Check your sticky mail ;-)

Nick
Thank you for your help Nick.
Could you send me a sticky too Nick? Thanks!
Hey Corey, that's a question I'd really like to know the answer to!

Nick? :)

Cy
heh.. Nick... while you're at it... me too please?
Hey Nick, I'll take one too if you don't mind!
Ok, I'll bite - could you pass this on? Thanks!
Nick, I know you have some excellent insight on the subject. Would you consider beginning a new thread that elaborates?

I for one, would love to see the various viewpoints. I'm certain a lot of valuable information will come to light.

articles online that deal with the structure of web pages?

http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/design_rant/index.html

This is by far one of the best design theory articles out there. If there is a better one sticky mail me;)

M
That article is one that added to my belief that we were making things too difficult and complex. I still believe there are two primary divisions of webdevelopers: those who live to code regardless of content and those who code for content.

Think about it before you strive to add a 100x120px scrolling div using 9px red text on a black background. Or incorporate complex flyout menus for no other reason than to look cool. Are you attempting to deliver content in a useable fashion? Or just flexing some dhtml might?

Yes... there is room for everything and no offense meant. But you should always be your own harshest critic before you add complexity whare none is needed. Imho of course! :)
Very good. Also good sites on css positioning mentioned in the article.
Hi

Sorry everyone!

I sent corey something I wrote, but after a pause for thought, perhaps it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the subject.

Stay tuned, i'll post it shortly...

The reason I didn't put it on the board was I wasn't sure that it was quite what corey was after and as I wrote it I thought it might look a littel self promotionary ;)

Nick

I have been struggling for over a week with trying to come up with an interface for a site, and still haven't touched down with it.

It's one of those that generally follow a certain look and format within a niche, but I question how well that works, especially in the case where a site needs to appeal not only to the niche buyer of a few low-ticket items, but to broaden the scope to actually look like a business site that will appeal to the wholesale sector rather than that of a hobbyist with the look that most of them have of that type.

IMHO sometimes the hardest thing can be to pinpoint and predict what will work for gearing toward a particular market if there's more than one being targeted. In this case it would have one look for the home consumer, which would be easy, but deciding what will appeal to serious wholesale buyers may or may not be the same look and style.
Producing results. That by itself really is not enough. What kind of results? Negative? Positive? Or dispassionate...

Tough question and a tougher task as Marcia has pointed out. What sort of stimuli, visual cues, bread-crumb trails are need to motivate a site visitor to a successful site experience?

I'd love to read some opinions.. I guess the most obvious place to start is to identify your site's goals. After that... where do we go?

I'm looking forward to reading what Nick is preparing...

>where do we go?

It is definetely a broad and applicable question. I just wanted to slide in by saying that lots of whitespace is a good thing. Although it may not produce results, it provides a good background for your results to be placed on! :)
We had a thread or two right in this forum a number of weeks ago that discussed this very thing, with references to research papers, usability studies, the whole enchilada!

Where is paynt? We need our research expert on finding where everything is that pertains to anything at all we're looking for. Those posts touched on this very topic, in depth; it was just called something else.
Marcia - not sure if it's the same thread you are thinking of, but this one -

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/2226-2-15.htm

- has Tips and Tricks for good Web design. More about performance than results, though. Also this thread -

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum10/1005.htm -

on Truly Dreadful Websites, discusses ugly sites that still sell.

(Go Nick go ... a forum awaits!)
Man, i didn't think that there would be this big of a response to a simple question. Nick, sorry about that. I hope you don't mind being overloaded with questions. Let me know where that thread is and maybe i can answer some questions also.

-Corey

Featured Links:

Considering that your site offers free useful content.
Yes.

I am frequently a customer. I hate them and ignore them. I judge them cheap and it impacts my perception of the site that imposes them on me. I think it cheapens the image of the site.

Ask yourself. How do you feel about them? Don't you find them annoying? Your customers dislike them too.
I agree completely. Until I had Opera (yeah!) I would simply immediately leave and never return to sites that had popups of any type.
We hate popups and/or popunders. If the user is on a less powerful computer (processor), the popups and/or popunders cause delays and those who are less savvy don't know what is going on.

I've seen people browsing the web and they have 10-15 windows open and I'll ask them why. Their response is, I don't know, these windows keep popping up when I visit these sites and I don't know how to get rid of them (extreme cases).
Are Pop-ups a nuisance? Yes.
Will users/customers dissaprove? Ask Yahoo. They don't seem to lose too much customers.

There are many successfull sites that pop up pop-ups left and right.
I guess it depends on the nature of the site. I'd suppose users are less tolerant on smaller sites. I'd never recommend pop-ups for serious sites, which try to build trust in order to sell services, for example.

More of a gut feeling here - I'm sure some knowledgable folks will have a more profound saying on this.

I think it's not unlike e-mail campaigning: everybody's moaning and full of contempt in public. Only to go back to work running the next campaign, because ... it works. ;)
IMHO
I have had an account with yahoo (and hotmail) for around 3 or 4 years. I go everyday to Yahoo and quite often when I close everything up and head for the waterbed the last window of all is the pop under......
I confess I think to myself, ****heads! Are they so desperate?
That's just what I think, but I can't help thinking also,that they must do as much damage image wise, in the long run, as they do sales in the short run.
Sometimes I go to site on, for instance, geo*****. They inflict a pop up window telling me I'm visiting a free site on geo*****. So what Do they really think I'm interested. It cheeses me off because it needs 2 clicks to get rid of it, and if it's only the index and I want to get further inside the site, I Know there'll be another awaiting round the corner.
I certainly wouldn't use them for free pages if they are going to do that kind of marketing.
I have a strong distaste for pop-ups also. You think your getting one thing, and then, all of a sudden there's another window. It really is a turn off. I would rather just run someones banner than resort to that cheap tactic. Just my 2. ;)
The negative comments so far seem to be reactions to third-party ads.

For a different perspective, I've been testing a popup that invites people to subscribe to the site's newsletter. There's already signup boxes on most pages, but the popup really boosts the number of signups (three to five times more signups during the on weeks of the test).

The popup is small, fast-loading (no images; 1K of text) and served from the same site so there's no waiting for external connections. The popup has a logical reason to be there, and is cookied so visitors won't see it too often. My theory (might be wishful thinking!) is that those factors will keep it tolerable.

I haven't noticed any negative effects on sales, although I have to observe over a longer period before I can say that with confidence. Normal ups and downs would make a negative effect tricky to discern if there was one.

I'm cautiously starting to decide that the popup will be worth keeping.
Here's my waste of space: I really dig europeforvistors site. I think the partner links are discrete; and intelligent because they respect his/her audience.

I recognize, however, not all business models and web sites are the same, and have become used to pop-ups. I don't mind them all that much.

Then again, I've also grown used to stinky derelicts at the bus stop, too.
As far as i'm concerned pop ups are the worst promotional technique going. Why force visitors to go to the page you want them to go to, regardless of their own preferences?

In the example above, if you want visitors to sign up to your mailing list, why not just have a prominent link on your home page instead? Maybe popups get you more sign ups, but is the quality of sign-up going to be as high from people who were forced to view your ad than from those who volunteered the information themselves?

I consider popups and popunders to be theft of my bandwidth and CPU resources, mostly from companies who should know better, and any site that uses them goes down in my estimation 200%.

You don't see popups on google, do you? (not yet anyway ;))
And it hasn't exactly hurt their visitor numbers or visitor loyalty has it?
Regarding newsletter signups: there already is a prominent signup box on most pages of my site. Having the popup increases the signup rate 300 - 500% in the testing I've done so far.

If you're worried about theft of your bandwidth, I invite you to consider that simply cleaning the spaces out of my source code on the main page saves more bandwidth than the popup takes. In general you'll lose a lot more bandwidth to bloated code than you will to my popups.

Regarding quality of signups: the topic of the page is an exact match for the topic of the newsletter so anyone interested enough to visit the page in the first place would be a reasonable prospect for the newsletter.

I don't quite get what you mean by the comment force visitors to go to the page you want them to go to, regardless of their own preferences?
My thinking is along the same lines as heini's. People who frequent sites for graphics, wallpapers, clipart, mp3s, celebrity pics, etc etc. are going to be more accepting of popups because almost any site on those topics has to use them to cover bandwidth costs.

One thing to keep in mind is the people that frequent this board are not casual surfers. We are mostly professionals that are tightly focused with what we do online, and it is usually technical in nature. We don't accept popups, and we generally despise them. That's not to say the general public doesn't hate them, but I feel they are more accustomed to them than we are, and popups are acceptable to some - especially on certain site topics.

You can always just give it a trial run. Uniques to pageviews before and after will tell you if it's running visitors off or not. Your visitors may even hammer you via email.
I'm with buckworks... I'm no big fan of unrelated popups, but a small, easy-to-close popup for an on-topic newsletter or similar FROM THAT SITE works well with no complaints. IMO, the big, unrelated popunders that one has to drag to close are the turnoffs. It's kind of like junk mail - a catalog of model railroad equipment is annoying junk, unless you happen to be a model railroad hobbyist. In that case, that same junk catalog is an exciting find.
Unfortunately the popup/popunder has become so annoying and disliked that any use of this technique is probably going to have a negative impact. Because they have gained such a bad rap, I don't think it matters whether its on site or third party, bottom line is that its still a popup/popunder.

