If you are talking about using javascript to take over your browser, then Right On! I can't stand that. The only thing worse are those sites (cough Felix cough) that I can't view without firing up IE because I have automatic pop-ups blocked with Mozilla. ;-)

I don't mind it actually.

I'd rather the designer designate the optimal window size that the site was designed for, rather than just designing for the lowest common denominator of 800x600 (760x390 w/ browser frame). Now that, I hate.

I actually like the fact that the entire screen is taken into consideration. The sites you are referencing are doing a great job at that and I really enjoyed the sophistication and originality of the work. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

And then there is always "command + w."

Nothing makes me close a window faster. As if they're saying "your short attention span need not be distracted by anything but our brilliant site."

Speaking of which, a lot of navigation on Speak Up pops up new windows. When navigating around the site earlier I had four Speak Up windows open, which is less than ideal. A good thread on that subject took place in the comments here.

>When navigating around the site earlier I had four Speak Up windows open

Well I think that your short attention span need not be distracted by anything but our brilliant site. Hehehe.

This is a nice attention to detail: The n2o.it site spells "inspirations" wrong in the main menu. Sweet.

What I hate are sites that are larger than my screen dimensions, yet don't have scroll bars (cough Norman cough).

>What I hate are sites that are larger than my screen dimensions, yet don't have scroll bars (cough Norman cough).

How big is your computer for chris' sakes? 5 by 5 inches? I know, our site is 50 pixels longer than it should be...

Yea...I was commenting on the maximized/pop-up windows.

I classify web sites that do that into the same group as telemarketers, Jehova's Witnesses and people who drive while talking on cell phones.

jesus christ. my headache is back.

as a designer i agree with tan - its more enjoyabl and more compelling to design ideally.

as a user, i find it pretty annoying. window maximizing for its own sake is pretty lame, i find it more useful if the window is sized to the appropriate size for the content (whatever that might be).

whats even worse though is when the java actually closes the original window. now the back button isn't gonna work.

Does it matter? I had to resize this site manually, because it's nearly 1024px wide, and I used to browse with smaller window.

Damn it! see what you started Darrel?

I would just like to add something a little bit more serious: don't be so fucking lazy!!!!!!

Everybody expects the web to fit your every little nuisance of a need... and that is simply wrong. I support web standards and all that shit, but I don't support how lazy it has made people. So what if you have to resize your window? Did your finger fall off? Did you lose 0.5 seconds of your life because of it? It's crap. This whole complaining about windows and resizing is just another reflection of people being lazy and doing half-assed efforts in everything they do.

This is the main reason why there will always be a divide between print and web designers: print designers are willing to challenge the user and not succumb to every cry they make, we give our audience a little more credit.

Sorry for going off on this rant, and it's nothing personal against you G.Y. (or whatever) but I've wanted to say it for a long time now.

I'm completely dumbfounded by the comments claiming they do not mind it. This is so wrong, I immediately assumed there would be absolutely no discussion around this and the post would go commentless. My world has been turned upsidedown. I am so incensed, I can not even muster a logical composed response as to why it sucks other than to say it sucks. Tell me y'all are just messing with me, and we all hate it.

armin - i was just reading your comment and cheering you on till..

This is the main reason why there will always be a divide between print and web designers: print designers are willing to challenge the user and not succumb to every cry they make, we give our audience a little more credit.

AAAAAAAaaaack! Did you really believe you could just slide that by!?!? I am deeply hurt and have decided to boycott this site. For the next 12 minutes.

>This is so wrong, I immediately assumed there would be absolutely no discussion around this and the post would go commentless.

Well, this is Speak Up Griff, we challenge everything

>I'm completely dumbfounded by the comments claiming they do not mind it.

Mind what? that they dared invade my precious little screen real estate? Absolutely and total crap! C-R-A-P. Crap. I may go at it alone on this fight, but I don't mind, I can take the heat.

Wait, damn... is Su watching? Maybe I better stop.

