics) for example, a user with an older PC, regardless if it is a Macintosh, or running Windows 98, or perhaps Red Hat Linux, if the user’s html user agent software (the Web Browser) is too old, there is a high likelihood that their experience with any of the aforementioned media will be quite similar to what is illustrated in my image above. In other words, if you’ve got an old system, you will simply not be able to view the web pages. Fortunately, most public libraries keep up to date with modern technology to allow the less fortunate to view such media as it was intended.

In addition to someone who might not be able to afford a current PCthe latest browser used in a web page should always offer all available information in a text format. It’s a little known technology, but blind people can in fact browse the web using a user agent known as a “screen reader”. The FREE web browser, Opera comes standard with a screen reader mode which simply scans the text of web pages and reads the content, just as it would be read by someone with normal sight. Screen reader technology allows for any web site which provides its content in text format– either plain text or highly styled (i.e. the text of the page is embedded in the HTML source code), can be presented in a multitude of formats independent of the need for normal vision. On the contrary, for as advanced as screen reader technology has become, it is useless if the web page content has no text and only imagery.

If you have learned something by reading this article, or if you are aware of the need for text but continue to use images because you feel that your web site “looks better”, i ask that you think of those people who won’t be able to read your content and consider putting for any effort it might require for your web site content to be available in an all-text format. In doing so, you will be doing a great justice to the underpriviledged, and the disabled. Thanks for thinking of everyone when you author your web content!