I would think a prominent placement of a professionally done animated gif somewhere immediately visible when the visitor is on the home page would be sufficient. If there are no other flashing, moving, distractive graphics, then the animated gif might be a viable alternative! Plus now you'll have another page of content to optimize!
Invariably, yes, it will upset some customers. And yes, we hate pop-ups & we think of desperation when we see them (I'd have sold my Yahoo stock when I saw the first X10 ad, if I had any)... but that doesn't mean all our site's users necessarily think the way we do. People hate TV commercials, too, yet enough keep watching to keep the networks going.

The only way to know *anything* for sure out here is to do a series of small test runs. If your revenue or ROI increases, and you don't lose too many customers, maybe you have something that works in YOUR situation.

Losing some customers isn't necessarily the end, either...Here's an interesting thought another webmaster had in another forum; So what if I lose visitors permanently, IF the visitors weren't contributing in any way to my bottom line?? That means less bandwidth wasted.

Seems harsh at first, but which would you rather have? 100,000 visitors with 1,000 that take action, or 10,000 with 5,000 that take action? I won't get into the downsides of that, but at some point the free ride does have to end: better that it doesn't end with you getting out of business.

Finally: Remember to never believe what a user SAYS they might or might not do, believe what ACTIONS they take. Make your test runs in several short series (unless its something that needs several repeats to the same client before they take action) to limit your potential damage, and let us know if it works for your site or not.
As with any site targetted marketting advertisement which goes along with the sites theme works better than one of those people who pay you .02 for every 2k popups served.

I have so many sites which offer information which I do not make a cent off of. (that will change i tell you soon!) But Pop-up/under ads may work as long as its with the marketting scheme.

Depends on your market and crowds if its a site for technically savvy people like yourself they would go nuts if they saw a advertisement popping about, however its its a site that AOL users fresh on their computers go to they wont mind as much because they get the info for free.
I really dislike popups, popunders, jiggling screens, earthquake windows, ads that open and close, and all of those kinds of things. In fact, I dislike them so much that I host my web sites on my own Windows 2000 server so I don't have any of that junk unless I want it! I even have my own email server so I can send emails without some idiot company adding ads to bottom, side, top, inside, underside or whatever.

The most obnoxious thing I've seen is these little popups that go way off the screen so they are not seen. These stick around and pop up windows occasionally.

Actually, even beyond obnoxious is the scumware that puts ads over other people's ads as you surf. These companies need to be closed down and the ownwers flogged.

Look, you want to advertise your product? Then make an honest ad which informs me of the value and cost of the product. A nice picture is fine, something moving (flash or java or gif) is fine to get my attention. Tell me to click if I want more data, then give me the data I need to make a decision to spend on your product.

Please don't use fancy fad ads - One major internet site used those for a while (and they may still be). They had terminals floating all over the screen. Even though their data was interesting, I no longer visit them. It was just too annoying - their ad was cute once, then annoying, and then beyond annoying.

As far as other kinds of popups, like to sign a guestbook, join a newsletter and such - I can tolerate just one per site, as I am leaving (not when I arrive or am surfing). That's actually fine with me - appreciated, sometimes, in fact, because I may have actually wanted to subscribe or sign the guestbook but didn't think of it or could not find the link.

Richard lowe
Anytime my computer becomes possesed by the devil and starts spawning little nuggets of hell, I get upset.

Don't make new windows, don't get in my face... if I really wanted what you're selling, I'll find you.
I intensely dislike pop-ups of any kind. I've had my browser crashed enough by these annoyance ads.

Just my 2 clicks - Seofan
Another thing to consider - using 1 cookie controlled popup that only pops once, versus a barrage of them is a huge difference.

Closing one popup that spawns another, that spawns another, etc. or multiple popups at once, is enough to annoy anyone.
I advise my clients to use pop-unders along with cookies so that they only deliver a pop-under once a day to a visitor.

The use of pop-unders is common today and most of the high traffic sites are using them so I strongly doubt that they have a significant negative impact on a site's traffic.

The personal preferences of people that are highly active on the Internet may be very different than the average user that may see two or three pop-unders a day.
Seeing how this is my first post, I won't get too 'crazy'...But really, who cares if you, your your customers, or anyone here likes the method itself?

Since when did advertising have that requirement? It's whether it's profitable for you that matters.

Effective ads(as in that which generates profit) are rarely 'likable'...Brand building ads are, but require capital available to effectively waste in hopes of future sales via brand recognition. If you've got the money to waste building brand, worry about what all of these make your advertising so that it doesn't annoy me while I leech your free content whiners have to say.

If you're looking for sales, do a test-run, as has already been suggested.

If you're pop-under involves redirection to a third party site, there is only one real requirement...Visit that site and make sure there's no pop-ups/unders on the page you're redirecting to.

You may only have 1 pop, but the site you're sending them to has 6...Your customers will blame/think you are the reason for the pop-up hell they're experiencing.

Good luck...
Welcome to WebmasterWorld jimstod

>>It's whether it's profitable for you that matters.

agreed, I admit that I detest popups but we had a do our survey popup that was cookie controlled to disappear once you filled it in and it was unbelievable the response we had. Most people filled it in. It was a very good way for us to get people to fill in the survey. We did it two years running when I was there and I am pretty sure they still do it. It makes a difference because it was only for a month and a half once a year but when used properly I think popups have their place.
It's not that popups don't have some kind of marketing value, and I agree that if you make sure the size is really small and the message direct then it isn't so bad, but the fact remains that most popups you come across aren't really small and friendly - and if you have a slower computer just opening a new internet explorer window is enough to make everything else on your computer crawl, so your popup is likely to annoy as many people as it attracts to your offer.

On Jimstod's point:
>>But really, who cares if you, your your customers, or anyone here likes the method itself?

Nice to see you're staying in touch with and respect the people who pay your wages...

I dont know what to do now i mean i can get close to .03 - .04 for each pop under thats almost $700 a day. That just seems like a large revenue stream to pass up.
Thanks for the welcome jatar_k.

You've illustrated an excellent example...A large part of the effectivness of any online advertising method or technique essentially boils down to how well a Webmaster can determine the difference between use and abuse.
I like most people who have voiced their opinion here dislike pop-ups, however, I use one on one of my client sites. It is a small, quick loading, non-graphical pop-up for our contact information. This information is located in other places on the site but we have noticed that we get more traffic from the pop-up than from the other pages. On other advantage of this pop-up is the fact that it keeps open whatever page the user was on before clicking the contact us button, thus keeping the user's attention attracted to what we want them to be attracted to, the products.
Igloo wrote: >>Nice to see you're staying in touch with and respect the people who pay your wages...

First, the people who pay my wages are the people who click on the ads...Not the people who tell me how much they hate banners, pop-ups, etc., because it slows down their ability to increase my bandwidth bill while giving me nothing but a thank you in return.

Respect is a two-way street. Those who support my free (keep in mind that's free to them, not to me) content get the majority of my respect. The others get more opportunities to become respected.

Second, if the visitor doesn't have enough money to buy a decent computer...I doubt they will be paying my wages anytime soon.

Third, I'm not in business online to become well-liked...I'm here to make money & will test/use any strategy which will help me achieve that goal...Provided the numbers prove it to be effective...not personal opinion, your opinion or that which is commonly perceived as 'fact' based on the experience or opinions of others.
When I added a popunder to my site for my newsletter subscription, my newsletter signups increased about 75% immediately.

Personally I don't mind popups/ popunders if they are related to the purpose of the site I am visiting.

The third-party popup ads I don't like, and I find them mildly annoying. I don't work myself into a frenzy over it though. Its just one more mouse click to zap it. No big deal to me.

I think popups that just shove an unrelated ad in the users face cheapen your site. I think that popups/popunders with an offer relevant to the site and what the user is looking for are fine.

Now I know I am biased because this is working for my business. I am curious as to what people's opinions are regarding newsletter popups and other offers relevant to why you went to that site.
The most important fact to understand about the internet is it is one huge communication device. Plain and simply, that is all that the internet is and it is all that it does - communicate.

Thus, an effective website communicates to it's audience and, oftentimes, the audience communicates back. An effective website is defined simply in a single sentence: it communicates well with it's intended audience. Period.

Now, if your intended audience is people who need a certain kind of widget, and you effectively get those people to purchase your widgets, then your website is a success.

It does not matter if the non-target audience doesn't get the communication (and hence does not purchase). They are not the target!

Now, folded into this equation is the matter of ethics. In order for a society to exist and it's members to prosper, rules are agreed upon for civilized conduct. Thus, you can expect that you can drive down the street without getting a rock through your window or a bullet in your back (at least in California). Civilized people have agreed that this is inappropriate behavior.

There is an even higher plain of ethics, where you decide to follow a code which is higher than that agreed upon by society. It is very interesting that there is a direct correlation between a person's ethics and his long term success. More ethical people tend to survive better than less ethical people (in the long term). I am not referring just to money here (although that is part of the equation). This is overall quality of life. While Howard Hughes certain was very rich, for example, I do not believe that in his last ten years anyone could claim he was happy - his final years struck me as miserable. He was highly unethical, and this caught up with him.

So the questions come down to: do you communicate effectively to your target audience, and do you present this communication in an ethical manner?

As an example, suppose you rnu an adult website. A person with ethics would not show adult pictures on the splash page, would require proof of age, and would advertise the site only to consenting adults. An unethical site might plaster hard core pictures everywhere without a care in the world, have weak protection against viewing by minors, spam everyone and embed every scum method of popping up, under, over and so forth that has been invented.

