list of advisors

SURVEYS
software
client relations
design
programming
offshore programming

Charles Kemper: ckemper@freerun.com, Freerun Technologies

Screen resolution: Our stats show that 640x480 has just about vanished--less than 5% and falling. This has been replaced mostly with 1152 x870 and up. We have found that 800 x 600 has remained constant at nearly 50%, though this is slowly starting to slip to higher resolutions. We aim for 800 x 600 as this is still a very safe resolution, with the proviso that the pages don't look stupid at higher res.

Colors: Our stats show that the # of visitors limited to 216 web colors in a very small minority so we do not feel constrained to web colors, although if I have a large, flat color block, I will tend to a web "safe" color.

Browsers: IE and Netscape one version back (versions 4). The design department post a printout of our visitors stats (appx 60K a month) that has charts as to browsers, resolutions, color depth, and flash versions that the visitors are using, so we keep pretty current as to what most people are using. Netscape is down to 18%, and mostly varieties of version 4 as

File size: We try to keep home pages around 50k, definitely under a 100k, and interior pages to half that. We can get away with a beefier interior page if the interior pages share graphics that are cached after the first load.

Tables: Heavily

CSS: Always

Roxanna Whitaker: whitakro@students.sonoma.edu, IT Web Support @ SSU

Screen resolution: I hardly design for 640x480 any more, mostly 600x800 although I will check it on a 12" screen at 640x480 sometime during the process to see if it will at least display reasonably.

Colors: I still stick to 216. For me it is just faster because I have many of the color codes memorized or simply recognize the color. I don't have to type in the number when working in dreamweaver or photoshop.

Browsers: I test in Netscape and I.E. I do not test further back than 4.0 versions. For certain sites where accessiblity is a more important issue, I will test in Lynx.

File size: I don't look t the size but rather I use the feature in photoshop when saving for the web, where it shows how long a specific image will take to download at a certain speed. I usually look at how long it will take on a 58K modem. If it is more that 2-4 seconds I try to make the image smaller in acutal size or by changing the file type or maybe making a .gif indexed color, etc. As far as HTML, I don't create really heavy HTML page with lots of extra coding, java, javascript, etc. so it is not something I worry about.

Tables: I use tables and sometimes layers. Never Frames. So far, whenever I thought frames were the last resort I have found a way to make it work without them. They are more trouble then they are worth and very unfriendly to users.

CSS: Yes! I can't believe I ever went without CSS! What a time saver and also the perfect way to keep continuity on pages.

Genny Engel: asta@sonic.net, Web Habitat, Inc.

Screen resolution: Generally, 800x600, but I never design to a specific size. That is, I use elements such as 100%-width tables rather than 640-pixel-width tables. I still design to be usable on 640x480 because many business people use laptops with smaller screens and smaller browser windows.

Colors: For text, pretty much just web-safe, but generally if the design needs a larger color space and it tests out on an older Mac and an older PC without too much color degradation, it's OK.

Browsers: Netscape 4.7 thru 6, IE 4 thru 5.5. Anecdotally I haven't seen anything that works on IE 5.5 that doesn't work on IE 6, but for the future we will probably be adding IE 6 soon to the usual test platforms. At least as critical as cross- browser testing is cross-platform and cross-OS testing (Mac back through PowerPC and Windows 95 through 2000, for example). A number of our sites use Javascript, Flash, Quicktime, PDF, etc. which behave differently to a much greater degree on different platforms and OS's.

File size: No. Obviously we keep everything as lightweight as possible, but no explicit limits.

Tables: Always.

CSS: Always use CSS-1 for styles, but almost never use CSS-2 positioning.

Daniel Will-Harris: daniel@will-harris.com, Will-Harris House

Screen resolution: Since 800x600 and at least 16bit color now makes up the vast majority of web visiting computers, that's what I use as a base. That said, I tend to design sites that aren't more than 750 pixels wide, for two reasons. First, if you design to a full 800 pixels, then there will be slight scrolling from scroll bars, etc. Second, people who are using portrait monitors (which is more common now with LCD displays) only have 768 pixels wide, so 750 pixels makes sure the page fits comfortably within most screens. Also, a real key is making sure that fonts are large enough and NOT set in CSS points or pixels, because if you set them this way, site visitors can't make the fonts larger using their browser, which is thoughtless.

