Setting up a new computer is something I look forward to (make fun of me if you want). There’s something about reading the specs and knowing you have a more capable tool at your disposal. It feels like I’m improving myself as much as my business.
Historically, part of this ritual includes installing a ton of apps. I add the requisite Adobe design tools, the Microsoft Office suite for productivity, and a host of other software. Apps for email, FTP, media conversion, and a local web server environment remain staples.
My current system is now a few years old, and I have dozens (hundreds?) of these apps. They still serve their purpose. But it recently dawned on me that most of what I use could be replaced by a web browser. That will likely mean fewer apps to install on my next computer.
These are words I never thought I’d utter. My web design career began before the first release of Netscape. As such, I’ve had a love/hate relationship with browsers. For every benefit, there have been limitations and quirks to deal with.
These days, you can do pretty much anything within your chosen browser. That got me thinking: are traditional design apps still relevant? Should we abandon them for browser-based tools? I’m not so sure, but let’s figure this out together.
It used to be that most browser-based apps were inferior to their desktop counterparts. Common workflows like text and media editing felt clunky and minimally useful. I used them in a pinch and usually came away frustrated.
Meanwhile, desktop powerhouses like Excel, Photoshop, and Dreamweaver were infinitely more flexible. They were built for those who care about quality and require high-level functionality. Such professional-grade tools have always been worth the cost.
That narrative has been turned on its head by a combination of more powerful web standards and server technologies. There are now online video editing platforms that can produce top-notch results. Design tools like Figma make it easy to create and share interactive mockups. Google’s suite of productivity tools offers all the bells and whistles without compromise. Even Photoshop has an online version these days.
Collaboration might be the biggest selling point of all. You can keep clients and colleagues in the loop with minimal effort. This improves efficiency and saves us from the never-ending email chains of yesteryear.
And the appeal of these apps goes beyond functionality and convenience. They’re also cross-platform and device-agnostic. It used to be that you’d need a desktop app built specifically for your operating system. Using a browser means it works on Windows, Linux, macOS, Android, iOS, and more.
Then there are the hardware requirements. Granted, you should still have a system with plenty of memory and a modern graphics processor. However, having a massive hard drive isn’t necessary when storing files in the cloud.
The old boundaries of software have vanished. Doing all the things within a browser isn’t a chore like it used to be. And these apps may be enough for most web designers.
Software is always an investment, regardless of how you access it. There are also privacy and security risks to consider. Browser-based tools often amplify those concerns.
Companies like Adobe and Microsoft have some level of tracking within their desktop apps. And they do connect to the internet. So, this is nothing new. But working in a browser opens up a different (or, at least, a bigger) can of worms.
For instance, cloud storage is quite convenient. But what happens if the provider gets sold or goes out of business? Will you lose access to your data? Are policies in place to maintain account security in the event of a breach or server crash? The answers aren’t always clear, and you may not find out until something bad happens.
Then there is the matter of artificial intelligence (AI). It seems like every tool on the planet has an AI integration of sorts. How are these features used on your content? Does the provider train their models with your work? Could your sensitive information become exposed online?
Working online also opens you up to third-party tracking. It may be something relatively innocent, like an analytics suite. But ad networks and similar companies could be watching you – and there is no guarantee they’ll abide by the rules.
These are important questions to answer when thinking about your (and your client’s) data. Again, desktop apps aren’t immune to these issues. But an online app that shows up overnight deserves an honest assessment. The risks could far outweigh the benefits.
It’s truly amazing to see how far web technologies have come in the past decade. You can see it in both commercial and open-source software. Functionality once reserved for powerful desktop devices can now exist in the palm of your hand (and with responsive design, for that matter).
I still believe there’s a tradeoff, however. The work-from-anywhere tools we use have plenty of benefits (provided you really do want to work from your lawn chair). But you lose a measure of control along the way.
There’s something to be said for storing files locally (with routine backups, of course). Not to mention the ability to customize an app’s layout or tool set to match your workflow. There’s a level of personalization you don’t seem to get in a browser.