The unethical site might very well make money faster than the ethical site, but would these people be leading happy, productive lives? Or would they wind up eventually with their sites closed down, perhaps in prison, with their money seized and so on? Would they be able to live with themselves or would they consume vast amounts of alcohol and drugs to cover up the pain they were feeling for the pain they were giving out?

In this example, both sites do communicate (and well) with their target audience. The unethical part is the communication that spilled over to people who may not desire it or who may not be entitled to receive the communication (underage for example).

Another, more obvious statement, is that you don't want to scream fire in a crowded theater, unless, of course, there is indeed a fire.

Are popups, unders and so on unethical? It depends on how they are used. If popups are blended with the site well so that they help deliver the communication to the target audience, then they do serve a purpose. If they are controlled so they do not FORCE the communication upon people who do not desire it, then they are ethical.

In other words, if I visit your site I might expect to see one popup (or under) informing me of an opportunity or giving me some other communication. I should be able to close this without fear of additional popups opening up. The popup should be related to the site somehow (otherwise it is an interruption, which is considered rude in most conversations). Under some conditions (the ad for the camera which appears all over the place), I should be able to opt-out, and my privacy should be protected. There are certainly additional ethical considerations to be taken into account.

By being ethical and communication well, I am delivering my viewpoint to the target and not offending the non-targets. That means the non-targets may return at some time and become targets of the communiation. In addition, they are less likely to become offended or even become enemies.

That's my 2 cents (well, perhaps my quarter).

Richard Lowe

Featured Links:

Does anyone have any experience with strong affiliate sales over several years. Do they just keep increasing with your hits, or do they eventually fade?
>Does anyone have any experience with strong affiliate sales over several years. Do they just keep increasing with your hits, or do they eventually fade?

Almost 2 yrs and sales have increased. But, I actively manage and improve the sites and add more affiliates and so on. I think your question just depends on a lot of factors. Some months can be great, than the next month it tanks, then shoots back up the next month. Lots of weird factors can affect people's spending habits.
>>Does anyone have any experience with strong affiliate sales over several years. Do they just keep increasing with your hits, or do they eventually fade?

As long as you put some time and effort into the programs, your earnings should continue to go up as you learn which links, banners, calls to sales have the best response.
Once you have this figured out, then the next step is to either increase your sites visitors, or if your site is product specific, create a new site with some more good content and using your best call to sales and affiiate links.
On the flip side, market saturation eventually hits on your more mainstream programs.

Programs like netsetter and coolsavings don't earn anything like they used to. Can you imagine the difference now if you were an early x10 affiliate?

But for niche stuff, I agree with JamesR and eljefe3 - things do tend to have peaks and valleys, but you should generally grow over time. However, it doesn't do this by itself - you must constantly work at it.
Thanks for all that guys. The message seems to be that if you keep producing good content you will still get the sales. That's encouraging.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone had experience with, for example, book sales, perhaps through Amazon. My point is that by now, there can't be many people who don't know to go to Amazon for books, and so the question is, is having the interesting content, which happens to have affiliate links to Amazon enough to get the commission off those people who already knew about Amazon.

I guess in theory there's no reason why not - I mean if webmasterworld had links to, say, web-coding books at Amazon I'm sure they'd make a few bucks (THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION!!), despite the fact that the readers here are the most web-savvy in the world and know everything they need to know about Amazon :)

Anyway thanks again - still interested to hear what anyone else's experiences are.
ok, to promote Amazon, you wouldn't focus on books and push them in general. You would find books that complement your topic, and link to them specifically. Reviews and personal recommendations would work best here.

So the reader finds your site on your topic, and likes your info. You link to amazon for said book, and they buy based on your reference, even though they knew about amazon. They weren't looking to buy a book to start with, but you planted the seed and offered a link. The amazon brand actually helps in this scenario.

However, great success also depends on the affiliate program itself. You may make a few bucks off of amazon's program, but don't count on getting rich. Their model is one of the worst for the affiliate with stipulations like: users must immediately buy on initial clickthrough, only 5% commission on non-specific-book links, no recurring commissions, and quarterly payments.
hey! I must read the small print more often - I got as far as 'upto 15%' (and kinda ignored the upto part...)

I didn't know it was only immediate purchase either.. darn
I worry that eventually people will find the real site and miss me out

I think it depends on your audience and the program. Two factors are at work here:

1) Whether you have a relative static audience or one that's constantly turning over. (A travel site like mine, for example, tends to draw new visitors through search, and they haven't been exposed to my affiliate ads.)

2) Whether the affiliate merchant credits you with referrals of customers who have bought from them before. If the affiliate agreement gives ownership of such customers to the merchant, and if repeat visitors make up a significant portion of your audience, you may well see a decline in sales for that merchant over time.
My experience in dealing with a number of affiliate programs is that you have to work to build them, and if you slack off they fade away.

There are no perpetual motion money machines in cyberspace ;)
I worry that eventually people will find the real site and miss me out

side note: how do you all make those nifty little boxes for the quoted text?

My only affiliate site has been around for only a couple of months. Because it's new, I put a link directly to the 'real site' on every one of my pages explaining that I am an affiliate and why the user, web surfer, should buy though me. I tell them that I just present the information in a different way, possibly a better way. Further, the 'real site' has been around since 1993, I hope that that adds some credibility to my site.

I have no idea if this is the way to go, but the site is making a couple of C notes a month... so who knows.

I have always believed that the customers on the other end are smart enough to realize who fulfilled the order. Plus, in my case, the 'real site' is promotion and campaign heavy and only credits me for the direct sales. So, without me telling the user to come back to me, the 'real site' will suck them in and make them forget about little old me.
Hi,

I read this with interest. I have run numerous affiliate schemes over the years, and only found one to work well. It's one that brings us a recurrent income of $160.25 per month - this has built up since October last year and is continuing to grow.

Basically, people visit our site to submit to our search engine. When they are approved they are told about a tracking device for the site (an advanced counter, if you like) which costs them $5 a month. We get half of this revenue.

What I'm interested to know about is any affiliate schemes like this that others have found worthwhile - not ones for trackers, etc. - rather ones that bring steady, recurrent income.

I've tried Amazon, Commission Junction, etc but they don't compare. They just bring sporadic one-off payments and no assurance of study revenue.

Any ideas folks?

Thanks,

Paul
Paul - I'm curious about your tracking device - do you mean they pay $5 to see how many hits they had from your search engine? If so, I'm surprised anyone would do that.

I would have thought (if the site is the one mentioned in your profile) the travel line would have tons of good affiliate possibilities - as europeforvisitors seems to suggest!

I'm reluctant to mention my specific line (which also brings in a steady $200 so far - see my first post in this thread) but basically it's something that people look for something for free and there are some free items on our site, but also direct product links to buy the item. This means on each page we know that person is interested in the item we are pushing, but they also come back to the site as we have the free content.
Musicales,

You have a couple of things to consider here:

1) Increasing number of visitors means increased number of potential customers

2) Perhaps more importantly is to make sure you lever each visitor as much as possible. For example if you have 2000 uv per day and they never buy anything, then increasing traffic to 4000 uv per day might not help much.

It is worth making sure you get (2) right first, that way you have a fair idea of how you can increase revenue by increasing traffic.

Another factor is to sell in context, whatever the subject mater of your site, try and sell related products. Web users rarely purchase something they arent actually looking for. With regard to Amazon, yeah, everyone knows all about them, but, someone might be looking for some info on a certain product - the content of your site - they find your site helpful and they are pleased, then you suggest they can get even more info from this book that can be bought from Amazon. Everyone is happy.

To ensure your affiliate sales dont fade away you must make sure you keep developing both of (1) and (2) above. Also, if you are providing specialist, interesting or up to date info then your site will aways be a good starting point regardless of whether the visitor knows of Amazon or not. If you can build a community atmosphere in your website then people will treat your website as their first port of call, making you the first selling point as well.

Hope the helps, cheers

Graham
Hi Graham

Thanks for that. I think the community point you raise is particularly valid. In fact, I think that's the key to the whole issue, if you are a strong port of call for the subject area you can convert those hits more easily. It's kind of a simple point, but you've help clarify it for me - cheers.

But what is community building? It feels like something more than just a good old forum. News too I guess . Anyone have any interesting community-building ideas that go beyond these?
Forums and news should be good starting points, however, in the grand scheme these are really things that most sites can offer. How can you make your site stand out from the crowd? What is your specialist subject? What original thoughts/insights can you provide on a given subject matter?

Perhaps you can populate your site with some thought provoking articles, encourage users to respond to these.

Offer other services too (of course still related to your subject matter), these will no doubt vary from site to site, but they could include things such as comparison tools, knowledge bases, utilities etc. Basically, if you can think of something that will benefit your user, give it to them and they might just come back.

Of course, don't give it to them all at once because you want them to keep coming back time and again!!

Another thing to bare in mind is that careful use of affiliate links can be particularly useful to your visitors. eg, you might have a detailed discussion on a given topic, but on occassion your users might want to explore that subject further, give them the opportunty with carefully selected, highly relevant aff links. This should be done so that the user sees it as more of a tool of your site than a marketing ploy.
Hi musicales

although the immediate purchase thing with Amazon can be a disadvantage - remember that you get sales from anything bought in that user session. I only link to CDs but recently have received fees for a years subscription to the Wall Street Journal, a set of stainless steel cutlery, and a chainsaw!
Iguana
hmm..
sounds like the guy was going to cut somebody up, make a ransome note, and then eat him for dinner!

