Less is more [Re: Sage, the music at you web page]
From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/10/04
- Next message: Randall Hyde: "RosAsm Can't Optimize Branches"
- Previous message: Odyssey: "Re: HLA v2.x and / or LASM suggestion: Win32 Resources"
- In reply to: drhowarddrfinedrhoward: "Re: Sage, the music at you web page."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:49:45 -0000
drhowarddrfinedrhoward wrote:
> I agree, however. There was an article about how NOT to do a
website and
> one of the top suggestions was music. I, too, find music on a site
> distracting and, usually, annoying.
Yes, indeed; The keyword with any sort of "effect" (music being
one...but, say, flash animations or something as well ;) is:
"sparingly"...
Unless it's _specific_ to the site (so, for example, if it's a site
about flash animations and the music you've written yourself then,
obviously, those are exceptions ;), then it's a general rule of thumb
to remember: "less is more" (yes, this is highly ironic coming from me
of all people ;)...
And that sort of covers everything...the amount of text, the amount of
graphics, music, animations, options, etc....it's always best to try
to "simplify" a website as far as is possible, without, of course,
actually decreasing or damaging the _content_...the thing to remember
is that, ultimately, everything else besides the _content_ is just an
"effect" to present that content better...but it isn't the content
itself...that's also why some "bells and whistles" websites with
clever animations get completely ignored but a "barely much better
than plain text" website does well because the _content_ is great or
useful...
The particular problem with music is that if you don't happen to like
the tune you're being forced to listen to then it will be a _major
distraction_...to understand the problem, take a record by someone you
absolutely can't stand (NSync, Celine Dione, Engelbert Humperdink,
etc. ;) and then try to force yourself to listen to it over and
over...it'll drive you stark raving bonkers...and, well, despite my
jokes above about NSync and Celine Dione, there _are_ some people who
absolutely Love that kind of music...music is a very _subjective_
matter so though you may find a particular melody to be really good,
there's probably someone out there for which it's a tune they
absolutely can't stand...
Plus, there's another issue...for example, I was surfing on the
internet in university before while there was a class going on...I was
not part of the class myself but the lecturer - because his class
wasn't particularly large that he needed all of the machines in the
room - didn't mind some people "being quiet" in the corner, carrying
on with (supposedly) "work"...anyway, whoever had used the machine I
was on before I'd come to it had clearly decided that it would be
really "funny" to turn the volume dial to maximum...yup, you already
know what happened, right? I was doing a web search and then clicked
on a website - not knowing either that it had "background music" on
the site or that someone had been "funny" in turning the volume on
maximum - and out came this horrible-sounding MIDI tune at maximum
volume...quite embarassing and I got kicked out of the room for it,
even though I was actually a _victim_ of someone's prank and didn't
mean for that to happen...
Anyway, this same issue would also apply to any sort of "public
computer room"...say, a public library, someone using a machine at
work, etc....music actually can cause very _real problems_ (in
addition to simply being music that they don't particularly like ;) in
certain circumstances...working on a webpage on your own home machine,
these are, indeed, points that are very easily missed because they
don't apply to you on your own machine at home...but in other places,
music would actually be, well, "banned" (public library, for sure ;)
and tunes suddenly starting up on webpages can, therefore, cause
people problems...
Plus, it's just a simple fact - that all good film directors and so
forth know about - that if you have some "special effect" then,
actually, _resist_ using it too much...don't get too "excited" about a
new effect and use it all over the place...you can actually _take
away_ any impact that an "effect" has by simply over-using it...as an
example, there's that clever camera "effect" in films where they start
from a distance and then zoom in really fast on someone's face but
change the camera's "focus" as they zoom in so that the background
behind them almost looks like it's moving away from them (it's a very
cool effect when done properly :)...now, using this once or twice in
the right places will help make a film better...but if, instead, the
film director gets "too excited" and then decides to, basically, zoom
in on every single face throughout a film (every time someone else -
anyone - starts talking in the film, it does the "zoom in" effect on
them too ;)...well, the effect would simply be _ruined_ completely
from "over-use"...and, instead, you'd just end up giving your viewers
a really, really big headache...it might, in fact, simply become
totally unwatchable because the camera is zooming in and out far too
much that you can't _concentrate_ on the actual plot of the film
anymore ;)...