The reality is that you don’t need desktop software for every purpose. There are plenty of online tools that will do the job. But there are scenarios where these old-school beasts make sense.
For example, I can’t imagine Disney making their next hit movie solely within a browser. And web designers who want full control of their workflow might want to keep a few items installed on their hard drives. I know I will.
The post Are Browser-Based Apps Enough for Web Designers? appeared first on Speckyboy Design Magazine.
In this post, User Experience team intern Hannah Watson shares her work over the summer researching digital content accessibility with the EdWeb 2 publishing community.
As part of my internship with the User Experience Service, I have been investigating digital accessibility at the content level across University web pages, particularly on EdWeb 2 sites. Digital accessibility at the content level is about applying principles of accessibility to how web content is written and formatted. This includes, but is not limited to, content features such as heading levels, links, and alt text. It does not include anything that is not involved with content design or that is controlled at a higher level by the Content Management System (CMS), such as font, font size, or colour contrast.
The specific research questions for this project were:
More comprehensively, I was investigating the accessibility of:
For more detailed guidance on these topics, please refer to the University of Edinburgh editorial style guide.
Editorial style guide | Information Services
This research has been necessary for the User Experience team as it allows us to identify which areas of content accessibility are challenging for web publishers. From this, the team can adapt guidance and training to provide extra support on these more challenging areas where possible.
I started my research by setting up short, informal interviews with six University web publishers. In these interviews, I asked the publishers about their experiences of creating digitally accessible content. The aim of these conversations was to understand how publishers learned about digital accessibility and what challenges they face when making content as accessible as it can be. During the interviews, we referred to web pages that these publishers work on to get concrete examples that illustrate the topics we discussed. Through these interviews, I was able to identify a number of trends, particularly in the challenges that the interviewees and their colleagues face.
Following these interviews, I created a survey to further investigate the findings and collate more supporting evidence for these findings. The survey consisted of 10 questions, three of which were demographic based as a filter, with a final question asking permission to follow up with those who responded.
The other six questions asked about:
The findings from the survey were effective in making the information gathered in interviews more robust and provided further evidence for some trends that were identified previously.
To publicise this survey, I sent a brief statement explaining my research into two Teams channels, the Web Accessibility Special Interest Group and the EdWeb 2 Community. Overall, the survey received five responses, and while this is a limited number, I found that it helped to support the findings from the interviews.
The final method of research that I used to learn about the digital accessibility of content on University web pages was by looking at pages that were submitted within Effective Digital Content workbooks as part of the course. The course requires learners to choose pages from a University website and assess the effectiveness of the content. By looking at the pages that learners selected, I was able to use active examples and make note of content accessibility issues that were present on live pages. This process also highlighted a number of trends.
This method of research was also useful in that it provided two separate sources of data. Firstly, the answers in the workbook helped me to gauge learners’ understanding of the principles covered in the course. Secondly, the web pages linked by those taking the course allowed me to have live examples of content to assess against content accessibility principles. While there was not necessarily overlap between the answers in the workbook and the pages submitted as part of the workbook (as some people may not have been fully or at all responsible for the content on those pages, or the content could have been updated since the workbook was submitted), it was useful to see these things separately.
Combining findings from all areas of research for this project, I have identified a number of trends in the accessibility of digital content.
In the interviews and the survey, participants were asked what principles of accessible digital content they actively used when designing content. More than half of participants mentioned three principles in particular, with all participants mentioning at least two, which were:
Interestingly, while these principles were mentioned frequently by participants, and evidenced by the websites that we discussed in interviews, they are also principles that are often missed on University web pages. This is discussed in more detail in the corresponding sections further on in this post.
One standout finding from the interviews was that web publishers sometimes struggle to find an effective alternative to PDFs. While PDFs are not necessarily accessible, they do have benefits which make them useful for publishers. For example, they are downloadable, searchable, and cannot be easily edited without permission from the owner. There are ways to make PDFs more accessible, such as avoiding decorative images, adhering to accessible content design principles within the PDF, and checking colour contrast. However, the interviewees were more in favour of finding a way to turn their content into a webpage as this is more likely to result in accessible content.
