Talk:Web design/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protect due to spam?

The only edit I see in the past 50 that would have been prevented if the article had been semi-protected is this addition of Opera to a list of example web browsers. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Section "Changes and updates" is heavily biased

While my additions have been removed for not meeting the standards the original, heavily biased section is still there. The section "Changes and updates" is rant in favor of the "facebook way" of dealing with user complaints about UI changes - by simply ignoring them. The section cites only one source, which is published on the slate magazine's web site, but is a commentary of the author expressing his personal views.

While it is true that facebook is a one of the "Major websites", there is at least one other major website (google) employing a different approach instead of implementing disruptive changes and then "simply to wait". While being re-desigend recently the google start page still has the same basic layout it had years before. Another example of user friendly implementation of new features (admittedly not from the web design area) is the UI of the Pine e-mail client from the University of Washington, which has been one of the major e-mail clients for many years. New features in Pine were added disabled by default so that an update almost never changed the functionality unless you went to the settings page and explicitely changed the configuration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerlinSight (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

So, it seems that "Web Programming" redirects (as you might expect) to "Web Development", but "Web Programmer" redirects to this page, "Web Design". What is the rationale for that? Toddcs (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed that and a few others similar. There are some other broken redirects to this page: Liquid layout and Fluid layout. This topic is no longer discussed on this page and I can't find it discussed in any depth elsewhere on WP. --Kvng (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are missing links/redirects for "graphic design" in both the opening paragraph and in the History 1998-2001 section of this entry. Given the close connection between web design, specifically web page design, and graphic design, I think this should be corrected. Meem55 (talk)

HTML and CSS focus

Why are we focusing on just HTML and CSS? This article is meant to be about web design not the programming code used to make websites. If we are to include it then why are we only using HTML and CSS and not Javascript or PHP or any others? No one seams to have any real idea about what this article is about. Inputdata (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

First design firm?

I don't think the article would be complete without at least citing the first web-designer. According to the department of Energy, who at one time had authority over domain names, it was this guy, Phil Fischer.

http://historyofdomainnames.com/content/phil-fischer-obtains-12303-one-worded-dictionary-domain-names-defense-information-systems-fr http://historyofdomainnames.com/content/phil-fischer-northwest-online

I also think he should be credited with domaining, and domain name speculation.

Tim Northwest Magazine.

P.S. I am doing a story on this guy and I was surprised not to see him here. (matter of fact, I am really surprised not to see The Xbox Boys here too. 16 million downloads and no wiki page???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Reynolds (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A rather dodgy WHOIS on that domain name (depertmentofenergy.org) along with a few other critical timeline errors would indicate that it is not a genuine US government site. The US government tends to use .gov for its sites. Jmccormac (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Other scripting languages

"Occupation" lists only PHP as the server-side scripting language but ignores other popular languages like Perl, Python and Ruby. Considering the rising popularity of these alternatives in recent years I think the deserve a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.129.4 (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Misspelled words

In section "Visual design" line "Good visual design on a website identifies and works for it's target market," it should be "its," not "it's." The sort of thing I would have quietly corrected were the page not locked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.238.139 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Need an apostrophe

"Also for navigation purposes, the sites page layout should also remain consistent on different pages".

Should be "the site's page layout" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.155.97 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent history

The history section seems to stop at 2000 which is odd becasue there has been a lot of work and changes in the landscape in the last 12 years, for example the way in which people are now accessing the web (via mobile or TV e.t.c) has changed the way people design sites. I understand we are not going into how things are done but I still think stopping at 2000 is very odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It currently stops at that as someone else was writing the second half, see above, they are no longer doing this so it is certainly something that requires attention. WBClarkson (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has done any work on the recent history of the web (2001 - present) I think I will do it, I also think that the idea of breaking history up is pointless, there was nothing that happened in 2001 to make it a good "stopping point" therefore I will probably just rename the section History and put it all in that, however I will hold off on this to let people discuss it properly. Inputdata (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Modern Browsers

... many of these are open source meaning that they tend to have faster development .... Perphaps this phrase should have been re-phrased. What is referred to (may be) is the properties of open source rather than the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.254.196.112 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to change the line, reading it back later on I can see your point, however its worth thinking about the fact that it is true, in that Open Sources systems DO have faster development, see IE's 9 vs Chrome's 23. It it best is to delete the line and just make a link to the article about Open Source? Inputdata (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't we do better than this?