Graham - thanks for some more thought provocative stuff
First the obvious: You really have to deliver a compelling proposition that provides something better than just a link or even contextual advertising. Think of a comparsion shopping engine or a consumer review site as an example of adding real value to the consumer in the decision of what and where to buy on-line.

But I think more importantly, there are very few successful affiliates. I would voucher to guess that more than 95% of affiliate sales occur through less than 5% of the affiliates (and often through a list of the top 20). Have you ever seen those top 10/20 lists (Ashford used to do this)?

Those affiliates can either offer something more than a link to a merchant, or they are email/online marketing professionals that have an audience that they can consistently get great conversion rates from.

I think an interesting topic would be, how to you move from being an affiliate who gets private offers (increased commission rates) and actually get commission that is more in line with the merchant's marketing expense. Or at point to you drop the affiliate provider (BeFree, etc) and go direct. Or at point to you go to drop-shipping. It's hard to build a business on affiliate revenue!

A side point: How many of you have seen those articles in which a CEO of an e-commerce company boasts of how little they pay their affiliates (and how the affiliates bear all the risk)?
Orion - what's the 'Ashford' you mentioned?
Ashford.com is a luxury brand site that sells jewelry, watches, and accessories. In the past, they use to send a top 10 or 20 list of revenues earned in their emails to affiliates. But their affiliate manager has recently moved on.
Ashford now has a one-day cookie instead of 45 days. Not exactly a gesture of good faith, in my book!

Featured Links:

An overview of the basic concepts

Here are some ideas on how to go about building websites for the average small business. Many of us do this all day every day and some of the stuff here is very obvious, but I thought it might be useful to get some basic concepts outlined and perhaps you guys could add to it?

Intention and concept

Clients often have no idea of what they want; they don't really know what they could do because they often have little experience with computers. Besides, if they were experts, they wouldn't need you right?

Meet with the client and simply ask them what, in an ideal world, would they want their website to do for their company. Invariably it would be something along the lines of:

• Increase sales of my products/services
  
• Tell people about my business
  
• Show people what we do and how it can help them
  

By the end of the discussion you should have a fairly clear idea of the expectations they have for your work. At this point you should start expanding upon those ideas and suggesting ways in which you can add to and expand upon what they want.

Content is king

If you're like me then you've explained to clients till you're blue in the face that they need content for thier website and it is not just a matter of putting a few pages up with tons of 'about us' stuff and little else.

If they sell products or services, which they surely do, try to ask questions that will solicit the kind of response that might give you a fighting chance with the content. Questions like:

• Do you have any existing brochures?
  
• Does the actual manufacturer of this product have a site?
  
• Do you have any technical material?
  
• Are there any organizations that relate to this field?
  
• Do they currently produce any kind of written periodicals?
  
• Can you see their advertising?
  

Yep, it's often an uphill struggle to find content for your average Small biz site, but a little investigation often turns up some unexpected sources for you to work with. There is an excellent discussion on business content right here

Keywords and site structure

Once you've got an idea of what the content will be you can start talking about keywords and search terms. I find that's it's best to ask the client how he thinks people would search for what he does and take that with a large pinch of salt ;) You're the expert remember. There is a ton of stuff here on Webmaster World so if you're new to this, just hang out in the search engine forums for a while, it will be time well spent, I guarantee it!

Once you know your top search terms and phrases you can begin to actually work on a site plan. The general plan will fall under 2 main regions:

• Company specific sections
  
• Common sections/elements
  

Common sections would include the folowing to greater of lesser degree depending on the company:

• About us
  
• Company profile
  
• Contact forms
  
• Physical address details
  
• Mission statement
  

You get the idea right?

Company specific sections are clearly unique to the company you're working for but if you just follow a few basic rules then you'll find this just as simple as the common sections:

• Divide content into logical sections
  
• Most general first then sub-sections for more specific content
  
• Use keywords to good effect when naming directories like
  /cars/fords/sierras/upholstery/
  

Navigation

Now that you've got your content and organized it, you'll need to think about the way users will navigate through it. I find that it pays to be simplistic. Okay, it's dull to do the same kind of navigation schemes again and again but users are monumentally stupid and if you sart messing with what they expect your site will be a disaster. Here are a few general points to bear in mind:

• Keep major site sections down to a maximum of 7-8
  
• Put clear links to those sections at the top of the page beneath the logo
  
• Put section specific links on the left-hand side and use white space to your advantage, IE: keep it quite seperate from the content.
  
• Avoid graphical links at all costs; if you must use them put text alternatives at the bottom of each page.
  
• Consistency is the key. Design your navigation and repeat it on every page in the site. Don't even change the color if you can help it.
  
• Put contextual links from keywords in the body text to the appropriate pages. People follow contextual links far more than anything else!
  

There, that should get us started ;) Feel free to pick it to pieces guys, I didn't write it just so I could see my stuff on here. I want to know what you think and how you go about all of this. We all learn from each other here at Webmaster World, so let's here what you think ;-)

Nick
Great post Nick! Some very intersting material for us to consider. I totally agree with keeping the navigation scheme simple, though at times it is not always easy, especially if their are many sub-categories.

From a design standpoint I always find myself torn between two divergent philosopies: first, I want my sites to look unique... not like something off an assembly line. BUT! as you say, and rightfully so, If we vary too far from the norm, we lose useability AND site visitors who get lost trying to figure out our unique design scheme.

So after gathering all the important information, how do we create a site that meets the following criteria: #1 Effectively and immediately, communicates the purpose of the BUSINESS it features, #2 Invites exploration, #3 Incorporates features that will motivate to a desired goal.

The more I learn, the more I find myself falling back on basic priciples of presentation, i.e. headings, section text, text boxes and blockquotes. And of course, text links.

Clients may not always know what they want, but one thing they all need is a responsive site. Not one that just sits there. I'm not talking about flying banners or flashing text, I'm referring to a site that invokes a positive reaction.

We have lots to talk about here.... Thanks again for the great post Nick!
Nick_W,

Very nice post :)

About Us and Company profile seem to overlap in content in my opinion.

Nick << Content is King >>
I think where small business sites fall short is they do not lend themselves as a authority/expert in their type of business/field. They need to add original content that makes them the expert in their field. Service based businesses need to have tips, how-to's, common misconceptions about their line of business asked/answered, FAQ's pages, common mistakes, or just some specific information on the subject of their business.

Example: If a company did catering of food to parties/events. Have some information pertaining to the planning of the event, how to avoid common pitfalls, how much food to plan on per person, what types of food to avoid that people are commonly allergic to, how to choose a caterer, etc.

These would all be seperate pages that would lend authority to the business and make them the expert.

My 2-cents
great post nick, good to see such authorative competent stuff going on that we can aspire to ;)

>>Put section specific links on the left-hand side and use white space
to your advantage, IE: keep it quite seperate from the content.

I want to split a hair here? There was a thread a while ago in here about either/or left/right sided navigation. I believe the argument for right sided navigation (at least) is that it gets all those generic keywords for navigation over to the right and more page specific keywords further up the page. On the flip side, I gather that this prob can be overrun by using divs or absolute positioning???

Its only a grain of what was mentioned in the thread, but just wanted to see what the heads up is :) Im going to look for that left / right side nav thread

/added - the thread (just in case you wanted to side track and peak)
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/1807.htm
About Us and Company profile

Interesting point Contractor. It also leads to a decision: which to use? About Us is informal, almost folksy, while Company Profile communicates professionalism.

The choice should be made depending on the nature of the site. What sort of persona do you wish to communicate? The type of language used (professional/informal) is very important. It goes towards building identity and should be consistant throuhout.
Blue in the face is about right - I tell them repeatedly that the web is a poor at advertising, but great at information.

I like to get a good overview and feeling for their business, - gather my own impressions of their strengths, how they see themselves, and who their customers are.

A common issue is logo and photos - many small business have little graphic identity, or stuff more suitable for print than web. Photos are another issue, done well they can really help that important first impression, and break up pages of text throughout the site. When pressed, I will point out that on the web they will be competing for attention with sites costing 10-50 times their budget, and a good photo can make the difference. For local or regional sites, local photos are a plus - if a business is not photogenic, find some local scenery.

Good overview, Nick
I believe the argument for right sided navigation (at least) is that it gets all those generic keywords for navigation over to the right and more page specific keywords further up the page. On the flip side, I gather that this prob can be overrun by using divs or absolute positioning???

Yes, absolutely.

Ideally I'd say a 2 column layout should be marked up in this order:

• Header (logo and headline)
  
• Main section navigation
  
• Body text
  
• Section specific navigation
  
• Footer
  

About the company profile/about us:

I agree: I blundered, I meant to mean company profile should go under about us.

I like about us, I don't think it too 'folksy', rather, I think it adds a nice 'human touch' to a site.

Cheers

Nick
Photos are another issue, done well they can really help that important first impression, and break up pages of text throughout the site.

Yes, for a classic example of what kind of photos not to use you should see one of my client sites, very poor quality but what can you do? They love it ;)

Nick
papabaer,

Good point <<The type of language used (professional/informal) is very important. >>

I think this depends on the average audience of the site and who you are trying to reach/average customer.
If you are B2B you need the professional feel to the site and content/terms used. You can use industry specific jargon etc.