Let me make something clear before we go on. I absolutely respect the web designers who are able to make the most of the user's web experience while respecting all these considerations everybody deems so precious. I'm also all gung-ho for making the visit to web sites a pleasant, usable, remarkably good smelling experience. What I don't dig is all the frickin nagging.

This is too big

This is too small

This is too black on white

This is too slow

This is too fast

Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Learn to respect a designer's decision. Even if it doesn't fit your needs.

> I am deeply hurt

Why?

> Learn to respect a designer's decision. Even if it doesn't fit your needs.

Because, after all, designers design for their own creative outlets, not for the end user.

;)

I'm soooo gonna get it, aren't I?

I was trying to sort out my thoughts around specific instances when resizing windows would be acceptable and in what instances it would be forbiden. My criteria was getting more and more confused and complicated, when an epiphany hit. It is very simple.

If you resize my window, and the contents of the window is really fan-fucking-tastic, then I don't mind. If you resize my window and the contents of that window is craptastic, I will hunt you down and kill you.

Do i get bonus points for using "fuck" inside of a word? I have noticed this form of usage is quite popular here! Abso-fucking-lutely, i get bonus points!

This is the main reason why there will always be a divide between print and web designers: print designers are willing to challenge the user and not succumb to every cry they make, we give our audience a little more credit.

As a print designer, I declare this to be a bunch of crap. Anyone ever heard of transparency? Oh wait, transparency doesn't make you famous. Isn't this same discussion happening somewhere else on Speak Up?

Yo Armin. I'm with ya man. Fucking lazy bastards.

It's like clients who ask for saddle-stiching because perfect binding is too hard to keep open on their desks.

Besides, I'm so preoccupied with the boring shit I see online, that whenever a site has the audacity to maximize my browser or push the pixel count, I'm thinking -- hey, at least someone's at least trying to do something new/unrestricted.

You wanna know what the difference b/t print and web designer is? Innovation. A print designer embraces the unconventional and innovative, always trying to push the boundaries and confuse the shit out of people for creativity's sake. A web designer avoids the unconventional, hiding behind 'usability' as a crutch for sticking with rules that only they obey and understand.

Come'on you wusses, bring it on :-)

> I'm soooo gonna get it, aren't I?

I'd hide your stuffed animals.

Abso-fucking-lutely, i get bonus points!

impressive, most impressive. but you are not a jedi yet.

> A web designer avoids the unconventional, hiding behind 'usability' as a crutch...

There is no usability rulebook that web designers collectively stand by. Many web site are by nature more information-intensive than print pieces, and the print that is information-heavy tends to be more straightforward in its presentation (i.e., a book with conventional grid, page numbers, margins, etc).

Most web sites function as resources/tools for accessing information (as opposed to sites that are standalone art pieces that require contemplation). The the less annoying the site in respect to resizing, playing pop-up whack-a-mole and following other best practices, the more efficient the tool is. Creativity can definitely be found by following use-centered guidelines to whatever degree is appropriate for the project.

When a site warns you that it is going to expand the browser window, that's cool. Its like your OS telling you "Are you sure you want to delete this?" When it just takes control, I think of someone getting their hands on some new Photoshop filters and using it ad nauseum. Congratulations, you finally found that script online, didn't you?

When it is one of Scott McCloud's huge, scroll happy online comic strips, sure, I'll go for that. Those can be pretty engaging.

When it comes to ecomm design, you are fucking goddamn right I care about users precious screen real estate, because that is a potential sale.

I support web standards and all that shit, but I don't support how lazy it has made people. So what if you have to resize your window?

Ah, Armin...but that makes *you--the developer*--the lazy one.

There really isn't a need for the fixed width of your site. I never look at anything on the right size as it is, because I never browse with my browser maximized.

Remember that web design should be a suggestion. "Here, this is how I think you should view this page." Leave it at that. If the end user wants to override your suggestion, that's their choice.

Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Learn to respect a designer's decision. Even if it doesn't fit your needs.

Well, if I'm the intended audience, and it doesn't meet my needs, then that's just bad design, is it not?