This article sucks! The edit on June 21 was heavy handed. It would have been better to challenged controversial content piece by piece. That would have been more constructive than destructive. But I guess the latter is easier than the former. We can't all be police men.

There are far more people willing to contribute to wikipedia from experience than are willing to find sources to back what they know to be true from experience. There has to be a better way to encourage people to find sources than to just remove unsourced material. Cutting edge technology and professional trends don't usually wait for someone to state the obvious in print before evolving. I'd rather see a fairly current and thorough article that lacks sources than a well-sourced, but outdated article that covers a microscopic portion of the subject. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

PROMO?

The way this reads now, a young reader would be lead to believe that all there is to web design is coding, and all there is to coding is knowing which language to use. This reeks of promoting someone's preferred way of doing business. If it can't be a thorough article, it shouldn't be about something as specific as one or two markup languages. One could learn more from a disambiguation page. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oicumayberight, and have more or less said this below, the article says nothing about layout or color. I would like to see a bit about the so called "rules" of web design such as the myth of "the fold" e.t.c. Inputdata (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oicumayberight, i've tried to correct the Best Practices section and will be working on this further Maclein (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Followup

It looks like a lot has improved since I've made these previous comments on this page. To all those involved, thanks for all the effort. Keep up the good work! Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Still to much instructional tone

There still too much instructional tone in this article. It's obvious with the excessive use of the word "should." There should be no "shoulds." Oicumayberight (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited the "skills and techniques" section with the most instructional tone quite a bit to make it sound a little more professional and objective while keeping the points from previous edits. Let me know how it works. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Improving this page.

Hi, a group of us from the University of Hull are going to be trying to help get this page and possibly other related pages in order. We are taking part in a module called Psychology of Internet behaviour and as part of the assessment we have been tasked with grouping up and helping Wikipedia. If you have any suggestions, like or dislike anything we do then please let us know one of our key aims is to engage with and work alongside the community. Thanks WBClarkson (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, good to have you along.

This is a good choice of an article to work on. It's clearly important, current and deserves a good article, but the current offering is pretty grim.

If you're unfamiliar with WP (and its obsession with inscrutable capitalised acronyms), then be warned to expect a bumpy ride. The technology of editing here isn't too bad, but the culture and politics is downright weird. If I can assist at all, please shout.

For starting out on this article, I'd suggest that you try some of these:

• Read some good articles. Find some stuff that you think is well done, badly done, and think about what's making that difference.
• Read some Good Articles at WP:GA. This is a formal quality standard. See what WP "officially" thinks makes a good article (or more realistically, what missing sections will stop it being one).
• Briefly read some WP editing background, like WP:MOS (Manual of Style) and stuff on copyright.
• Start your editing work by "clean slating" a new article. Write an essay plan for it. Think of good authoritative references to use, then re-read them beforehand. Work out what a good, readable, article on web design will look it.
• Start editing of a sandbox draft in a shared userspace, or even on a home MediaWiki server (unis should look at offering this - it's easy). Try user:WBClarkson/drafts/Web design
• For an article like this, you might write the new draft first, then work the old article into the new, structured draft, rather than trying to add a new draft piecemeal to an existing article. It can be difficult to merge the two and still keep a good editorial structure, but it's important to hang onto that.
• Section structure and headings can make a good initial skeleton from the outset, because they look like an outline. Even if you delete some of those headings afterwards as too detailed.
• Write an intro section. Do (or re-do) this afterwards.
• Don't sweat the syntax and WP:MOS. You can fix that stuff afterwards, or if you want something sorted out with tables, references or images, then just ask.
• How to screw up:

• Read WP:IEP for the grim story of how a university project can go badly wrong. Anything IEP did, you should probably do it differently.
• Copyright violations (images or text chunks). You'll get slapped for that.
• Writing articles by Googling for text matches on the title, then pasting in random sections that look vaguely related.
• Not understanding the topic before you write about the topic.
• Writing paragraphs, rather than an article with an overall structure. This is one of the weakest parts of the wiki-editing model, especially for broad-scope articles with a wide interest range. Everyone gets to paste their favourite little sentence in, but the end result is an unstructured mush.