If you are servicing/catering to the average consumer you need to keep industry specific jargon out of the picture. Consumers will find it confusing. You need to touch base on personal terms with your user.

What thoughts/fears go through the consumers mind when seeking your services or products.
If you were selling used automobiles you need to have pages like 200-point inspection on all of our vehicles and 1-year warranty included.

Squelch their fears and gain a customer :)
Absolutely! And it is very important to initiate the style of language in elements of high visibility, e.g. headings, text links and section titles. Lay the foundation quickly!

<added>
Something just came to mind and it ties in with digitalghost's Real World Accessibility thread: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/2510.htm

Why is it that many business websites do NOT take accessibiliy into consideration? Javascript links, imagemaps and convoluted table layouts are some of the abuses. Isn't it in a businesses best interest to include accessibility into the design scheme? Of course, following some of the recommendations being made here, accessibility can bw easily incorporated. But! Is it only done passively... or as part of the overall plan?
</added>
very poor quality but what can you do? They love it

I'm becoming very tuned in to something my partner describes as Slick Isn't Sticky.

There's something about the folksy, down-home page that engages people, and something about the slick presentation that is just, well, slippery for the attention.

We're evolving a style for small business sites that is intentionally played down, not quite so clean in general. Something about it makes the pages more approachable and keeps people hanging on.
Well I'll be okay then, I have to fight almost eveyone I do something for on the issues of 'spinning logos' and 'hit counters'

Well, not really but it sure feels like it ;)

Nick
Avoid graphical links at all costs, if you must use them put text alternatives at the bottom of each page.

Why is this? On nearly all of my small business pages, I create graphic links to sub-pages. I make sure that they are obviously buttons, include the alt tags, and have text links at the bottom of the page. I find that buttons designate major links (contact us, products) as opposed to minor links (press release #16, widget now available in blue, etc.)
Nice work Nick. Hey, one favor. Can you email one of the URL's for a client you have. I want to check out one of your sites. Actually, can you send me the URL that you like the most ....structurally and mechanically?
Hi Corey,
unfortuantely their is none that I'm soooo proud of, athough they all look quite nice. My own site is my favourite small business site. You can check it out and clients in the site in my profile.

Clients tend to have odd opinions of web designers, they hire an expert and then instruct them on how to build the site. Sheeesh, I wouldn't hire a mechanic to fix my car and then give him instructions!

Seriously though, none are that bad because as soon as they push me a little to far I just give them a gentle slap and get on with it ;)

graphical links

Well, I dislike them, I think they can usually be done nicely with text, css and background images. It makes for a cleaner feel to the markup and better food for spiders.

Just a personal opinion, not all of my ravings are based on much more than personal preference ;)

Nick
Avoid graphical links at all costs, if you must use them put text alternatives at the bottom of each page.
ssih: Done right I think you'll be alright. They might mean that some people turn off images while they surf...so you could be limiting aspects of your navigation for some users. That's just a thought.

Nick...once again great post, great information.

argument for right sided navigation
What about the fact that the majority of people are right-handed. They may find it easier to navigate with a right-side navbar and read pure content on the left. It's much better for me and makes sense.
Hi madcat

Couldn't agree more with the right navigation. It's just that users aren't used to it and they're notoriusly short on attention.

I prefer not to mess with it for the time being on business sites.

I'm working on a personal project though and am seriously considering a smooth looking right nav panel ;=)

Nick
Avoid graphical links at all costs, if you must use them put text alternatives at the bottom of each page.

I wouldn't say at all costs - I can't imagine there are many people surfing in this day and age with images turned off, and from a design perspective, sometimes the design demands graphical buttons. Listen to the design! :) But yes, most definitely be sure to have text links in the footer if nowhere else -- the search engines like them best.

Put contextual links from keywords in the body text to the appropriate pages, people follow contextual links far more than anything else!

Is that true? I must be the exception. I never follow contextual links. Well, I do follow them on rare occasions, but only in a new browser window so I can pickup where I was on the previous page.

Clients tend to have odd opinions of web designers, they hire an expert and then instruct them on how to build the site. Sheeesh, I wouldn't hire a mechanic to fix my car and then give him instructions!

That's because you can't shake a dead cat these days without hitting a web designer. Everyone's son/brother/nephew/niece is a web designer, and by golly, if they can do it for me, why do I need a professional?

Anyway, enjoying this thread. Thanks Nick.
Regarding surfing with graphics off: My intuition tells me that anyone doing that is surfing on less than a 56k modem, or is on an old computer that can't handle the computational effort; and by extension is too poor or too tightwad to be a customer for me or any of my clients. In other words, they don't concern me.

They say, You'll be amazed at what kind of boxes people are surfing on in middle america but my logs tell me that most people are surfing from work on Windows NT or at home with IE 5.5 and 6 and that Netscape 6 is making a comeback. Plus, lots of DSL audience out there.

Perhaps I'm being contemptuous or jumping the gun, but I think we've finally turned the corner about having to worry about those graphics turned off people and it's time to forget about it.

What we REALLY should worry about is people who surf with monitors tuned to 16 bit or thousands of color, which is the default setting that many folks never think about changing.
In a lot of rural areas the limiting factor is not computers or wallets, it's that the only internet connection available is slow. Don't write rural folks off, because depending on what you're selling, the further they live from a mall, the better prospects they are for buying online!
Hello Nick_W. This is a very nice thread. I imagine you will be a moderator soon if you keep this up! I actually was thinking of starting a thread about the process of creating a site for a small business, since I want to make the transition to full-time web dev.

Here is my idea:
*Create quite a few templates for your potential customers to view.
*Explain search engine philosophy to client.(very important)
*They must be involved.(content and graphics)
*Testimonials.

BTW: Thinking about trying to design profesionally myself soon. When I do, I will post an excellent thank you thread to WW, because I couldn't have done it w/out you! :)
buckworks,
I agree with you, but my logs show that the majority of my visitors are not in the sticks.
Maybe it's my and my client's industry and it doesn't speak for the web at large.
Perhaps I'm being contemptuous or jumping the gun, but I think we've finally turned the corner about having to worry about those graphics turned off people and it's time to forget about it.

I tend to agree, but don't forget screen readers, wirelsess devices and the like.

Stylesheets, stylesheets, stylesheets! ;)

Nick
On some wireless devices using cell phone technology, you pay by the kilobyte downloaded. One graphic can ruin your entire budget.
As recently as this past February, the absolute fastest speed available to me was 26k. I was too far for DSL, there was no cable modem access, hills and trees blocked me from the satellites, and the phone wiring in the streets was so degraded that I couldn't even get a speed of 28.8.

So I'd often turn off images when I was going to graphics heavy sites.

However... I think that anyone who browses with images turned off understands the ramifications of this and realizes that there are likely graphic buttons that they're not seeing. But any half-decent website will have the alt tags populated, and it should still be simple to navigate.

Featured Links:

Learn to program ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist it. If you can't program though, it really isn't that hard to learn enough to use cookies on a form.

Does your host run php? that's how I'd acomplish it though there are a few pretty handy JS whizzes round here that might help...

Nick
The easiest way in Perl is probably to use cgi.pm to maintain state via HTTP POST forms. The documentation is quite straightforward, and includes information about saving state to a file for loading back later, but as Nick suggests I imagine that you would be better off collaborating with a programmer.
sorry OhMyPixel but I think you are going to have to do some sort of programming to accomplish this. I would go with a single page form until you get something else working.
Nick_W,

how or where would one learn to accomplish this through cookies? I think (and hope) I could learn how but I just need somewhere to start <analogy> I feel like i've been plunged into a dense forest and now I have to find my way out with no map. So I'm sitting here with my flare gun shooting into the sky hoping to attract attention from someone who's familiar with the area </analogy>.

With websites there is usually a simple & dirty way to get things done and then there is a complex & neat way to do it. I think this is going to be a situation were this applies. I want to avoid the simple & dirty as much as possible.

hehe,

well, does your host run php?

Nick
I don't believe I currently have a plan that supports PHP but I can make that so if it is necessary. For the purposes of this can we assume that I have PHP capabilities?
Okay here is a little untested, unsafe, unsound and lots of other things beginning with 'un' snippet to get you going:

In your html on each each page of the form:


<?
if($HTTP_POST_VARS) { // if form has been posted
foreach($HTTP_POST_VARS as $key => $val) {
setcookie($key, $val, time() 3600); // set cookie for one hour for each form field
}
} else {
print(You must fill in all the fields);
exit;
}
?>

and on your last page do exactly the same and then:

<?
$recipient=youclient@his_site.com;
$subj=New contact form;
$msg=\nHere are the details:\n;
$extra=From: contact@his_site.com\nReply-To: $whatever_you_called_this_field\n;

foreach($HTTP_COOKIE_VARS as $key => $val) {
$msg.=\n$key\n$val\n\n;
}

mail($email, $subj, $msg, $extra);
?>

That's really not very comprehensive solution but it might get you started ;-)

Nick
Holy Scripting Batman!

I'm slightly scared just looking at the script you wrote. I'm not sure I quite understand how it works. I apologize - I've never had any programming experience. I guess what you are doing, in the most basic sense, is setting the cookie to store info and then submit it on the final page. I understand that in concept, but I don't quite understand the implementation of it.

One other question: Would it be easier to set cookies using Javascript?

I appreciate all your time/input.
I think there is a pitfall here somewhere but I cant remember where.