(BTW, Armin, your site is great, and I certainly wouldn't say your site sucks because it is too wide...but people do have a point...and we all seem to love a good argument in here! ;o)

I'm always watching, Armin. Now, piss off *grin*

I bet you thought I'd disagree with you. Well, not quite. I think you might be misinterpreting some things I say. I'm all for letting the designer do whatever the hell they please, but they need to either accept that their decisions can and will sometimes shut out or alienate their audience, or they need to build in fallbacks for when their designs fail, or at least have someone on hand who understands the process and can do it for them. As probably the most basic example, it takes the smallest amount of code to stick an extra OBJECT tag inside the one containing your Flash movies so that people without the plugin(for whatever reason) at least get a flat image rather than some nasty-ass broken puzzle piece thing; this at least gives them some idea what they're missing, and lets them decide whether they care(ie: I have my main browser with Flash intentionally not installed). Baseline usability is not the torture some people would make it out to be.

The thing to consider here is why are they maximizing the screen, or more importantly: Is there actually a (good, we hope) reason for it? Generally: no. If you bought a magazine, and upon opening it, the thing blew out to four times its size, repeatedly and without warning(and usually purpose), I'm going to guess you'd be irritated. I'm willing to venture that if we think about this a little further than kneejerk irritation, that's the real problem. Taking control and choice away from the user is an ugly thing, and should not be done lightly. If done without notice, it violates the inherent choice-driven and interactive nature of the web. Unconventional is one thing; unnecessary is well...

• Larsen: No. And why do they need two windows?
• Grafikonstruct: Hell no. But this place also seems to think you give a shit how many visitors they have at any given moment, so they don't get a vote.
• Tronic: They maximize the window, then don't even use all of it, much less center the layout nicely, or something. Idiots.
• N2O: Okay, so they at least centered the layout. But it's so damn small there's no point.
• Frosch: This place is much more of a full-on presentation than even a web site. I'll accept this under the "designer decision" category.
• Planet Propaganda: This place approaches Frosch's presentation, uh...-ness. I'm too busy being offended by their information design, frankly, but I can probably let this one go, too.

Learn to respect a designer's decision. Even if it doesn't fit your needs.

The user's needs are your needs, generally. For the length of the contract, anyway, no?

Let's go to a logical conclusion here, shall we? I will henceforth write everything in Fremen, and expect everyone to figure it out for themselves. Seems far-fetched, but lets return to English and point out that too-small type can look unintelligible to some people.

>BTW, Armin, your site is great, and I certainly wouldn't say your site sucks because it is too wide

Speak Up is the SUV of blogs.

>but people do have a point

I know, and my design decision was not to observe that point. I listened to the point, deliverated about the point, disregarded the point. Right, wrong? Doesn't matter, we all love the great discussions whether we need to maximize our browsers or not.

>Ah, Armin...but that makes *you--the developer*--the lazy one.

Huh? How did I become the lazy one?

>Well, if I'm the intended audience, and it doesn't meet my needs, then that's just bad design, is it not?

I'm not completely giving in, but you might have a point.

>Here, this is how I think you should view this page.

See? That's where web design trips me up, but we have discussed this issue to the ground and we won't get anywhere.

>As a print designer, I declare this to be a bunch of crap. Anyone ever heard of transparency?

Huh? Transparency as in "Hi, I'm Adobe Illustrator and it took me 10 years to develop a transparency palette" or transparency as in some weird metaphor?

>Yo Armin. I'm with ya man. Fucking lazy bastards.

Yeheaah... Tan, I knew I could count on you.

>If you resize my window, and the contents of the window is really fan-fucking-tastic, then I don't mind. If you resize my window and the contents of that window is craptastic, I will hunt you down and kill you.

So the actual resizing doesn't really matter? It's the content that matters? Aha! So you are saying you would sacrifice usability for a good piece of as... I mean content.

Just to throw in a random point for Armin that was not touched up on, you should probably define audience.

Most, if not all of the people who complain about full-sixe windows, as well as

This is too big

This is too small

This is too black on white

This is too slow

This is too fast

are designers themselves.

I've heard more than a few random people, not designers, comment that full-screen sites and other such effects are "cool".

I personally think it's a bit irritating because it's rarely utilized well and is thrown in as a cheap effect. But I think people fully reaching their potential in their work, in any field, is prolific. Or maybe I'm just pessimistic, or optimistic, I'm not sure which.

I think... if a book could, like, take over the entire freaking room I'm in... THAT WOULD BE COOL!! Just make sure it has a little box with an X in it that I can punch so I can get out.

I don't mind some pop-up size-maximised windows. But in general, i don't like it. i find it a little irritating. Like an itch. not a big itch. Just a little one that needs a little scratch.

Worst still than a pop-up size-maximised windows is a pop-up size-maximised windows with text smaller than a bee's dick. Another itch.

It seems the new trend to avoid scrolling on a page is to insert multple little scrolls withing the page itself. Hey presto.

The web is not TV. Neither is it Print.

It has limited bandwidth and screen/paper/canvas space.

"Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Learn to respect a designer's decision. Even if it doesn't fit your needs."

With that quote, maybe it's time to revisit the previous " Art Vs Design" Thread.

burp.

But hypocrisy is my flaw. It's ok for me to do the things that itch and not others.

Transparency as in "Hi, I'm Adobe Illustrator and it took me 10 years to develop a transparency palette" or transparency as in some weird metaphor?

Transparency as in the designer's hand in the matter is more or less transparent to the user. The designer's job is to serve the content. Sometimes the content calls for a heavy hand, a clear designer footprint, and sometimes—often—it doesn't. I think all designers face the temptation to tart things up when all that's really needed is some centered sans serif type and white space.

I like Rebecca.

She says smart things.

;o)

>Transparency as in the designer's hand in the matter is more or less transparent to the user.

Just for the sake of discussion... I mostly agree with you on this but why hire a designer then? If some centered sans serif type and white space is all one needs and the client can get his/her hands on software we are transparent as a profession. I believe in meeting a client's need first and foremost but I also believe that whatever I design has to have a little Arminness in it, otherwise we should just let Kinko's do all the graphic design work.

I mostly agree with you on this but why hire a designer then?

We're the ones who are good at deciding whether something should get simple treatment or "designy" treatment, and we're the ones who can execute it well and quickly.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but I'm off to the beach! Bye!

If some centered sans serif type and white space is all one needs and the client can get his/her hands on software we are transparent as a profession.

Don't confuse decorating with design. Whether the solution calls for centered sans serif type and white space or a heavily layered 3-D flash interface *is* a design decision. And both approaches would require the skills of a designer to execute well.

In the case of most of the examples I link to, a decision was made to go with the obnoxious in-your-face-we-don't-care-about-your-own-settings solution. Maybe they were all design decisions, but I have a hunch they were all decoration decisions in the those cases.

A web designer avoids the unconventional, hiding behind 'usability' as a crutch for sticking with rules that only they obey and understand.

Woah.... That's pretty ridiculous. The differences between print and web designers?

1. Web designers have to account for the fact that our work is dynamic and must be used by people. Print designers simply get to figure out what something looks like. Your job ends as soon as the thing gets printed.

2. My job is closer to that of an application UI designer than that of a graphic designer. Does that mean I don't know how to kern? Does that mean I couldn't care less about really great photography? No. It just means that I can't use that stuff as the basic building blocks for my design. YOU can print a photograph full-bleed, whatever the size of the page. I cannot, because this is a drain on both my server resources as well as my client resources. I design with the confines of technology, You design within the confines of.. well.. printology.

3. Weren't you taught in school that we are problem-solvers more than we are decorators? Maximizing the browser window is a cop-out and a complete waste of the user's computer screen. I'd like to point out here, though, that most Windows users always run their browsers and applications at full-size anyhow, as it's the only way that they can deal with their OS. So it's nice to see so many Mac users (the only ones really affected by browser maximizing).

What I find obnoxious is when people link a separate site to each word in a sentence, but their style sheet doesn't underline links so you can't tell right away whether there are 6 links or 1. Non-underlined links should be verboten!

He called you on that one Darrel... wait... me too... heeeey! I hate underlined links and this is purely a subjective opinion.

But if your coursor converts to a little pointy handy on rollover then click it by golly.

I don't see what the big deal here is. It is our job to get people's attention. Maximizing browser windows is like printing a brochure 11x17 instead of 8.5x11. If it is appropriate to the concept, then do it.

Print designers simply get to figure out what something looks like. Your job ends as soon as the thing gets printed.

Web and print designers may have some different issues to deal with in completing a project, BUT, we all care about the same thing: the end user. My actual job may end when the brochure rolls off the press, but I better have figured out beforehand who is going to use it and how, or it's just as ineffective as a web site with no navigation.

He called you on that one Darrel... wait... me too... heeeey! I hate underlined links and this is purely a subjective opinion.

No...that one is solely on you, Armin. ;o)

I don't see what the big deal here is. It is our job to get people's attention.

And you can get someone's attention by walking up to them and slapping in the face. Or calling them a fuck wad. But neither is really a good design solution and both are a tad rude.

Maximizing browser windows is like printing a brochure 11x17 instead of 8.5x11.

No it's not. It's like slapping you in the face. If I pick up a piece of paper, I am in control. I can do with it as I wish. Same goes with *my* computer and *my* web browser.

BUT, we all care about the same thing: the end user.

Ah...well, there ya go! Web designers that cared about the end user wouldn't assume that they like to have their desktop and browser chrome taken away from them.

Darrel, dude. I think you're the one with control issues here.

And btw, I think fuck wad is one word, like dipshit.

I think web folk are just touchy. ;-)

Come'on, Darrel. I know you're being figurative here, but maximizing a browser is like a slap to the face?!

If you feel personally violated/assaulted from viewing a website, then man, you need to unplug and go lay down on the lawn or something.

I'll admit that the print medium is a kazillion years older than the web, so conventions are more defined and mature. And yes, yes, I know that web is not print, and blah, blah, blah. But to me, the unconventional is what's so exciting about the web.

The web is still in its infancy. And like a 5 year old, it should be exploratory, and evolving, and audacious, and ugly, and beautiful, and full of newness like nothing any of us have quite experienced before.

So conversations like this discussion doesn't quite make sense to me. It's kind of sad, really.

I know there's a need to make order of the medium. To adapt and establish a balance between creativity and functionality. But for god's sake, ease it up a little guys. You don't have to demystify and analyze the shit out of every pixel on everything, know what I mean?

Jeesh.

And btw, I think fuck wad is one word, like dipshit.

Crap. You're right. Mea Culpa!

Come'on, Darrel. I know you're being figurative here, but maximizing a browser is like a slap to the face?!

What it is doing is taking control away from me. This is my computer. My web browser. I'm in control on the web.

That's a very hard thing for designers to grasp at first...and they often rebel, but copping out and doing it like they did on paper. Setting the browser to the size THEY want and using flash to make sure everything is exactly like they want it.

However, on the web, people need to get used to serving content to the end user in the way they want it. They may want to use a specific web browser or assistive technology. They may want to set their browser at a certain size. They may want to reset the default text size. They may want to change the default colors. Etc.

If you feel personally violated/assaulted from viewing a website, then man, you need to unplug and go lay down on the lawn or something.

No, not assaulted (damn metaphors...they can always be interpreted in so many ways!). I just find it terribly obnoxious.

I use my computer. I have several programs open at once. My IM is up, my email. FW and DW. Probably office. 3 or four browser windows. I'm humming along doing my work and then BAM! OUR WEB SITE IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU MUST DROP ALL YOU ARE DOING AND WATCH US!

That's just bad design.

There are plenty of other reasons they are bad as well (dual monitor set ups, accessibility issues, etc.)

Bottom line, if you have a good reason for doing it, then I can't argue. But there is rarely, if ever a good enough reason to trump the end user's environment.

The web is still in its infancy. And like a 5 year old, it should be exploratory, and evolving, and audacious, and ugly, and beautiful, and full of newness like nothing any of us have quite experienced before.