Out of the survey responses, three also mentioned that they had recently chosen to publish content as a web page rather than as a PDF, highlighting their knowledge that a web page is preferable in terms of accessibility. However, their personal preferences or how difficult they found this is unknown as I was unable to follow up with these participants.
Across web pages that I assessed for correct heading levels, there were several which skipped heading levels throughout the page content, such as going straight to a heading 3 without that heading being nested within a heading 2 section. Additionally, headings on the University web pages that I investigated were often generic, instead of being specific about what a page or section will contain, which is the recommended approach.
The fact that the web publishers who were interviewed and surveyed were aware of the importance of correct headings levels and specific headings, and that the majority of these publishers have attended a staff training or used the editorial style guide, suggests that the guidance provided is accurate and useful for publishers.
To increase the use of correct heading levels, as well as clear and descriptive headings on web pages, participant responses suggest that increasing the reach and engagement of existing training and resources involving headings would be effective. This includes training provided by the User Experience Service, such as Effective Digital Content or Content Improvement Club, and the University of Edinburgh editorial style guide.
In three of the interviews, and in two survey responses, participants mentioned that they struggled to find the time to add alt text to images on their web pages. However, participants in the interviews also stated that they understood the importance of alt text, and what writing meaningful and clear alt text involves. This is reflected in the answers in Effective Digital Content workbooks. The course contains a question asking learners to write meaningful alt text for two images, and this question is often answered well. This suggests that web publishers understand how to write alt text, and that the obstacle in doing so is more likely to be related to time and resource.
One way that time constraints on adding alt text could be improved is to reduce the number of images on a web page, which will not only make this task more manageable but also is also more sustainable.
All five responses to the survey stated that they had explained an acronym or abbreviation recently. Although this did not come up in the interviews often – only once – the survey responses suggest that this is common practice for web publishers who are familiar with digital accessibility principles.
Participants stated that they understand the importance of clear link text as a principle and make effort to implement this into their content. However, similar to headings, this sentiment is not reflected across numerous University web pages. In some of the pages submitted as part of the Effective Digital Content workbooks that I investigated, there were frequent occurrences of inline link text, or link text that does not clearly describe the linked destination.
To increase the writing of link text on a separate line, as well as clear and descriptive link text, participant responses suggest that increasing the reach and engagement of existing training and resources involving links would be effective. This includes training provided by the User Experience Service, such as Effective Digital Content or Content Improvement Club, and the University of Edinburgh editorial style guide.
A trend from both the interviews and survey responses is that for many of the people involved with this research, their knowledge of digital accessibility started with a personal interest. Specific examples of this that participants mentioned include learning about accessibility as a student (and then going on to be an accessibility advocate for a student society) and working with disabled students and learning through experience.
During the interviews, multiple staff members mentioned that they believe, through their experiences, that a large part of issues with creating accessible digital content at the University surrounds communication. A combination of factors was discussed that had communication at the centre, including:
Job-based constraints were also mentioned frequently, such as limited time to add alt text to all images on a web page and working on a page where the lead publisher takes a design forward approach which can sometimes clash with accessible content principles. These answers were also reflected in the survey responses, with all of the responses mentioning either one or both of these problems.
The primary resource that participants mentioned using to learn about digital accessibility and develop their skills was University-provided staff training, with 10 of 11 participants mentioning this. Effective Digital Content was specifically mentioned twice, and Content Improvement Club three times. In the interviews, two participants mentioned more general staff training, with one survey response saying the same. In the survey responses, three participants also said that they used training provided by the Disability Information Team.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 (WCAG) is another resource that was frequently mentioned by participants, with six in total saying that this is a resource that they use as guidance on accessibility.
The University of Edinburgh editorial style guide was mentioned by five participants as a resource that they used to provide guidance on digital accessibility, in which the guidance reflects what publishers learn in training courses, meaning that information they take from the style guide is in line with accessibility and content design training.