A possible option is to have the form on different layers in the same html page. The user navigates through the layers until he/she gets to the final layer with the submit button on it. Then all the fields get submitted to your run of the mill form handeling script at the one time.
Using JavaScript to set cookies is possible, but not really recommended: first, it requires some extra programming (JavaScript reads all the cookies as one single string, which you then have to parse and split up into individual cookies) and many people have JavaScript turned off.

It's best to use server-side programming, such as PHP. Using PHP, you don't need to use cookies at all (which is good, because many people distrust cookies, and have their browsers set to either refuse cookies, or to ask first before setting them). For example, if on page1.php you have the following code:

<input type=text name=foo>

then, on page2.php it becomes available to PHP as a variable called $foo, which you can write in as the value of a hidden field:

<input type=hidden name=foo value=<?=$foo?>>

...and so on, for all the pages of your form. This is, in fact, exactly what hidden form elements were designed for.

On the other hand, you want to be careful when designing forms. They should be as short and easy to understand as possible, and multiple page forms should really be used only if absolutely necessary.
There are several schemes for maintaining info across pages:

1. You can store all of the info on the client side in a cookie. Beware that there are limits on how much info you can store in a cookie, although it varies among browsers.
   
2. You can store the info on the server side in a database. Using a cookie for a customer ID, you keep track of the info in the database. The problem is people who balk: when do you purge that info from the database?
   
3. You post hidden fields from page to page accumulating the info from previous pages into the hidden fields until the accumulated info is posted to the final processing script.
   

All three require knowledge of scripting in some form or another. This kind of thing is one thing that .NET makes easier.
Paste the following into a file called FORM.ASP...

<FORM METHOD=post ACTION=/nextform.asp>
<INPUT TYPE=text NAME=field_001>
<INPUT TYPE=text NAME=field_002>
<INPUT TYPE=text NAME=field_003>
<INPUT TYPE=submit VALUE=Next>
</FORM>

---

Paste the following into a file called
NEXTFORM.ASP...

<%
' Now we take the info from FORM.ASP and turn it into variables.

DIM field1, field2, field3

field1 = request.Form(field_001)
field2 = request.Form(field_002)
field3 = request.Form(field_003)

' We can then take those variables and place them into hidden input field in the next form by calling those variables like so...
%>

<FORM METHOD=post ACTION=/thirdform.asp>
<INPUT TYPE=hidden VALUE=<%=field1%>>
<INPUT TYPE=hidden VALUE=<%=field2%>>
<INPUT TYPE=hidden VALUE=<%=field3%>>
<INPUT TYPE=submit VALUE=Next>

<%
' The hidden fields pass on info behind the scenes and are great for this kind of data transfer. Basically, you're useing ASP to create the values of the hidden fields from the form before it, and then you can do the same to pass more info to the next form, which in this case would be THIRDFORM.ASP - and so on. %>

---

Things to remember:

All ASP code must begin and end with delimiters which would look like <% this %>. This is how the server knows that it needs to process ASP code. You also must be on a server that's running some flavor of a Windows server since ASP is owned by Micro$oft.

You can store ANYTHING in a variable, but make sure that you define it like so:

DIM myname, yourname
myname = Steve
yourname = OhMyPixel

If you request.Form(formfield) then you don't have to use quotes like I did for the myname and yourname variables.

You might want to do a Google Search for the ASP Message Board. They can help you more on this subject if you choose to use ASP.

I like it because it's EXTREMELY easy to use once you get down the fundamentals.

Good Luck
HyperGeek beat me to it. I was going to suggest doing the same in JSP.
Since Nick_W threw the code up I decided it was time to get my backside in gear and start learning the basics of programming (can you hear the crowd scream in unison yay!). I'm learning some javascript first, then PHP, then VBSCRIPT. If you have any suggestions on order/importance, etc. please let me know.

Sequill, your suggestion is interesting although I am not comfortable enough with layers to pursue that solution. It might be something to consider in the future.

Rewboss, I had an idea of this just no clue on where to start.

XOC, thank you! A basic idea of what options are available is EXACTLY where I needed to start.

Hypergeek, YOU ARE AWESOME! The coolest thing is that my hosting service doesn't have CGI support because it runs on IIS 5.0 (they whine about potential security problems). This is definitely what I'm looking for - I'll take a deeper look at it once I get home and I'll be making a post a little bit later.

Thank you to everyone. If you have any more info to share please don't hesitate!
a little late to the party but...
There are also free CGI scripts like AlienForm that, with a bit of template tweaking, may do what you want with templates without having to dirty your hands with scripting/programming too much...unfortunately you don't have CGI on your host I see...
Two books I highly suggest:

1. ASP For Dummies (third edition): This book is fantastic and goes through everything from the basics to reading and writing from/to a database. Even goes into some SQL stuff.

2. ASP Instant Reference: The best ASP reference book out there. Complete as complete can be when it comes to VBSCRIPT - and yes, also covers some SQL.

ASP is a very easy language to learn and you can sprinkle it within HTML to make those pages flexible and dynamic.

I would suggest the following course of action if you're interested in learning how to code.

- Brush up on your HTML and then...

a) Learn some ASP/VBScript.

b) download some JavaScripts so that you can validate your HTML forms - this will be an great intro to JavaScript (which becomes important when you're working with forms).

NOTE: I have never really learned JavaScript because of the ABUNDANCE of ready-made scripts available on the internet. What i would suggest is to search Google (or your favorite SE) for JavaScript web sites - or even for the type of script you need (EX: form validation javascript). Then you can edit those and play around with modifying them in different ways (and even possibly combining them with other JavaScripts). This is what I've been doing for the last five years - and even though I own plenty of books on the language, I rarely use it for anything but form validation (and sometimes internal content pop-ups).

c) Get a book on CSS (Cascading Style Sheets). This is soemthing that, when you want to take a break from the ASP, you can fool around with CSS. This is a handy thing to know and compliments any web page nicely. It's also soon to be the standard in many other things besides font manipulation and text positioning.

d) XML. This is when you get hardcore. It basically allows you to create your own form of markup language (like HTML).

Have fun.

- Check out W3Schools and ASP 101 for ASP tutorials. ASPMessageBoard (3GuysFromRolla) for a very lively support group.

- Javascript.Internet.com & Javascript.com have lots of scripts and so does Doc JavaScript and www.webReference.com/js/.

- The CSS Master Grid can be found here (it'll help greatly when it comes to Netscape/IE cross browser compatibility issues)...

www.webreview.com/style/css1/charts/mastergrid.shtml

...and more info on CSS can be found by digging around www.w3.org (The WWW Consortium).

Have fun learning how to code... I know I do!

NOTE: I'm a high school dropout that's completely self-taught. My site, Hypergeek.com, is an entertainment-oriented directory coded entirely in notepad.exe with VBSCRIPT, SQL, CSS, XML and Javascript. If I can accomplish this, I'm convinced that anyone can - as long as they take the time to learn and ask questions.
Bill, I've actually already downloaded AlienForm and started looking at it just for kicks. I've signed up another account with a webhost that provides CGI-Bin access for free so I'm gonna check that out.

Hypergeek, THANK YOU. I have copied this whole thing into word and have saved it for when I get a chance to browse a little bit more (I'm at work). It sounds like you have quite a bit of knowledge on the subjects - Thank you for taking the time to share it.

Update: I started to learn JavaScript yesterday and I'm just aiming to get the basics of the language down because it is needed for one of the projects here at work. I'm doing pretty well and I've ordered a few used books from Amazon (anyone else do this? its a steal) on the subject. My next goal is to get on ASP and VBScript. If I am correct ASP is just the extension while VBscript is the language used to write the code for .ASP files?

sitenote: I have to watch myself now because I use to tell all my programmers at work that programmers are WEIRD FREAKS. It looks like I've been assimilated. Uh oh.
Correct, ASP is actually the name of the technology (Active Server Pages) not to be confused with the service provider acronym also commonly used.

Active Server Pages uses the VBScript code type based a a simple version of VB (Visual Basic).

I've never written VB, but I've been told - although a lot more complex and in depth - it's syntax (the way the code and code structure is written) is similar.

I would like to stress the point of not going crazy with the JavaScript. It's a handy thing to know, but when it comes down to CODING - sometimes there'll be things that you don't want someone to see if they view source on one of your pages. Anything you write in VBScript is processed on the SERVER side (thus the user - or client - won't ever see your code, just the HTML output!) - but anything you write in JavaScript will be used client side (by the user's browser/computer) and is most often visible and clunky if you concern yourself with overall page size (and the time it takes to download that page).

Javascript also can defeat the purpose of optimizing a page - because it's sometimes considered part of your content by various spiders and can be indexed as such when your site is crawled. It not good to have lines of JavaScript as your site's description - even if the site's about Javascript. :)

HERE'S A LITTLE TIP ON JAVASCRIPT:

Most people throw the JS up in the HEAD of a page - but sometimes, if there's more than just a form validation script up there, it can slow down the load time of that page because the script is being processed before the HTML is.

Try this... Throw your JS underneath the </HTML> tag. It will STILL be processed, but immediately AFTER the page is loaded for the user instead of before. By the time the user needs to have the functionality of the script working on the page, it will have already loaded, and the page might have displayed anywhere from 3 to 5 seconds faster.

This may seem nitpicky, but when you consider all of the stuff added to some pages by the time they're completed - these few seconds trimmed here and there can be the difference of a page being fully loaded in 3 seconds instead of 12.