Good luck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC) (Laser Physics, Hull, a million years ago)

Thanks Andy. That will help us a lot when we add on to this page. Nicola Witbooi (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nicola and others. I'd be interested in some collaboration if any help is needed on this topic? # Henry Brown 13:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryz14 (talk • contribs)

Yeah cheers Andy, some very good advised and much appreciated.

Hi Henry, you are welcome to help if you wish.

At the moment we are working through a structure I’ll get Teri to post it later. The interesting thing I think about web design is that there are a lot of subjects that I feel should be mentioned but because of their importance have their own page already, I’m sure you get this for all topics but web design does seem to be an umbrella for lots of other things. Maybe that’s why it hasn’t reached a finished state in the past. As we progress with this we will be keeping the work in our sandboxes, so anyone interested please feel free to drop by and get involved. WBClarkson (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the majority of the article is biased or outdated at the moment. It just mimics the main articles of different topics, such as XHTML and content management systems. XHTML is of course part of web design, but why refer to XHTML and not HTML5? You're 100% correct when you say the term 'web design' is an umbrella for different things. It also talks about 'best practice' but this will become outdated often. Just a suggestion, what if the article was to look at origins of 'web design', where it came from and some of the main transitions. It can still link to other relevant subject, such as responsive design, html5 etc, but I don't think the term 'web design' should be specifically tied to technologies as this changes every day. # Henry Brown 22:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone here’s the layout of what we decided for the page:

Introduction, History, Skills, Tools, Occupations.

If you could just post on here which sections you will be doing. I have chosen the history section. Teri Bateson (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

An example of how these sections could be used well is the wiki page for Graphic Design, both subjects cover a wide range of styles, technologies and uses, the graphics pages handles this very well, unlike on here.

I agree Henry, we'll try and make the History cover the important changes and the origins linking to the relevant technologies and practices as it goes. Teri and Nic will be starting on this. WBClarkson (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea I think the history should be a major part of the Web design page. Some sections under the history could be important Web designers and their contributions and a timeline and perhaps the main generations of web design. Anyone got some suggestions of other categories that could be put under the history? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Check out this website for dates on key changes about technologies, browser and code. WBClarkson (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks wayne thats great Teri Bateson (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a new introduction to my sandbox, please look over and suggest changes before I added to the real page later tonight. Unfortunately I had to completely rewrite it so it would work I don't like to do that as i'm not a deletionist. WBClarkson (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have now edited the intro, if anyone has any suggestions or thinks it should be changed please let me know. WBClarkson (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am now working on the history of web design dating from 2000 till the present. Does anyone have suggestions of particular subject areas I should touch upon while looking at this time period? Nicola Witbooi (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Added some ideas for you on my talk page. # Henry Brown 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now put a draft onto Wayne Clarkson talk page. If anyone would like to give feedback that would be great Nicola Witbooi (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i have put a draft version of the early history in my sandbox, if anyone would like to have a look and give any pointers as to any changes or other information that needs to be added that would be great. Teri Bateson (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look, you need to edit the link to you sandbox so people can see it. WBClarkson (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added section 'tools and technologies' to be looked over. Still needs links and references adding. WBClarkson (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hi everyone i have now added my history section to the web design page, please let me no of any changes that need to be made. i am aware that links and references still need to be added nut wanted to get it up so i could receive feedback. Thanks Teri Bateson (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