I learned a lot during my time researching how web publishers at the University of Edinburgh approach creating accessible digital content. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to work with staff from a variety of different areas of the University. This helped me to learn how to identify commonalities in interview and survey responses despite the areas of work being distinct. I also enjoyed this because I was able to learn much more about the work that goes on across the University and what the work of other teams involved.
I also particularly enjoyed the format of my internship being a combination of individual work and working with other members of my team and the Disability Information team. This balance allowed me to set my own goals while still getting the opportunity to work and learn collaboratively as part of a team, prioritising my tasks between my own and those that I was working on with others.
A limitation of my work was that it was much easier to contact and work with staff who have a genuine interest in the subject area of accessibility, which does not lead to research that is representative of how University staff approach digital accessibility as a whole. Having done the research that I have so far, a continuation of the research would be most beneficial if it focused on the experiences and approaches of staff who are less familiar with digital accessibility requirements and principles, as this would create a more well-rounded understanding of web publisher accessibility approaches at the content level.
Furthermore, another limitation of the work was the time constraints which have restricted my ability to develop solutions to issues identified during the research period. This was expected to a degree, as the solutions depended on the outcomes of the research, which has taken the majority of the 12-week period. The positive outcome of this is that the research and findings will provide the User Experience service with information that allows for both further research and for adaptations to guidance and training if it is deemed necessary.
This research has helped the User Experience Service to assess their training and the resources that are available for publishers to learn more about digital content accessibility. Keeping in touch with the publishing community through projects like this helps the team to direct their effort to real challenges that publishers face on a day to day basis.
The research completed throughout the duration of this project will be supported and advanced by further investigation, particularly by communicating with web publishers who are less involved with digital accessibility as a whole. This will likely help in providing more concrete solutions to digital content accessibility issues across EdWeb 2 pages.
Inspiration can come from unexpected sources.
Take this article for example. It’s about websites but it was inspired by camping mattress repairs. The LLM in my head had some strange training materials. Bear with me though, it will all make sense.
If you’ve been camping this summer, there’s a reasonable chance that you’ve woken up with a painful achy sensation due to a deflated mattress, better known as “Overnight matt deflation syndrome” or OMDS. You’re not alone. Punctured mattresses present a huge issue for companies like Decathlon as well as their users. They offer repair services and fixing leaky air mattresses is apparently one of their most popular requests. The fix is simple – find the hole and apply a patch. Finding the hole can be tricky and time consuming though. The time factor is the issue here because it makes repairing the mattress uneconomical.
So given the scale of issue, they broke down the problem to its definitive part – identifying where the leak was. They approached the challenge laterally and thought about what other industries might have experienced this sort of problem and had already solved it. This led them to an unlikely place. The fossil gas industry.
Gas leaks are a huge problem for the fossil fuel industry. They can be costly and hard to find, just like they are for, err, camping mattresses. So they developed a solution. Using a special camera and microphone, they check pipelines for leaks. The microphone identifies the sound of leaks (pfft) and pinpoints it on the camera screen. Engineers can then tag the pipeline and make a repair.
Decathlon found that this technology can be used for their repairs too. It slashed the time required to patch a leak to a handful of minutes and made the repair offering viable again. When it’s fully rolled out it has the potential to massively reduce waste and increase customer satisfaction.
The genius of this idea from Decathlon is not the use of technology to solve a problem, it’s in identifying the core of the problem you’re trying to solve. If you focus too hard on the overall problem you can end up missing potential solutions from other, unexpected places. If you remove the product, client, sector or industry from the equation and just try to solve the core user/customer problem, inspiration can come from anywhere.
This is something Wholegrain practices across our projects and clients. Our user centric, Humane Web approach helps us focus on the need, not the problem at hand. We’re sector agnostic, which is a fancy way of saying that if a solution from one sector can work for another, we’ll use it. A simple example might be using e-commerce inspired product filters to make it easier to find articles on a large media site.
We’re not just looking for features though, it’s about the shared needs of projects too. Two of our most recent site builds, EACTs and UITP are great examples. On the face of it, a site for Cardiothoracic surgeons should have little in common with one for Public Transport professionals. But when you look at the needs of the two sets of users, you find much more common ground.
