professional versus amatuer "look"? - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"? says...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would guess they pain in the neighborhood of $20K plus for the
artwork, design and coding.

Whitecrest Entertainment

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

Ah! Yes.  This is a great example in that it seems ("looks")
professional, but doesn't function as such.  That is a good distinction.  
Of course, part of why I am interested in this is because students need
to be more aware of that difference.  I am seen VERY professional Web
sites with with really really bad reasoning on them.  Of course, that is
not the design itself at fault.  But, again, I am interested in what you
all think "looks" professional.  I guess, at the bottom of it, if
somebody pay somebody else to build a Web site, you could argue its
"professional" in that sense.

But yes--to say "it achieves its goal" means that somebody has stated
"it should do this" and then it does that.  Of course, that might be
"seem unprofessional."  

So, if that were the case, I am paying somebody to build a site that
"looks unprofessional"--what would it look like?  What is "bad" flash
animation, for example?  How would the graphics look?  How would they be
placed on the pages?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Dr. Robert Glenn Howard

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Clearly, amateur things to do - which are still done on a lot of pro's
pages, sadly - include flashing text, images which are not properly
resolved for optimum downloading, inattention to color choices, failure to
adequately design for all browsers instead of only IE6, banners that look
like ads (studies have suggested that folks tend to ingnore anything which
appears to be an ad, whether it is or not), failure to have visual
elements line up evenly, font sizes which cannot scale (or worse, images
as paragraphs, and text buttons without appropriate ALT text), and so on.

What do I think makes a site appear more professional? Limited color
palette which looks good. Use of some curves instead of just boxy visual
elements. Scalable font sizes. As few images used as possible, and those
that are used are extreely effective.

I for one think that many people's idea of what a webpage should look like
is largely influenced by the misuse of table markup. Some might say that a
purely CSS layout cannot look "professional" to those people because it's
the distinctive table layout look that is the professional look. However,
I think these people are assuming that to look professional means to
conform to what everyone else is doing, while a smart professional will
develop a different look from competing sites.

After all, a distinctive look is a large part of branding, and branding
means comfort and familiarity with your core users. Which, if quality
content and an accessible and usable architecture is presented with this
layout, inevitably translates to profit.

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

RGH wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am an amatuer, but I am stil interested...

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Javascript, Java applet or Flash navigation without an HTML alternative.
Frames when they are not necessary (as in most cases).
Animated gifs.
Images that carry information that has no alt-text.
No email address, or only Javascript encrypted email address.
Images of text instead of text.
Running or blinking text.
Too much italic text or strange fonts.
Outdated material.
Heavy graphics without purpose or warning.
Spelling or grammatical errors.
Dead links.
No site search engine if there are many pages, or a Google "search the web"
Javascript clock.
Ad banners.
Award pages!
Heavy backgronds or not enough contrast background/text.
Page gets distorted when text is resized.

I try to make my pages accessible, and I think that pages should be
meningful even when images and Javascript are disabled. That's why they look
as they do... But have I gone too far, or not far enough?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Clear navigation, bread crumbs, search engine?

Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen /

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You are not comparing apples to apples here...

A website can be "Professional" to one individual and "Amateurish" to

If you agree on a set of standards, then you can work towards that for a

The W3C offers it's standards but many designers stray far from it...

The "Look" of a website is only one small factor in judging it's overall

If it is accessible to most browsers, functions correctly as far as
proper coding goes, navigates easily and accurately, and provides good
and accurate up-to-date information... then I would call it a
"Professional" website...

They come in all the colors of the rainbow!!!

As far as it's being a "Successful" website... that's another story.....

Web Design, Magic, Painting, Junking, More
Paint A House
NOTE: This emailbox is CLOSED do NOT reply!!!

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The difference is evident to me too.

As a professional web person who also makes personal pages as an
amateur, then I'd say the differences in my personal context are:


Advertising. An over-supply of stroboscopic eye candy, to a level that
can induce an epileptic fit at 20 paces.

Content is near invisible (see comment on advertising)

Slavish and mindless compliance to some pointless corporate standard,
thought up by some marketing muppet.

No metadata, no search, poor navigation

Easy access (time and people) to graphic designers, so image work is
of high quality.


Content. Why else would I be doing this ?

Obsessive compliance with technical standards, in case anyone from
c.i.w.a.h ever finds it.

Metadata. No search - that's what Google is for.

Minimal graphics. I haven't got the time to fool around.

Incomplete !

Smert' spamionam

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

Andy Dingley wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Really? Are all your pages indexed by Google?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Always "under construction" - but never using those words!

I think you have an important point here: An amateur doesn't have to make an
"amateurish" page, and a professional won't always make a "professional
looking" page.

Inger Helene Falch-Jacobsen /

Re: professional versus amatuer "look"?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Professional websites are build by people who do it for a living.
Amateur websites are the ones that are not.

Now, how and why a website *appears* professional or amateurish is a
different story. This thread is already full of opinions that show light
on the distinction, so no need for me to add to that.


Site Timeline