Colors: Millions

Browsers: IE, Netscape. Versions 4, 5, 6 (except Netscape 6, which I haven't been able to get to work on my system!)

File size: It all depends. The smaller the better, of course, and home pages should be compact so people don't leave before they load. Well under 50K. That said, if your pages are designed so that the important stuff loads first and gives people something to look at, they can be bigger. Inside pages: it all depends on how interested your readers are. If they are really interested, they'll wait for large pages that give them the information they need or entertainment they want.

Tables: I usually use tables. If I have overlapping elements or want to use DHTML actions to give objects motion, then I use a combination of CSS and Layers so that's the page is compatible with the major browsers.

CSS: Only if it's necessary. CSS can have drawbacks when it comes to resizing page elements when visitors change font sizes. And it's important to let them change font sizes, because if the type onscreen isn't easy to read, then people won't read it--and then what's the point?

Barbara Moore: barbara.moore@sonoma.edu, Sonoma State University

Screen resolution: When I work on university pages, I try to design them so they will fit comfortably in the neigborhood of 760x420. We test to make sure they aren't awkward at lower resolution.

Colors: millions

Browsers: Netscape 4.x IE 4.5+ Ominweb (not sure of version - on home machine) Opera (5?) Lynx

File size: Not officially, and I'm sorry to say that our university home page is heavier than I would like (product of committee design!).

Tables: Yes.

CSS: Yes. Will eventually do more, though.

Paula Baker: , Peachpit Press

Screen resolution: Everything has to look good at 72 dpi. This usually means I go easy on the gradients and tiny type, but otherwise, I don't find this constraint too limiting.

Colors: 216 Web

Browsers: IE 3 and up Netscape 3 and up

File size: Sure. I try to keep it all under 30K when I can.

Tables: Almost always, yes.

CSS: Often.

Shenoa Lawrence: shenoa@sonic.net, PBHS

Screen resolution: design for 800x600

Colors: millions

Browsers: IE 5.0

File size: nope!

Tables: Always

CSS: Always (PS, these answers are what we do at work...I'm more backwards compatible when I design at home)

Yuri Gagaring: yuri@sonomaimage.com, Sonoma Image

Screen resolution: 800x600

Colors: 216 web

Browsers: IE and NS. for IE i go to 4 and for NS 4.5

File size: try to keep each page under 80K

Tables: yes

CSS: yes

Jamie Spooner: jspoon@planeteria.com, Planeteria

Screen resolution: We design to a minimum of 800 x 600, and rarely if ever to 640 x 480. All PCs now sold are averaging at this resolution.

Colors: We still use the main 216 hex colors for the colors used on the site, but will often optimize graphics using more than 216 colors of the standard palette.

Browsers: We ensure sites look good in the latest versions of IE, and Netscape with the assumption that users can upgrade to these latest versions. That said, we also view the site in one version back to ensure the site downgrades well. AOL often has problems for more complicated coding, but for simpler sites, we do view the sites in AOL.

File size: We aim for pages no larger than 40k total, but this varies according to audiences. Corporate audiences are likley to be on DSL, and so for these pages we can allow for larger k.

Tables: Yes, we often use tables, but rarely frames.

CSS: Yes, we often use CSS.

eric van sant: evansant@att.net, Athena Web Studio

Screen resolution: someplac between 550 and 580 pixels

Colors: 216

Browsers: design in 1e5.0, test in netscape 4.6

File size: whole page max 40k, no images bigger than 10k

Tables: usually

CSS: dont know what that is

Janet Zagoria: jzagdesign@aol.com, Janet Zagoria Web Design

Screen resolution: 800X600

Colors: 216+

Browsers: NS 4.7 and above, IE 5.0 and above, AOL 5.0 and above.

File size: Depending on the client's audience, I usually try to keep it under 75k but I just did a site where the pages were about 120k each (although once in the site, many of those images would be already loaded).