WebmasterWorld.com: For Freaks, By Freaks.
Hyper,

def. a good idea (positioning of javascript). I was reading about this a few minutes ago on a website.

I never planned on becoming a hardcore javascript coder - I just wanted to get a good understanding so that I could use what is out there and also improvise when necessary. What sources do you use for free javascript besides 'view source'?
Anything you write in VBScript is processed on the SERVER side (thus the user - or client - won't ever see your code, just the HTML output!) - but anything you write in JavaScript will be used client side (by the user's browser/computer) and is most often visible and clunky if you concern yourself with overall page size (and the time it takes to download that page).
Not true. Sometimes it may seem that way, but that's not the way it is.

Both JavaScript and VBScript can be, as it were, stand-alone: that is, both can execute independently of a browser, both can be used for server-side programming. However, JavaScript is almost never used in this way, and VBScript often isn't. In fact, you can embed VBScript in an HTML document in exactly the same way you embed JavaScript.

The problem with client-side VBScript is that it's a Microsoft thing: that is, it will only work on a Microsoft browser. You also need to install the interpreter -- I haven't, and am often prompted to install it on downloading a website, because the site uses embedded VBScript. JavaScript is cross-browser compatible, although there are major differences in the way it interacts with the browser's DOM (and here we're talking about DHTML).

Server-side VBScripts -- and this includes ASP -- are generally available on Microsoft servers, but not always (or possibly never, I'm not sure) on UNIX servers -- and the majority of hosts use UNIX. But if your host does support ASP, you don't have to worry about what browser is being used, because the server-side script doesn't care (unless you specifically tell it to care).

If you want to remove JavaScripts from your HTML files (for ease of indexing or whatever), you can use external .js files, called by the src attribute of the <script> tag. You can then use the same script for different pages, and these files -- just like images -- are cached, so it actually cuts down on bandwidth in the long run.
Thanks for that post, Rewboss.

I was profiling the types of scripting for simplicity.

I use external .JS, too - but when you include and import more than two or three external files - it can tend to slow down load time.

Then again, if you're on a good server and receive modest traffic... then you probably won't even notice the difference with more than an eye blink.

Also, you can View Source and then gank the external files. That's why I love server-processed pages. It doesn't deliver what you might not want it to.
Another option is to put the form(s) page(s) in a frame set. You can then just change one frame and store all needed info in the other (invisible) frame.
Here is one I love and it's free and does not require you to be able to program: http://cgi.tj/scripts/alienform/

Oops - I see someone has already mentioned it. Well if you have any questions shoot them to me - been using it for years in hundreds of situations

-s-
HyperGeek,

Is it possible for the final page to display the information and also have the submit button?

I tried using response.write but I guess my formatting is incorrect. Can you help me with the last page that will submit it to an e-mail address?

::Edit::

What I have so far can be found on my test server at:

http://www.simetra.com/test/form.asp
http://www.simetra.com/test/nextform.asp
http://www.simetra.com/test/nextform2.asp

Also, I've noticed that my first form field isn't carried over to the final page. is my code incorrect?
Whoops. In my posted code, I didn't put the NAME attributes in the hidden fields. Do this in NEXTFORM.ASP:

<INPUT TYPE=hidden VALUE=xxx NAME=field_001>
<INPUT TYPE=hidden VALUE=ccc NAME=field_003>
<INPUT TYPE=hidden VALUE=vvv NAME=field_003>

Now you can pass those values onto the next page.

To print (display) them to the page do the same thing you did with the form's VALUE attributes.

NAME: <%=field1%>
AGE: <%=field2%>
ect...

Printing a variable to a form field is the same as printing it to the page itself. The only difference is that the form hides the code you're processing (unless you use a text field and print the variable as VALUE=<%variable%>) - then it will display that info inside the form field for the user to see).
I can see this as FAR too complicated for poor ohmypixel.

How about this as a way to avoid programming and cookies altogether:
1) Using Frontpage or whatever wysiwig editor you use to create a form of one page (your first page). Call it response form 1 or something and add the time of day or IP address of the user if your wysiwig editor allows it.
2) Have the results emailed to you.
3) Make the confirmation page ANOTHER FORM... which does exactly the same thing, and so on.

The result is a series of emails for the same form, but if you don't expect hundreds every day, it is at least an easy way to start. If you can marry them all up with the same IP number on every form then even better.

Not exactly a programmer's solution, but I think you are looking for something simpler and this is it.
Hypergeek!

I got it working and it was a CINCH! Absolutely flawless. My client is more than happy and finds that breaking it into a couple pages was a great idea (yay me!). I appreciate all your help.

If you want a URL of the product sticky me.

-OMP

p.s. receptional I don't know whether to be offended or grateful :P.

Featured Links:

The other constraint is that people who sew are often not computer experts, so whatever solution I settle on has to be very, very simple for the user. And has to work reliably on every model of printer, all around the world.

Here's where I need your help:

As far as I can tell, GIF files don't always print at their true size. See my test pattern at http://quiltersreview.com/test_pattern.asp

When I open the GIF in PaintShop Pro, it tells me it's a perfect 6 by 6. Whether you print the page or click on the link and print just the GIF, you may or may not get a 6 x 6 test pattern. On my printer, I get 4.75 x 4.75.

So my question for you is:

Can I create simple GIF graphics and expect them to print at exactly the same size on everybody's printer, without expecting the user to do anything fancy?

Thanks!

Charlie
I think you need to go with PDF (Adobe) files.
PDF files raise a whole separate set of issues that I'm planning to explore in another thread. For right now, I'm just trying to understand exactly how GIF files work.

Can anybody tell me the relationship between the size of a GIF reported in PaintShop Pro and the size at which the image prints? (See first post, above, for details.)

Thanks,

Charlie
Don't print gifs. They are a horrible format for printing. You want to print at atleast 150 dots per inch. Gifs are 72. Your printer is probably making it higher resolution so it will look better. This makes your picture smaller on paper.

I would make a gif version that people could see on the web but save the actual file to a tiff, pict, bmp, targa, or something more printable. You could even really save it as a jpg just higher compression. Just link from the gif preview to the larger file. This should initiate a download to open in the users own editor. You could even have links to free editors off your site.

Don't trust a browsers to render or print graphics.
When my mother used to do lots of sewing, she had the patterns spread all over the dining room table, and they were much bigger than could be printed with a normal desktop printer. Plus, of course, they had to be pinned to the fabric, and you can only do that with very thin tissue paper, which you can't feed through a normal desktop printer, much less actually print on.

Then you have the big headache about paper size. While Americans are using paper sizes called Legal and Executive, Europeans are using A5 and A4 -- and the height/width ratios are very different (A4 is noticeably narrower and longer than the nearest American equivalent -- if I have to photocopy a letter from America, I have to copy it at about 90% so that it will fit).

Different browsers, printers and operating systems will give different results.
Thanks!

Re: sewing patterns...these are actually quilting templates, so the pieces are all small (2 to 6) and normal printer paper is fine. Trust me on that.

Re: the printer changing the resolution. This sounds like an important clue!

Does everyone agree that when a typical PC user prints a typical GIF from the typical browser on their typical printer, the GIF will typically be printed at a higher resolution than 72 and therefore appear smaller than it was designed to?

That would certainly explain a lot.

(No offense, Korkus2000 -- I always take a poll on any keystone fact like this. I really appreciate your bringing it up!)

Thanks all,

Charlie
Does everyone agree that when a typical PC user prints a typical GIF from the typical browser on their typical printer, the GIF will typically be printed at a higher resolution than 72 and therefore appear smaller than it was designed to?

AFAIK, it depends entirely on the printer and it's driver software. Some printers have features that are designed to smooth web graphics when printed, which would affect any gif image...

I would also recommend using PDF format, with the grpahics designed at a minimum 150ppi resolution. 300ppi would be better for detailed images, but I'd imagine quilting templates are mostly fairly simple outline images, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Incidentally, there is a difference between dpi (dots per inch) and ppi (pixels per inch). The first is used for printers, the second for monitors.

The problem is that graphics editors usually assume that you are working with dots, not pixels; for the web, you will normally be working with pixels rather than dots. Things start to go awry when the browser has to convert from ppi to dpi. How many ppi does the browser assume?
Well, most graphics programs won't do anything in dpi unless you specifically half-tone the image for print. The DPI ratings you see for inkjet printers really have nothing to do with the image settings...

Half-toning (and therefore dpi) isn't something you'd need to deal with at all, until you send your image to a professional printing press. In which case, get specifications from your print shop... most of them will just specify a file type & minimum ppi resolution, and can handle the half-toning and color separations themselves.

If you're talking about folks printing your files on their home printers, ppi is the only resolution setting you need to deal with. In that case, any ppi setting high enough to prevent jaggies (visible pixellation) in the printed output is good enough. 150 is a good minimum for good inkjet output, in my experience.

But there's no option for such fanciness with GIF format... it's really intended just for on-screen display, and defaults to 72ppi.

Clear as mud? ;)
Now I'm starting to get it!

1) GIF defaults to 72ppi. (Side issue: Is it possible to have a GIF at other than 72ppi?)

2) Printers think in dpi, not ppi.

3) Therefore, the printer must translate the GIF from ppi to dpi.

4) The assumptions the printer makes about the number of dots per pixel (or pixels per dot) determines the final printed size of your GIF.

