Web Application Architect

Jeff Rigby is a core Drupal Developer at DPCI, having architected solutions for organizations such as Allied Advertising (www.gofobo.com), IPI (www.memberlink.net), and PMG (https://warl.securedonation.org/warl/form). Jeff was also a core contributor to projects at NYSHA (www.nysha.org), Hachette Filipacchi Media US (www.pointclickhome.com), and many others.

Blogs

Recent Webinars

> Integrating K4 and Drupal to Support Multi-channel Workflows

White Papers

> The Challenges with ECM With or Without a Down Economy

> Innovations in Digital Asset Management, Circa 2008

February 25, 2008

Sacrificing Aesthetics for Site Performance and Improved Search Ranking

Del.icio.us

Technorati

Digg

StumbleUpon

When implementing a Web content management system, a common argument between site administrators and designers is whether to use images for elements of the site that will change as the site grows. Designers generally like to use graphics for menu items and headers, while site administrators do not.

Designers generally argue with two points: freedom to use any font and style and aesthetic consistency throughout all browsers. Both are strong arguments on their own, and both especially resonate with designers who have backgrounds in print, where the options are plentiful. Text on web sites is limited to a relatively short list of "Web safe" fonts. And even these fonts rarely render identically, browser to browser. These limitations are tough on designers.

There's no disagreement that graphics can be sexier, however they add significant production time to many site administrative tasks. There are a few exceptions, but with most sites this is undesirable.

All Web content management systems enable site administrators to add menu items, pages, and sections immediately. This is one of the best reasons to implement a content management system, but the process is stunted if each menu item or section header requires a new or modified graphic. This creates a dependency on the individual responsible for the site's graphics. If that person is not available, the site cannot change. Furthermore, if at the last minute a slight text change to the element is required, the entire process starts over. In contrast, section additions and modification with text-based systems are immediate.

While better flexibility and efficiency are the most compelling arguments for a text-based system, there are others that shouldn't be ignored:

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) - Graphics are not indexed and your search ranking may suffer as a result. Even if header graphics have alt tags and appear within header tags (like text should), they are much less effective than the text alternative.

Increased Font Size - A site may need to cater to individuals with poor eyesight. All browsers can easily increase the text size. This is impossible with graphics.

Speed - The more graphics on your site, the slower it loads. This is not a major issue on desktop machines, as broadband connections have been widely adopted, but mobile users will suffer with a graphic-heavy site.

Site-wide Changes - If the company re-brands and requires, for example, a color change, all images must be recreated instead of a one-line change in the style sheet.

There are tools to dynamically create graphics. SiFr, for example, dynamically creates embeddable FLV files in place of standard images. Although SiFr is promising, there are issues with rendering speed and its awkward handling of browser links (no right click or status bar support). Also, because SiFr graphics are completely dynamic it doesn't provide the precision text control available in Photoshop or Illustrator. This lack of control is similar to issues designers have with browser text.

For the vast majority of content-driven sites, the benefits of a text-based system outweigh the disadvantages. This is not to say that text is the correct decision every time. For example, if a site's focus is to sell design services, the extra effort required to design and maintain a fully graphic-based system may yield a preferable return on investment. This is rarely the case for most content-driven sites, however, where increased traffic, rankings, and flexibility drive higher returns.

Posted at 04:20 am by Jeff Rigby