Tables: Is there any other way?

CSS: Once in a while. It is so limiting what you can use. I wish I could use them more.

Jeffrey Kamariotis: jkama@pacbell.net, State Farm Insurance

Screen resolution: I still use 800 x 600 for work and personal

Colors: 216 Web

Browsers: IE, Netscape, and AOL. At work, I am fortunate as all our employees are on IE 5.0 or newer.

File size: I try to reduce file size as best as possible. When I build pages, they are for our Intranet, so they are usually pretty clean and tight. More content than graphics. The only constraints are that I sometimes cannot place certain documents (pdf's) online if they are too large.

Tables: I always use tables. I may design something in layers and then convert to tables.

CSS: Sometimes. I am starting to use more often.

Jesse House: jesse@soconet.com, Soconet llc.

Screen resolution: 800 x 600

Colors: 216

Browsers: ie 4.x, 5.x on pc and now 6 is out so we'll start testing on it soon. netscape 4.x, 6.x on pc ie 4.x, 5.x on mac netscape 4.x on mac the biggest problem is with javascript, if you can get it to work in netscape 4.x chances are it will work in every thing else, although it may need slight tweeking for the mac and don't forget broken tables in netscape, you just need to master the use of spacer gifs, and set all your image sizes, and table cell sizes

File size: not really, just try to keep things reasonable without degrading the look.

Tables: Tables for everything.

CSS: Yes, only for fonts. We will also load a different css file for macs with all the fonts brought up 2points. Either on the client side with javascript or server side with asp, php or whichever scripting language we are using.

Clara Lanyi: clara@gombagraphics.com, Gomba Graphics

Screen resolution: I design for 800X600 or 800X400.

Colors: Stick to websafe on large areas, logos etc. as much as possible.

Browsers: Netscape and Explorer, but I favor Explorer since so many more people use it now. As far back as Netscape 4 and Explorer 3. But mainly, I try not to do something tricky that will not work on all browsers.

File size: Nope, I tend to favor image quality over file size with out letting it get out of hand.

Tables: Yes.Extensively.

CSS: Most of the time now. Just the main things, like fonts, headers,and subheads.

Brian Petro: brian@bpwebdesign.com, Bright Productions Website Design

Screen resolution: 800x600 but we usually attempt to build sites so they will expand to take up as much width as a user gives us < TD WIDTH=100%> .

Colors: Millions. We will decrease colors in GIFs to keep file size down.

Browsers: 4 and higher on IE 4.7 and higher on Netscape on both mac and PC

File size: It depends on the client. Most clients we want the page to load in approx 20 seconds or less on a 56k modem. However, there are exceptions depending on the target market of the site. We do not have a total size set in stone.

Tables: Yes. We use many nested tables on all sites.

CSS: No. We continue to use them when we take over sites that already has them. It's not so much that we have something against CSS. We've just never found a need for them. Most of our graphic templates are put together using SSI, so it is usually very easy for us to change the look of a whole site using a single file(s) without CSS.

Alan Silverman: alan@asilverweb.com, ASilverWeb

Screen resolution: I still try to keep the main screen within 800x600 pixels in size. Tables are usually sized specified by percentage rather than fixed pixel sizes so they will fit the screen. Sometimes fixed pixel sizes are used to maintain space.

Colors: Generally 216 web safe colors, but will be flexible if I'm trying to match something specific.

Browsers: I test with IE, Netscape and Opera on primarily PC platform but try to cross over to Mac when possible. I keep my pages pretty simple so I don't need to go too far back in browser versions.

File size: I try to keep pages under 50k. Download time over dial up lines is still a major priority for my two primary clients as well as myself. Most complete images are under 20k, not counting sliced images. If text pages go over 30k, I look at the potential of splitting the text across more than one page.

Tables: Yes. Almost always.

CSS: Yes. Saves time in the long run and offers more control than basic html layout.

Sandy Wild: swild@sonic.net, Wild Webs

Screen resolution: 1024 X 728 True Color (32 bit)for most. If the target audience is made up of low income or non English speaking households, I do design for 640 X 480 to avoid horizontal scrolling.