These new changes are pretty good. Links and refs are an improvement, but the basic editorial core seems accurate and readable. 8-)

The article does now need a little re-balancing to improve cover of the next few bits. In particular, this is still web design, not history of web design, so the majority ought to be on the current practices. For the history section, I'd also like to see a bit more about CSS. CSS appeared with the V4 browsers c. 1997, but it took around 10 years before it was competently used by web designers. This was due to a number of factors: poor early browser implementations, poor understanding by designers (not helped by almost every teaching resource being wrong) and also an over-reliance on HTML authoring tools like Dreamweaver that still generated fixed-page-width layouts with absolute positioning, rather than semantic HTML and a CSS-based fluid layout.

This is also not just one article on web design in isolation: it's one of a suite on all the disciplines involved (some of which may not be written yet). They need to work as a set, which might include editing work to those other articles too. Topics like: web design, web developer, front-end web coders, back-end web coders, usability experts, SEO charlatans, etc.

It's also worth noting that a web designer primarily produces web designs, not sites. A coder then takes this design and implements it. In small projects or teams these are the same person, but it's still two distinct roles. There's scope for explaining what a "web design" looks like at this intermediate step: is it a wireframe or is it one of those awful old Photoshop layouts that couldn't work other than to make a bad website, with rigid definition of pointless pixel-positioning, but no indication of how dynamic page flow ought to work.

Good work so far though Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy, thanks for your comments they are really helpful. Im just in the middle of adding the references to the history part. One of the other group members is doing the more current 'history' as to what is happening now, so hopefully this will re balance the article. We did feel that there did need to be some history part to it so that you are able to see the progression of web design. Yes i can look into CSS more and write about what you have highlighted. Is there any sites or books you could recommend that talk about this? Thanks again for your comments :) Teri Bateson (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Usenet was always (bizarrely) one of the best resources for really serious and accurate discussion of HTML & CSS. You can still get there through Google Groups and the newsgroups news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html and news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Jukka Korpela's website is a good resource. For HTML/CSS teaching, the only good books were the Head First HTML series, Haakon Lie's Cascading Style Sheets book (esp. the early editions) and Elizabeth Castro's books. Of the vast number of HTML teaching sites out there, just about the only one that wasn't clearly broken was HTMLDog. W3Schools was, of course, infamously bad.

I think a really important topic to cover (maybe in a separate article) would be the idea of a fluid layout design. I notice that you've just removed some redlinks to table-based design and also spacer .gifs. Although these are both bad techniques that were abandoned some time back, they're good subjects for article coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks andy thats great i will check them out. Yeah well id put them in for links to other wiki pages but assumed that the had gone red as there was no page for them?? i can add them back in if you think that would be better? Cheers Teri Bateson (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDLINK. Redlinks aren't a bad thing, even if they can make an article look untidy. They indicate notable topics that the encyclopedia should cover when possible. Readers see that there's a topic there (even if not yet covered) and authors see that there's a gap needing to be filled.

When creating a redlink, it's good practice to nav to that new page link and search for alternate page names. The page might already be there, just not under the name you expected. Sometimes you re-phrase the name, other times you might create a redirect. You can also look at the "What links here" (LHS sidebar) list. If there are already many inbound links, that's probably a good name for a redlink, and we ought to try to fill it soonish.

If you object aesthetically to redlinks, then maybe create a short stub (no more than half-hour's work) to fill in the gap. If you set out to write a stub (and no more than this) on a well-defined concept, you can usually get the job done very quickly without getting bogged down in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, Okay i will give WP:REDLINK a read over and sort them out. Teri Bateson (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tezza, i'd change the section name about browser wars, as many view it as the end of the first browser war but the end of browser wars. WBClarkson (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That was fast work Andy making the Spacer GIF page. Well Done. WBClarkson (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Practices within Web Design

Hey Chris, I just saw your post on web design. I think perhaps it could benefit from another read through as there are some grammatical mistakes which need to be corrected. If you need any help with that just let us know Nicola Witbooi (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd add that it's worth putting into a sandbox first to be looked over.

I'd also suggest changing the name to skills or techniques, as "good practices" is very opinionated WBClarkson (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nicola, yh double message new version on ur talk page however page layout is shocking so go to my sandbox if ud like to correct anything further. Cnurney9 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Self Promotion

References

Stone, John. "20 Do’s and Don’ts of Effective Web Typography".

I think this may be self promotion? Liam Dufty

I don't believe it's overly promotional and it's broadly good advice. However he then blew it with this: body { font-size: 13px; }, so I vote we take off and nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. Not to mention putting any sort of units on line-height: line-height: 18px; Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Liam Dufty The referance URL links to an Error 404

The page you were looking for could not be found.

Professional Code-Free WYSIWYG Web Design Softwares

I think we should add this section under - Tools and technologies:

Professional Code-Free WYSIWYG Web Design Softwares

The common professional method of creating websites depends on the manual conversion of graphic design into HTML code. However there are new softwares that enables the creation of professional HTML websites, without writing code based on code generators that automatically convert the design elements into code.

(Esther Goren (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

Adding examples in such a manner comes across as an advertisement and would violate our Neutral point of view policy. --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You've changed your comments, and in the process deleted mine. Please don't do either. See WP:TALK. Talk pages are meant to be a record of discussions. I've restored my comments above. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ronz! My sincere apologies. I'm quite new here :)

How do you think we should demonstrate this point?

(Esther Goren (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

Still looks you're trying to promote Webydo. Take out the Webydo beta review, find more authoritative sources on WYSIWYG editors and their history, incorporate it into Website builder...--Ronz (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned the ones I'm familiar with (besides dreamweaver of course, which demands a knowledge of HTML so less appropriate for the code-free title). Maybe best to reference this page - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WYSIWYG I couldn't find other good writing about it yet. I'll keep looking.

(Esther Goren (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

Motion Graphics

The section on Motion Graphics doesn’t really say anything other than an opinion that is not necessarily correct where in fact in 2013 web-design more and more businesses use videos, animated slides as well as clear-background presenters. Even USA.gov website now has an animated slider on the homepage. Also using motion graphics as a term is in itself somewhat confusing, as this term can refer to a low-end animated gif as well as a major movie presentation. I recommend taking the whole Motion graphics section out and replacing it with the following:

Movies, Slides and Animations

In the beginning of web design movies and animation were seldom used. 2000 to 2012 saw and increased use of movies, slides and animations on website, this came about from (a) increasing internet speeds, that allowed for larger files to be downloaded and (b) movie animation players technology becoming very accessible and easy to implement. Some of the most common animated elements in today’s web design include:

• Embedded Videos – The actual video player and video is displayed on the website, the player may have multiple controls or just a play button.
• Interactive Animations – Interactive animations are similar to regular videos but they give the user more options and at times a faster way to get to a desired page, these may include animated graphics elements that may react to the user pointer .
• Sliders – sliders, usually composed of short slideshows of images and text, are currently the most common animated element found on websites, these may be used on blogs to show latest articles and on web stores and other websites to show featured product or service. Sliders are most often used on homepages. Mggpublishing (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling

At History>2001-2012>Modern Browsers, there is a sentence that reads "The new options are considered by many to be better that Microsoft's Internet Explorer.". 'That' should be changed to 'than'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.183.190 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Fix reference 12 (http://webdesignledger.com/tips/20-dos-and-donts-of-effective-web-typography): accessdate parameter missing preceding '?' causes 404. Craigy90 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Actually, the vertical bar for the template parameters was missing, but I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing out the error!! ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

The first web design, with the launch of HTML in 1994, was very limited in design options. Only simple layouts, text, tables, and links were able to be created. 107.200.173.173 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You've already spammed that link to a number of web design articles, and have been reverted and warned. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Today kerala

Today kerala is very crual feelings in peopls mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.175.147 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014

Max7310 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2014

59.178.32.91 (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC) redacted

Not done and redacted: WP:Spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2014

122.176.155.21 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC) redacted

Feel free to write an article about that company! --Kgfleischmann (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 09:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

VARAIYA JAIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.34.253 (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

I've noticed that there is a dead link on resources part.

THORLACIUS, LISBETH (2007). "The Role of Aesthetics in Web Design". Nordicom Review (28): 63–76. Retrieved 2012-03-21.

and I found exactly same thing at

http://www.popwebdesign.net/popart_blog/pdf/The_Role_of_Aesthetics_in_Web_Design.pdf

Any admin to check that ?

Ivanajovanovic85 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the reference has been updated to a more appropriate url, namely the website of the publication where the article is available to read. It has become a popular strategy with search engine optimisers to replace dead links in Wikipedia with copies of the material, hosted on a website they want to promote, and there is every reason to try to counteract that. But thank you for the heads-up! --bonadea contributions talk 08:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2014

Minor edit request. In sub section titled New Standards the paragraph is missing a final punctuation period. Add a period as punctuation after the string of words i.e. "...the entire suite of new standards (HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript)." eTood (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out! --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

60.220.224.4 (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

I do not believe the word "usability" should be linked to it's article. Articles on Wikipedia should be selective in which words they link, otherwise one might as well link every word in every article, which of course is redundant because any word can be searched for in the main Wikipedia search box. "Web designers are expected to have an awareness of usability and if their role involves creating mark up then they are also expected to be up to date with web accessibility guidelines" Fractal618 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015

please change "... through an enhanced use of the CSS @media pseudo-selector." to "... through an enhanced use of the CSS @media rule."

for more information:

• http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_mediaquery.asp
• http://www.w3schools.com/CSS/CSS_pseudo_elements.asp

--212.252.166.68 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that. --212.252.166.68 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

mukesh gole thah makawanpur nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golemukesh (talk • contribs) 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Brutalism

Brutalist Websites – In its ruggedness and lack of concern to look comfortable or easy, Brutalism can be seen as a reaction by a younger generation to the lightness, optimism, and frivolity of todays webdesign. – http://brutalistwebsites.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

The word standardized is misspelled. You have it presently as standardised with a s vs the correct spelling with a z.

Chris Anicich (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: "Standardised" is the correct spelling in British English, which is what this article is using. Either style is acceptable and should not be arbitrarily changed per WP:ENGVAR. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Text under image says "Web design books in a store"

It's more like "Web design bookshelf" with mixed programming stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.172.88 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Images

Why are there no images on a page about design? Crookesmoor (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please LOOK at Category:Internet, then delete/revise the entry here

The half dozen or so articles at the top of the Internet tree are very specific re the inernet. This article belongs in an Intgernet subcat, if it belongs there at all. 73.71.159.231 (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, moved to WWW. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 73.71.159.231 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

the site tekkiware can be used to create good sites Vaikan (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

when complete

change to be aneterprenure web NDOLO (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not at all clear what changes you want made. Theroadislong (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

Jolly12hamen (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done - blank request. Flooded with them hundreds 10:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Mark up vs. Markup

The first paragraph contains reference to "mark up". I believe it would be helpful if the space between the words was eliminated, and the word hyperlinked to "markup languages". I believe this because the way it is currently written was confusing to me (as a very new coder, only beginning to grasp terms and concepts). It sounded as though this was a specific term I would need to know, but the way it was written seemed more generic. I used a popular search engine to find a clear meaning. The results referred to pricing mark ups, so I added "code" to my search. Only then did I have a result that pointed me back to Wikipedia, for the entry about "markup languages." Note that the word "markup" appears later in this article, and is hyperlinked. Thank you. Karmashines (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Karmashines

 Done. I agree. This is grammatically a bit strange, but I think you have the right idea. Per wikt:Mark up, the code is being "marked up", but this is a verb, not a noun, and a wikilink to markup language is the most obvious way to explain this concept. I have made the changes you've proposed. Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2019

Prabhav99s (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Resource: https://userinyerface.com/

I wanted to add https://userinyerface.com/ to the external links section, but I read the advice in the wiki text.