If the translation of ppi to dpi were handled numerically the same across most printers, then I'd be all set -- I'd just have to take that conversion into account when I create my GIF.

What do you think? Do most printers translate pixels to dots the same (numerically)?
2) Printers think in dpi, not ppi.
3) Therefore, the printer must translate the GIF from ppi to dpi.
4) The assumptions the printer makes about the number of dots per pixel (or pixels per dot) determines the final printed size of your GIF.

I'm not sure about those points. Some printers actually advertise a feature for
smoothing web graphics... others don't. I've never had a problem with my Epson printers changing the dimensions of GIFs though.

I don't think, however, that there is anything as specific as an actual dots per pixel number. The printed pixels in a 300ppi 2x2 image would be much smaller than those in a 72ppi 2x2 graphic... as the 300ppi image would be 600pixels x 600pixels in that two inch space, while the 72ppi image would only be 144p x 144p... so the printer wouldn't really be able to have a simple dots per pixel conversion.

The printer probably doesn't think in dpi at all. In conventional printing (such as newspapers & magazines), DPI refers to the number of halftone dots per inch in a screened image. Inkjets don't use halftone dots, and I'm honestly not sure what their dpi rating means... it could be the number of halftone dots they can print per square inch before the dots get blurry and bleed together, but I really don't know.

I don't know of any way to create a GIF at higher than 72ppi. Check to see if your printer's settings have some kind of smoothing option you could turn off.

Also, double check the pixel dimensions of your GIFs... ignore the inches measurements your software is giving you. If you want a 4 x 4 printed image from a 72ppi GIF file, the file should be 288 x 288 pixels...
Put a ruler on all of your graphics so someone can hold a ruler up to the monitor and compare the size of an inch on screen (and then provide links to several different sizes of the image so that different resolutions print correctly).
I believe you can save a GIF graphic in any resolution. However, the higher the resolution, the larger the GIF will appear when it is displayed on the screen (like in a browser).

The problem is, Macs display at 72ppi and Windows displays at 96ppi. Also, most printer not will print truly accurate measurements, because they are too dependent on software drivers. About the only printers you can depend on are PostScript printers, because they all use similar drivers. Most people don't use PostScript printers, because they are more expensive.

I heartily recommend using PDF format because:

1) The format is compressed and downloads quickly.

2) You can use Page Layout Software to create the patterns, such as PageMaker, to assure you the most accurate measurements possible. With page layout software, you can resize the graphics to any size you desire.

3) Acrobat is a worldwide standard for compatibility in documents. Almost everybody uses it. The reader is freely downloadable from adobe.com.

4) It would be very easy for unexperienced users to use.
Correct me if I am wrong BUT, I believe there are also scaling options in most browsers under FILE>PRINT. Not only will you have size conversion problems with the .GIF file but sometimes printers are set at 80% or so to make sure that web pages fit on the width of the paper. This could really throw off your graphic as well. It seems like this could create another problem if you are not careful - Being that this is something that your visitors are probably not going to be savvy enough to change (according to your post).

<non expert opinion>I say PDF all the way.</non expert opinion>
Seems to me that you simply put the gif into a standard document (i.e. a Word File - or an RTF file for cross platform compatibility). Since you save the page layout along with those it's simply a matter of embedding your image (set it to stretch so resolution is irrelevant) into the page (set it up for a standard 8.5 x 11.5 piece of paper.) If someone changes the size of the paper, your embedded image will still maintain its size unless they physically change it.

This should work, and since it's merely a pattern and not a work of art, you could probably get away with an image designed to print at even 3 inches and stretch it to 6 in the document and it'd still work because the contents of the page hasn't changed, just the available print area.

In answer to a previous question, yes, GIF files can be of something different than 72, but GIF's are mainly for onscreen viewing, not printing - they'd use TIF or TGA files for quality printing.

The key here is that you're looking for a small file size (GIF's are fine, JPG's might be better) but printing gets fishy when you try to print them raw because your printer will try to make best use of the page, by default. By saving it into a formatted document designed to be printed, you eliminate that headache.

Oh, and yes, they're right about PDF files, but you're looking at buying and learning new software. You should be just fine if you use word or some other word processor.

G.
This is stupid simple:

72 dpi = Web Graphics

200, 300, 600, 1200, etc. dpi = Print Graphics

Go into any graphic editor and change the dpi to 300.

Then change the dimensions of the graphic from pixels to inches.

Most graphics will be something like 40px X 45px.

Change this to the size of the swatch/pattern, 2in X 3in.

Remember, for a graphic to print - it really only needs to be the right dimensions measured in inches. For it to print in better quality, the graphic should not only be measured in inches, but it should then be a higher DPI (dots per inch - 300 is standard, 600 is high-quality for logos and such, 1200 and up is usually used for industrial print jobs).

Nice! I'm now a full member. :
The original problem was that her graphics editor was telling her the image was one size, but her printer was printing a smaller image. If your image editor says the image is 3 x 3, and your printer is producing a 2.5 x 2.5 image, you've got a bit of a mix up somewhere...

So if you want to make absolutely sure all of your users get the image to print at 3 x 3, giving them a raw gif image probably will not do the trick, given the vagaries of modern printer drivers and default scaling options that novice users may not be aware of.
CDarling's graphics editor is making an assumption about how many pixels there are to an inch on her screen. That relationship depends on the size of her screen and the resolution. If she has her screen resolution set to 800x600, and her screen is exactly 12 inches wide, that means there are 66.67 pixels to every inch. Change the resolution to 1024, and now there's 85.33 pixels per inch. But the graphics editor can't tell how big the screen actually is, so assumes 72ppi.

The printer driver, though, is probably working at 300dpi. That means one pixel becomes 4.167x4.167 printer dots. But you can't have 0.167 of a dot, so the printer makes it 4. That's probably where the error comes from, and the reason why the image prints out smaller.

Change to 300dpi, and it should work -- if the user has his or her printer set to 300dpi.

A printer dot is the smallest dot a printer can print. For an inkjet printer, it's easy to visualize: the dot made by the smallest drop of ink the hardware and software will allow. 300dpi is fairly normal, and the dots are much smaller than the half-tone dots in newsprint -- but they're still dots.

Some browsers running on Windows had a problem when printing out text in sizes specified in pixels: they simply translated pixels into dots. Text specified as 12px printed out as 12 dots high -- at 300dpi, that's illegible. That now doesn't affect many people, but for a while px were, for that reason, not a recommended unit of measurement in CSS.

Incidentally, I can create GIFs of 300dpi and more with my graphics editor. At that resolution, an image 800x600 pixels (a screenshot, say), fills the entire screen, but prints out at 2.67x2 inches.

Incidentally, I can create GIFs of 300dpi and more with my graphics editor. At that resolution, an image 800x600 pixels (a screenshot, say), fills the entire screen, but prints out at 2.67x2 inches.

OK. So it IS possible, but there isn't much reason to use GIF for high-res work... Thanks for straightening that out! If I'm working high res, I always just use TIFF.

I wasn't sure if inkjet printer DPI ratings were actually referring to the ink droplet size, because when I look at an inkjet print these days, the printer specs may say 1200dpi, but it sure looks like you could fit more than 1200 of the ink drops into an inch...

Do you happen to know if inkjets are measured by how many droplets per inch they can produce without them bleeding together? Or what specific measurement is used? I've never found DPI measurements to be any use for anything except halftone screens, just because no other application of the measurement seems very standardized.
I think the point is made that she should not use gifs. There are to many variables involved. Your best result would be PDF. If you can't do that try another format. Gifs were really created for lossless compression for images less than 256 colors. They were ment for images to be very small. If you are going to make a gif above 72dpi then I suggest using png.

What you are trying to do, as you can see, is a tough one on the web. Thats why the folks at adobe created PDF. It is used for exactly what you are trying to do. Really anything else is going to be a hack.

also paper quality and the actual ink/toner does matter. I have seen inkjets print at 1440 dpi. They have no comparisson to 600dpi from a fiery. There are a lot of variables when it comes to printing. Thats why I am a web designer. Its much easier than print. No gamut and stuff like that.

Does paintshop pro not have a print size view like photoshop?
Do you happen to know if inkjets are measured by how many droplets per inch they can produce without them bleeding together?
Whether or not the dots bleed together depends not just on the closeness of the droplets, but the quality of the ink and of the paper. Once you're in the 1000 region, you're looking at high-quality photos printed on special glossy paper. You might need that sort of resolution if you're a professional photographer.
You could also add a scale to your image and a grid in the backgground, see this washer part page for example.
I think working PDF files are the best solution. I use PDF a lot to make copies of HTML texts, though I have no experience in putting images in PDF. However, here is a thought:

Along with every image in the PDF file, include an image of a ruler showing inches and centimeters. That way the user who prints it can compare the ruler image to a real ruler to verify that the printed pattern is the correct size -- AND (this is where I feel really clever), if the printed pattern is not, most photcopiers will enlage/reduce by percentages (e.g., 92%, 105%) which, with a little trial and error, could be used to make a photocopy exactly the right size. If the pattern is a black-and-white line image, a second-generation photocopy would probably be okay.
Somebody mentioned that there would be an issue learning an additional piece of software to create the PDF document. Fine Print offers a product called pdfFactory that you install on your computer as a printer. When you need to create a PDF, you simply print to the pdfFactory printer, type in a filename, and save your PDF.

Edward

Featured Links: