i am working on a new design for our site and trying to figure out the general site structure at this point.<br />
i have a "design template" whiich is not final, but will help to illustrate the point:<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nimlok.com/new_site/custom-modular2.htm">http://nimlok.com/new_site/custom-modular2.htm</a><!-- m --><br />
right now it is a sort of a dummy page, but eventually there will be more text under the red "custom modular" to describe more product features/benefts. The current idea is to also list all the accessories available for the product on the same page.<br />
as a result, the page will end up sort of long.<br />
What do you think is better? to just have features/benefits on the page and then have sub buttons for accessories and other stuff, or have one longer page without making the person click.<br />
as an example, the difference is well represented in web sites of our competitors.<br />
compare:<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.skycorp.com/skyline.asp?cmd=%21dsp%20ps3000_is%20%21ss%20ps3000_is">http://www.skycorp.com/skyline.asp?cmd= ... 0ps3000_is</a><!-- m --><br />
vs<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.abex.com/600/mainpage.html">http://www.abex.com/600/mainpage.html</a><!-- m --> (the page is supposed to be in a pop up window, so there's no background repetition).<br />
what do you think is a better solution and why?<br />
my marketing manager keeps talking how everything should be the minimal cklicks away, but how do we accomplish that without sacrificing the design?<br />
<br />
do you think that a site's design should dictate pages' length or that projected pages' length should dictate the site's design?<br />
when trying to come up with a new design for the site, i am sitting and thinking that i have to come up with something where the bottom is "easily exandable", i.e. it can be as long as nessesary.<br />
Our current design, on the other hand puts the site into a 640x480 invisible "frame", so our pages are short, but then we have to use "more" or next" id we need to have more content (for example <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nimlok.com/us/faq.htm">http://nimlok.com/us/faq.htm</a><!-- m -->). potentially, the pages could go on longer, but the idea was to "frame them". BUT on abex's web site (link above), their design definitely restricts how long the page can be, because the graphical greying texture borders the bottom of the page.<!--content-->hmmm... I'm not gonna read all that so here's my .02 cents based on the first paragraph and a half!<br />
<br />
I would put a sub-menu... kinda like what crutchfield.com (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crutchfield.com">http://www.crutchfield.com</a><!-- m -->) has!
<br />
<br />
HTH<!--content-->I like the abex site better. Grouping things into logical catagories is a sure win. I think putting more effort into planning the site, and better navigation is a win over long pages. <br />
<br />
When I did prelim web usability research, I found some material that suggested that one and a half screenheight should be the maximum page height (for a 800x600 screen, this would be 900 pixels.... 600+300=900). <br />
<br />
Be careful though. Having shorter pages, with more navigation makes the user rely on good navigation sets. If the user can't find what their looking for with the nav (AND search feature) then they may jump ship to another site. <br />
<br />
Personally, long pages remind me of amateur web work. I dislike scrolling (but thats my humble opinion).<!--content-->coffecup comes with a nice drop down menu code snipping! its really cool...<!--content-->rofl @ karinne.<br />
I understand what you're all saying about the drop down menus. will have to look more into that.<br />
Dr. Web - that is interesting! Some food for thought.<br />
thanks for replying.<!--content-->
i have a "design template" whiich is not final, but will help to illustrate the point:<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nimlok.com/new_site/custom-modular2.htm">http://nimlok.com/new_site/custom-modular2.htm</a><!-- m --><br />
right now it is a sort of a dummy page, but eventually there will be more text under the red "custom modular" to describe more product features/benefts. The current idea is to also list all the accessories available for the product on the same page.<br />
as a result, the page will end up sort of long.<br />
What do you think is better? to just have features/benefits on the page and then have sub buttons for accessories and other stuff, or have one longer page without making the person click.<br />
as an example, the difference is well represented in web sites of our competitors.<br />
compare:<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.skycorp.com/skyline.asp?cmd=%21dsp%20ps3000_is%20%21ss%20ps3000_is">http://www.skycorp.com/skyline.asp?cmd= ... 0ps3000_is</a><!-- m --><br />
vs<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.abex.com/600/mainpage.html">http://www.abex.com/600/mainpage.html</a><!-- m --> (the page is supposed to be in a pop up window, so there's no background repetition).<br />
what do you think is a better solution and why?<br />
my marketing manager keeps talking how everything should be the minimal cklicks away, but how do we accomplish that without sacrificing the design?<br />
<br />
do you think that a site's design should dictate pages' length or that projected pages' length should dictate the site's design?<br />
when trying to come up with a new design for the site, i am sitting and thinking that i have to come up with something where the bottom is "easily exandable", i.e. it can be as long as nessesary.<br />
Our current design, on the other hand puts the site into a 640x480 invisible "frame", so our pages are short, but then we have to use "more" or next" id we need to have more content (for example <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nimlok.com/us/faq.htm">http://nimlok.com/us/faq.htm</a><!-- m -->). potentially, the pages could go on longer, but the idea was to "frame them". BUT on abex's web site (link above), their design definitely restricts how long the page can be, because the graphical greying texture borders the bottom of the page.<!--content-->hmmm... I'm not gonna read all that so here's my .02 cents based on the first paragraph and a half!<br />
<br />
I would put a sub-menu... kinda like what crutchfield.com (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crutchfield.com">http://www.crutchfield.com</a><!-- m -->) has!
<br /><br />
HTH<!--content-->I like the abex site better. Grouping things into logical catagories is a sure win. I think putting more effort into planning the site, and better navigation is a win over long pages. <br />
<br />
When I did prelim web usability research, I found some material that suggested that one and a half screenheight should be the maximum page height (for a 800x600 screen, this would be 900 pixels.... 600+300=900). <br />
<br />
Be careful though. Having shorter pages, with more navigation makes the user rely on good navigation sets. If the user can't find what their looking for with the nav (AND search feature) then they may jump ship to another site. <br />
<br />
Personally, long pages remind me of amateur web work. I dislike scrolling (but thats my humble opinion).<!--content-->coffecup comes with a nice drop down menu code snipping! its really cool...<!--content-->rofl @ karinne.<br />
I understand what you're all saying about the drop down menus. will have to look more into that.<br />
Dr. Web - that is interesting! Some food for thought.<br />
thanks for replying.<!--content-->