And, to be fair, those are some good reasons. So, if all of the above design firm's sites were merely meant to be experimental art pieces, then bravo! They did good. If, on the other hand, they were meant to be marketing pieces for their firm targetted at the average potential client, then I think they have some explaining to do. ;o)

There will be a lot more personal sensitivities when it comes to the web and what one sees and interacts with on one's own computer.

Your computer is usually in located in your personal space and it always stays there - your workspace in the office, in your personal room at home. And thats where you do a lot of personal "private" things like private messaging friends, writing very personal emails, entering your very personal details, credit card info, passwords and such. So psychologically, there is a lot more sensitivity when something happens on that vital personal space on the screen.

This is not like a Book, or a peice of design on paper. Paper is portable. You inspect and interact with it. If you don't like it, you can pass it onto your colleague so there is less sensititvity as it sits in a real space. There is less claustraphobia. You can throw it away even.

Designing or shall i say working for Print is more than just figuring out what something looks like. Because things don't move or have a sound or any other dimension, there is a lot more skill and talent required (than is given credit to) to impart the same message, mood through a few words, image and how it sits on the paper. You might notice also that copywriting found on printed pieces are a class above most on the web.

Personally, i see a lot of freshly graduated designers in print and new media coming into the market. If i were in the position i would prefer hiring those of a print background and have them trained to aquire new media skills. It's a lot harder the other way round - i.e. new media graduates picking up basic design/typo fundamentals. A lot of Print-based designers frown at some of the "hot" flash websites out there. Although they have all the bells and whistles the media allows, the basic fundamentals of design are usually not evident or taken into consideration.

Whenever i work with a junior web designer or motion graphics designer, I always advise him to mock something up as if it were on paper first. Static, without any other dimension. Once that is satisfactory, then move onto adding the other dimensions. I feel the end result will be more powerful this way.

I'm wondering why can't print and web designers just get along? 'Cause, dammit, there's a lot of us who, er, actually do... um, both? (e.g. me) :) And do both quite well. (e.g. me... well... i'm just stroking my ego now... there are lots of people who can do both but are offered more projects in one medium than the other)

I absolutely LOVE doing print stuff and tinkering with the web is FUN for me. And I see no reason by doing both, you can't be GOOD at both. :) (cause the essence is DESIGN. You got that foundation... the rest is just toolkit and audience choices)

And I think there's a ridiculous divide as well WITHIN the web designer community over Flash designers and (X)HTML peeps -- jeebus, why can't we do both (a la whatdoiknow.org and domineydesign.com -- same guy)?

There's crossovers everywhere. I say we should just hold hands and sing Kumbaya. ;) (ok, now i'm scaring even myself)

I'm wondering why can't print and web designers just get along?

Who said we don't? ;o)

The problem I often have with fullscreen pops is not so much an issue of control. In 98% of the fullscreen windows I come across there just isn't a reason behind going fullscreen. It's done beacuse it can be done.

I have no problem with design which in context require or experiment with larger amounts of screen space but I think that is different than somewhat randomly opening a window fullscreen.

A fullscreen pop-up for someone who has their screen dimensions set to 1600x1200(+) or who has their desktop spread across two monitors usually doesn't acheive the effect desired.

Speak Up, for example, is a completely reasonable use of screen space as the stats for design-related sites place the majority of browsers at 1024x768 or higher. In fact 1024x768 is gaining on 800x600 in usage by non-design browsers pretty rapidly.

stats for design-related sites place the majority of browsers at 1024x768 or higher.

I know of no such 'browser dimension stats'. I think you meant screen resolution stats. Which, of course, have nothing to do with the size of one's browser viewport.

> I'm wondering why can't print and web designers just get along?

Darrel and I share this little condo in NYC. He works days, and I work nights. We never see each other, but he's always leaving these wonderful little dishes in the fridge for me. In return, I tape daytime soaps for him when I'm at home during the day. I'm hoping that our paths will cross one day.

So you see, a print designer and a web designer can get along with each other just fine.

BTW, Tan...your turn to do the dishes.

I just can not picture the two of you under the same roof. Not even metaphorically speaking.