I am leaving this here so someone can maybe utilize it. ––Handroid7 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What has been done

For this article, I had been putting up facts about web design that I had found. But, the main problem is that everything has been taken down. So, I am trying to figure out what is wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredmaurer (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, your older edits were taken down for copyright violation (that is, copy and pasting from sources). Your latest edits have writing problems, for example: "Many guidelines help the people with the idea behind web design for a visual path to make them successful.", "When looking toward most websites, they have the traditional look." - I'm not even sure what information you're trying to convey there. - MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

The article mentions "User Interface" design 6 times but makes no mention of the most important and most used visual chart "UX Honeycomb" when creating a user interface. UI/UX design is the base and fundamental aspect of web design. The UX honeycomb references the main 7 pillars of design. Is it useful? Is it useable? Is it desirable? Is it findable? Is it valuable? Is it accessible? Is it credible? It could be why "User Interface" wikipedia doesn't rate very far. Everyone else mentions the UX honeycomb. It's very important to design.

https://oryzo.com/uploads/Honeycomb-1.png Lehtianimation (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a somewhat popular chart in some UX circles, but I'm not seeing that it's relevant enough to mention on this article and it's not really foundational. A brief summary of what user experience design is about should be enough. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

What I think is missing is the responsive design Abstract Web (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Moreover, there already is a short blurb about responsive design. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

References

"End of the first browser wars" no NPOV; NOR

Specifically this section of the section :

2000 was a big year for Microsoft. Internet Explorer was released for Mac; this was significant as it was the first browser that fully supported...

This portion of the section is pretty egregiously in violation of NPOV, as well as NOR policies. Going to edit this section of the article to specifically remove

• NPOV
• NOR
• Grammar & Formatting

Maxmmyron (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

According to a 2020 analysis, having a responsive design is an absolute must. hightechdevs com www.hightechdevs com Responsivity (meaning viewable on any device) might be the largest implementation you should use in 2020. Whether you look at a website on a laptop, desktop, iPad, iPhone, etc. the design of the website NEEDS to be able to be seen and clear on what the point is. In fact, 85% of people now use their smartphones before looking at a laptop. That goes to show how incredible and essential for the user to clearly see and for Google to clearly show what topic you are trying to get across. Google needs to be able to hightechdevs com crawl your site using a sitemap and allowing for your website to be recognized by Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmerkin2 (talk • contribs)

 Not done According to WP:EL, no thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

Tools: Web designers use different software to design a web page. For example: Adobe XD, Figma, Sketch are commonly used to design user interface. Timtimer99 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

27.147.190.197 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No edit requested. Closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

I would like to edit the hyperlink in the web design Shavinay (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fredmaurer. Peer reviewers: Keegan Willson, Laurenbeth76.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Web designers should be aware of web accessibility guidelines regardless whether they take part in creating markup or not

• What I think should be changed:

"[...] and if their role involves creating markup then they are also expected to be up to date with web accessibility guidelines." to "[...] and web accessibility guidelines."

• Why it should be changed:

When designing the user interface for a website, web designers need to be aware of the web accessibility guidelines. The guidelines directly impact how the designer chooses to create the colour palette, the contrast between the text and the backgrounds, the navigation layout, the size of the elements, and so on. There's more to consider when working with the dark mode, e.g. the brightness of assets, which are usually tuned down by setting opacity to 85%. Whether the web designer is involved in writing markup or not, their visualisation of the interface should meet the web accessibility guidelines before it reaches the development stage. The current definition suggests that web accessibility in web design is conditional. It should be unconditional.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

NerdCow (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: Thank you for such a direct and succinct edit request, it's very appreciated! I've performed the requested edit. I've opted to not add the source, however, as the page appears to be an explanation regarding web accessibility. The crux is that it does not demonstrate or claim that web designers as a profession should be aware of it, which is what the relevant sentence would want. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I agree with your assessment. Much appreciated! NerdCow (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)