Sites where designers can show off their chops cater to a specific
audience - other designers who want to be thrilled by a primarily
visual experience. There is nothing wrong with eye candy sites for
people interested in eye candy, but using such examples as an argument
in support of creating really big web pages for every/any site is
flawed.
One size does not fit all, and in fact the entire design industry is
built on this truth. Remember design is about creatively solving
business problems, not the business of expressing your creativity.
There are many sound reasons not to create large web site pages, some
of which are discussed in this thread already, and I suggest that where
a peer review of a design repeatedly invokes the same criticism that
there is probably something in that criticism.
I don't know of anybody in the real world (broadband or not) who has
asked for a bigger slower web.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
On 26 Jul 2005, at 4:30 AM, Donna Jones wrote:
I surely can't tell any difference between the way this site loads and
many of them in cssgardens - in fact, i just found an official one,
and its background is 185K. found another, 100K. another 136K.
most much smaller but still ....
Of more concern, as far as I can tell, is "abandoning" smaller
dimensions (800 wide) and no scroll bars, but maybe you've addressed
that and just not loaded yet.
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