Colors: Millions of colors:) I do check on-line and make adjustments accordingly.

Browsers: As many as I can. I go back to Netscape 3 and IE 4.

File size: Depends on the client and the purpose for the site. For mostly information sites I keep the graphics done so that the pages load very quickly. For other clients, who are looking a higher end client, I use larger size (K) graphics, but try to keep the whole page under 75(K)

Tables: Yes, definetly!

CSS: I have used CSS when working with large corporations web sites. I have never had the need to use them with my personel clients. From what I read in my CSS style sheets mailing lists, there seem to be problems with style sheets and Netscape and older browsers. The corporation sites that I have worked on have not cared about older browsers, but all of my personel clients do!

: ,

Screen resolution: At least 800 x 600, lowest possible for widest audience.

Colors: 216 Web

Browsers: Netscape, IE and Opera. Use current versions, but would be better to test back a version or two.

File size: Hopefully to keep pages at 60k or less. Optimize all images as much as possible.

Tables: Yes, always.

CSS: Not currently but plan on learning CSS and then implementing them in future.

Rose : rose@roseillus.com, Rose Illustration & Web Design

Screen resolution: I design for 800x600, with 640x480 still in mind

Colors: Web Adaptive, usually but not neccessarily

Browsers: Netscape & Internet Explorer

File size: minimum as possible, with image quality in mind

Tables: yes

CSS: usually yes

Anne Branson: anne@bransondesigns.com, BransonDesigns

Screen resolution: I always design primarily for 832 x 624. It seems to be the average that I find people use. Along the way, I will check other resolutions and most times, try to fit the main part of the design within 640 x 480. Also, if it gets lost in a really high resolution, I will add background, etc. that only they will see but which doesn't affect what is seen at the smaller resolutions.

Colors: I used to stick with 216, until I began working for other companies, who encouraged me to dismiss using that palette. I found a whole new world and now use millions.

Browsers: Netscape and IE. As time has gone on, I test on just one version back.

File size: Not unless the client has special requests for the site to be super speedy. Of course, I always try, regardless, to optimize the images as much as possible. And if the page is too big, I suggest to the client that we branch off to another level page.

Tables: Always.

CSS: Not at this point. Of course, again, some clients are pretty savvy about things. If one insisted, I would have to comply.

Annette Arnold: annette@wainteractive.com, WA Interactive

Screen resolution: 80% are designed for 800 x 600. 20% by client's request are designed for 1024 x 768 (these are often our more high-tech clients).

Colors: We design for 216.

Browsers: We test sites on: Internet Explorer (4.x and up) Netscape Navigator (4.x and up) AOL

File size: For pages without major graphics, we aim for 4 second maximum download time on a 56K modem.

Tables: Yes. 99.9% of the time.

CSS: Yes. 90% of the time.

Valerie Brownrigg: circlec@pacific.net, Wild Iris Design

Screen resolution: I use 1024 X 768 when designing but always make sure it fits on 800 X 600.

Colors: Millions, but now I've been hearing that people are going back to the 216 web colors for hand helds. So far I haven't had any clients trying to reach that audience, but I'm aware of it and try to use web colors when I can.

Browsers: IE 5.5, and Netscape 4.7. Since only around 15% use Netscape, I concentrate mostly on IE. If I use stylesheets (which do not work with Netscape) I put a disclaimer if the result is too awful. I hear Netscape 6.x is even worse, so I stick with 4.7. I look at the weekly stats of most my clients sites and most viewers use PC's running IE 5.x. (approx 85%).

File size: No. I do optimize all images for the web. So far I really haven't needed any constraints, my clients all have pretty small businesses.

Tables: Yes.

CSS: Sometimes. If it is a new site I use it most of the time, if an upgrade I work with what is there unless it is too awful:) Hope all this helps!

Cory Knobel: CKnobel@integralfactors.com, Integral Factors Consulting | Optavia Consulting Network

Screen resolution: This will change from project to project. I follow a user- centered design process, so that information is uncovered in the user analysis phase. From there, I can place constraints on the design phase knowing that the solution is based on an actual audience, and not on normative statistics or population research.

Colors: For me, it depends on the purpose of the site. I've worked on sites that are targeted toward people with low vision, and directed them toward color combinations that are limited to 4 high-contrast colors. I've also worked on a site that presents high-resolution medical output scans delivered via the Web. That required millions of colors to have the fidelity and gradient that physicians expected. As with everything, the needs of the users should drive the decisions.

Browsers: Internet Explorer - all versions back to 3.2 Netscape Navigator - all versions back to 3.0 Opera 4 & 5 AOL - 4.0 and later WebTV Amaya

File size: I try to design so that the text elements in the page load within 4 seconds, and the entire page above the fold loads in 10 or less. I think the key is that that page should cognitively engage the user within 4 seconds, and that oterh elements can be filling in within the next few. People have a lot tolerance for looking at a loading page which doesn't give them anything. Even if a page is mostly graphics, having good, contextual tags for them to read gives them the perception that the page is loading faster.

Tables: When I have to... I believe that the advances in CSS controls are soom going to send layout tables into obsolesence. Despite this, I think it will take a while for designers and developers to give them up, as they are much easier for people to understand (trans - don't involve as much math).

CSS: Absolutely. Since I specialize in accessibility, I feel that the more structure can be separated from presentation, the better. Browsers are becoming more and more capable with each generation to handle some of the more advanced CSS modules, and designers and developers should familiarize themselves with the evolving technology, even before wode support is implemented. A prime example of this is using the box model for positioning in CSS2. Ultimately it will enable designers to completely get rid of using tables for layout. It's not completely implemented in a lot of browsers - but there is no valid reason not to be familiar with the model. Also, becoming familiar with XSL and XSLT will become critical in creating usable web technology for the evolving mobile computing world. Again, it's in its infancy as far as developer familiarity and application, but I think will prove to be one of the most ubiquitous implements in the near future.

Phil Tardif: phil@idda.com, IDDA

Screen resolution: 800 X 600

Colors: 16 bit

Browsers: Nav 4.0 and above, IE 5.0 and above

File size: We just optimize all images.

Tables: Always

CSS: Never. We only maintain it if a client has already been burdened with it.

Dana Van Blair: dlvblair@yahoo.com, www.Sproutdigital.com

Screen resolution: 800 x 600 center www.echoecho.com you hit 95% of the population and you have more room

Colors: millions... same as above the people that are looking at sites at 256 are few and the are use to looking at bag color websites... I do use "web safe " when possible.. but I do not change my desgin to use only web safe colors

Browsers: if it passes mac netscape then you are set.. that is the buggiest of platform browser combo

File size: under 100K for the images

Tables: YES..

CSS: yes when the site is text intensive

Carolyn Svenson: svengrove@aol.com, CrossCheck Inc.

Screen resolution: for resolution of 800x600 background or stage is 760x420

Colors: millions

Browsers: Netscape 4.79 and IE 5.0 and up

File size: I do not have enough experience to know numbers, I just test it at home on my 32K connection and hope for decent results. I prefer flash to HTML because I can use a preloader animation, where you can load all the images so your movie can stream without delay in navigation.

Tables: No I use layers.

CSS: Yes. This is an awesome tool for production. You can also use to color drop down menus.

Gary Hegenbart: ghegenbart@d11.uscg.mil, United States Coast Guard

Screen resolution: We design for two environments: the WWW and our Intranet. On both we assume a minimum of 800x600 resolution with .

Colors: thousands of colors

Browsers: On the WWW we develop (as much as possible) for cross platform compatibility between IE and Netscape. We ignore things like webtv and AOL. All of our pages use style sheets to overcome browser differences, and for the most we've been successful. We also make sure our pages are using only validated HTML based on W3C standards. On our intranet all users are using IE4+, so we develop for that.

File size: We have no contraints, but strive for as small as possible.

Tables: Yes, but we try to minimize tables for layout purpose and always put in a description. We check the pages in Lynx to make sure they are still logical when taken out of tables.

CSS: Yes, always.