At a client’s today (web dev co.) I was giving a lunch conference on the usage of web standards. Amongst other ressources I had used this presentation and one of the arguments was this one relating to the weight of pages and bandwidth savings. From there, after the presentation I had a talk with one of the attendees and we were at odds, for one thing, with the general trend of the web.
He says the tendency is towards heavier sites with more images and I think the opposite. What do you think?
Before answering though, I want you to think of the web as a whole. If you only read blogs, that’s not it. Include them in your general view but do consider their limited part. Same if you only read newspaper sites, or go to flash only band sites, or check out artist portfolios all the time or spend 90% of your web surfing time on Yahoo services. I want your opinion on the whole thing, not juste the subset you frequent.
Or, even better come to think of it, both. If you have time for a detailed answer I’d like to know what kind of sites you see the most, where you think they are headed in terms of size and then what you think the trend is for the whole web.
Last thing. We’re talking size not experience. Flickr for example is sometimes mentioned as having a “rich media experience”. And to me it does; it offers a lot of possibilities, is engrossing and easy to use but it’s also light. A flash site that’s a long download and doesn’t do much is heavier (and might be the general trend, you tell me) but doesn’t offer a “rich media experience” so do make that disctinction.
2 Comments
Interesting question.
I mostly visit weblogs and information websites but nonetheless, I humbly believe I get to work on enough corporate sites with enough clients to have a pretty clear and precise idea on the trends, needs and expectations these clients strive for.
Most people wil be favorable for a visually-charged web site, but they also are fully aware that their customers are looking for performance and low download times over flashiness. Therefore, even though they come in hoping for a graphic-heavy in-your-face design, they mostly always come out with a lighter, less graphic oriented design because they understand that every image has a direct impact on how long visitors will have to wait to get to the information (as the content is way more important than the container).
The Web that I mostly frequent usually has two faces : the asepticized spaces of hard core milieus where content is practically the only consideration ; and related spaces in the same gravitational pull, trying, some better than others, to reconcile form and substance. However, when I venture outside of this perimeter, I discover a bonanza of senses, candy for the eyes and ears (and I imagine the rest will follow shortly) as far as your screen can go. When my younger brother takes over my computer and makes the rounds of his usual haunts, I end up leaving with a head-ache ;)
So I would say the trend is rather towards heavier sites graphically and we do not need to look very far. And personally, I do not see anything wrong with that as long as it is well done, pertinent, functional, elegant and yes, accessible.