It may seem almost contrary to what you'd expect but a really good
rule of thumb is that the _better_ an "effect" is, the _less_ you
should use it...something some directors don't actually understand
when they show the same explosion over and over from different
angles...now, fair enough, it cost a lot of money to blow up some
building so they want to get their "money's worth"...but, in fact,
when directors do this, it usually breaks the "illusion"...that is,
you start to _remember_ that you're watching a movie, rather than
being so engrossed in it that you've sort of "forgotten yourself"
(which is the good thing that a director should be aiming for ;)...as
all parodies correctly do, they take the mickey out of this "multiple
explosion" nonsense or how every time a car touches _anything_, it's
guaranteed to explode, just because that looks good on the
screen...it's actually _better_ to NOT make any "fuss" whatsoever
about any "clever effect" you have...if it's good then what will
happen is that the viewer will watch your movie again (so you can
actually _make money_ by NOT showing that explosion ten times from all
different angles ;) or press "rewind" to watch that fantastic effect
once more...
To be an "event", it should, in fact, happen just _once_...to
understand this, just imagine - as is often joked - if _every single
day_ was Christmas Day...it would _totally_ lose its "event"
nature...its importance...the excitement of waiting for it to come
around again...all that stuff would be ruined by simply having
Christmas Day more often than once a year (there's even an argument
that once a year is, perhaps, too often itself...if it was once every
two years, then people would make an even _bigger_ fuss about it
coming around. as you're "without" for even longer...but, well, it has
to work that way to fit into a year and all that sort of _practical_
stuff ;)...
When it comes to "entertainment" kinds of things, the "first
directive" is: _less is more_...ever noticed how horror movies often
"hide" the "bad guy" (you "see" out of the bad guy's eyes via the
camera and hear his deep breathing and stuff but never actually see
what he looks like until, perhaps, the end of the film...if, in fact,
you ever get to see the bad guy at all ;)? This is because the _human
mind_ will always invent something far, far more horrific than even
what the very best make-up artists can conjure up...this is a case of
"less is more"...in a sense, _don't_ put too much because the _viewer
themselves_ has a _brain_ that can "fill in the gaps"...and the brain
actually _enjoys_ doing that...so, without actually damaging the
content itself (e.g. don't go too "minimal" that you have nothing at
all...like Einstein said, "as simple as possible, BUT _no simpler_
than that" ;), try to use things as _sparingly_ as possible...
[ And, yes, that does actually include words too...and, yes, it's
highly ironic that I'm the one saying this...BUT, on the other hand, I
don't consider these posts as "art" or anything..._if_ I did - that
is, if this was going to be some "formal article" somewhere -then I
would, indeed, make an effort to go over and over what I'd written,
literally "slaughtering" off entire paragraphs and sentences that
"aren't strictly necessary"...I don't bother here because I consider
this more "chat" than anything else...and _socially_, things work in
reverse...talking and giving people lots of attention is the better
thing there and being too "concise" often comes across as "abrupt" and
that you "can't be bothered" with someone ;) ]
Actually, your "splash page" is actually a good example...just one big
picture (which acts as a "site map" kind of thing :) and a
title...mind you, "splash pages" are usually a _bad idea_ in websites
generally (well, they just "get in the way" of people wanting to get
at your _content_, which is why they came to the site in the first
place ;)...but, in this case, the splash page is really just a
"graphical menu" because you click on parts of the picture to navigate
the sections of the site...that's actually _very good_ design
(although, perhaps, some means of _making it explicit_ that the
picture is a "graphical menu" could be added...just to avoid people
who come to the site and don't understand what they've are supposed to
do with the picture :)...because a simple big picture is certainly a
"less is more" way of presenting a "menu" to the user, which is also
simply "entertaining" to look at in and of itself, anyway...better, as
I'm sure you know that you did it this way, than just a list of text
links (but the "list of text links" would be a good thing to hide away
in the corner of other pages...another good design thing is to always
think: "no page should ever be more than, at most, two clicks from
anywhere else" because that makes navigation a breeze...the
professional sites, for example, often have a "menu" across the top
where you can basically jump to _any_ page on their site in one click
;)...
Mind you, as with all rules, there are times when the best thing to do
is to _break_ a rule...while there are websites out there worth
reading about "good web design", they are always really "guidelines"
rather than "laws"...in the end, the _content_ defines what's most
appropriate...lots of text on a _literature_ site is not at all a bad
thing...some sites are _just_ basically a flash cartoon and nothing
else that, clearly, they can use flash animations as much as is needed
for the "cartoon"...music on some "this is my rock band" page makes
sense (though, be careful with that one if you're offering the ability
to click and listen to other songs by your rock band...as, unlike
being able to show two or more pictures at a time, you _can't_ get
away with playing two or more pieces of music at the same time...well,
not unless you're a very clever DJ or something...but, generally,
music must be "serialised"...one after the other...no other sounds
"interrupting" the music...
Anyway, I think you get the general points here...good webpage design
is actually not an easy subject at all...so, yes, _anyone_ can write
HTML after reading "Making websites for dummies" or whatever...but you
have to take a lot more care and start to think "artistically" a
little when you want a _great_ website...and, in a sense, the best way
to think usually is: "Less is more; Use 'one time events' sparingly
(but you _can_ throw everything into a particular "effect"...a case of
"one big", not "many small")"...always go back to the 'first
principle' of _what_ your site is about and _what_ 'consumers', as you
put it, actually _want_ from the site..."being impressed" by an effect
or "entertained" by a melody is _secondary_...if you can get away with
it, then, yes, do so...but it should never risk getting in the way of
"content" ever...in film, for example, the best camerawork is actually
to pick the best angle and then _do nothing_...just leave the camera
alone...moving it will only "distract" people...only using "effects"
or even _movement_ when there's a _damn good reason_ but if there
isn't, then _don't_ move that camera at all...try following that rule
while making a home movie and you'll probably surprise yourself by how
it suddenly looks a lot more "professional" for actually _doing
less_...stick it on a tripod and then leave it alone...then stop it an
d move it to another angle and repeat..._that_, if you look closely,
is exactly how the professionals tend to do it on TV and films...any
movement only comes about because they are "following" someone or
watching a car speed passed or whatever..."zoom" effects are _very
rare_ and only used to _say something specific_ (show "shock" dawning
on the actor's face and so forth ;)...
Very often "professional" actually tends to mean understanding when
NOT to do things rather than being really clever in knowing lots and
lots of "effects" you use everywhere...that, actually - being
"overexcited" - tends to be the mark of the amateur who's only just
learnt how to use their "new toy"...and that more or less applies to
pretty much anything...
After all, in our "main business" of programming, isn't: "the fastest
code is the code that's never executed"? Aren't we really doing a
"more professional" job when we have a _smaller_ and faster program?
Isn't the best interface the one that requires the _least_ amount of
playing around with silly "controls" everywhere?
Well, every other kind of "profession" has similar "mantras" and rules
as well (modern artists trying to "minimise" the amount of
brushstrokes to simply give the "impression" of an object rather than
an accurate rendition, a film director keeping the camera still
focussed specifically on only that which is important to the plot,
demo coders trying to fit everything in 4 or 64KB, etc. ;)...but the
one that sums them all up - any creative process - in one go is the
good old:
"Less is more"
Beth :)
- Next message: Randall Hyde: "RosAsm Can't Optimize Branches"
- Previous message: Odyssey: "Re: HLA v2.x and / or LASM suggestion: Win32 Resources"
- In reply to: drhowarddrfinedrhoward: "Re: Sage, the music at you web page."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