Both sites are for Membership organisations, so they need to provide relevant information about things like events, industry news and best practices. We can take tried and tested ways of sharing news for heart surgeons and apply them for transport planners. The lessons from a transport summit site can improve the user experience for medical professional conference sites.
This user centric approach helps us share solutions and experience for clients who have similar goals but are at different stages in their journeys too. Environment Bank and Good Energy are two of our clients with sustainability at the core of their operations. They’re both on a mission to make the UK greener, cleaner and more bio diverse but work in very different sectors. Despite this, some of their core user problems are very similar and solutions can be shared between the sites.
Part of their challenge is helping UK businesses to transition to working in ways that decarbonise and restore natural habitats, to improve the local and national environment. Environment Bank does this by helping developers meet their legal bio-diversity commitments through consultation and habitat banks. Good Energy is helping decarbonise the energy sector through renewable energy provision and support for lower carbon technologies like EVs and heat pumps.
A big challenge for both companies comes down to education, information and persuasion. The design techniques, user experiences and features that Good Energy have been using can help to inform what users need for an organisation like Environment Bank, just like with EACTs and UITP. Users are looking for solutions to environmental problems and want clear, easy to digest information to help them make positive changes.
For an organisation like Environment Bank their offering is less well known than the renewables that Good Energy offers. But Good Energy has also been in the position of offering different ways of doing things that required reassurance and confidence to persuade users. We can apply the lessons from more mature organisations to organisations who are earlier in their development. No matter what stage they are at, these users for these organisations’ sites have similar needs. Focussing on the needs means more solutions.
When you look at our portfolio of sites and clients, you’ll see a diverse set of organisations, sectors and industries. The thing they share is that they want to work with a sustainably minded agency to further their positive goals. This diversity means that we’ve got a huge breadth of experience meeting a wide range of user requirements. Our sites are robust, humane, digitally sustainable, performant, but most importantly user-centric. After all it’s their problems we need a site to solve, no matter what they are.
If you’ve got a web project you’d like to discuss, reach out to Bailey to find out how this approach could work for you.
You’ll find more insights into our working practices in this range of articles on our Humane Web approach.
The post Focussing on user’s needs means web inspiration can come from anywhere appeared first on Wholegrain Digital.
A creative website needs hosting that can handle more than a few pages of text. Large images, portfolio galleries, custom themes, animations, and online shops can use considerable storage and processing power. If the hosting falls short, pages may load slowly and the work being presented can lose some of its impact.
Designers, photographers, illustrators, and other creative professionals also have practical requirements. Staging makes it possible to test layout changes privately. Automatic backups protect client work, while collaboration tools can help freelancers and agencies manage several websites. Good support is also valuable when a technical problem interrupts a project or affects a live site.
This collection compares WordPress hosts based on the features that matter most to creatives. These include performance, media handling, storage, theme and plugin support, staging, backups, client management, and long term cost.
Some options are suited to a single portfolio, while others provide the tools needed to manage client websites or run a creative agency. The best choice depends on the type of work being presented and how much control the website owner needs.
Each of these hosts suits a different type of creative website. WordPress.com offers the simplest overall package, while Kinsta and Pressable provide stronger tools for studios and client work. Cloudways gives experienced users more control, and Rocket.net is a good match for image heavy portfolios.
| Host | Best For | Suggested Plan | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| WordPress.com | Overall simplicity | Business | $25 Per Month |
| Kinsta | Established creative studios | Single 20GB | $30 Per Month |
| Cloudways | Freelance designers wanting more control | Flexible Micro | $11 Per Month |
| Pressable | Managing client websites | Signature 1 | $20.83 Per Month |
| SiteGround | Small studios and multiple portfolios | GrowBig | €5.49 Per Month |
| Rocket.net | Image heavy portfolio websites | Starter | $25 Per Month |
| Hostinger | Portfolios on a smaller budget | Premium | $2.99 Per Month |
WordPress.com is the best choice for creatives who want managed hosting with little technical maintenance. Kinsta is better suited to established studios that place greater value on performance, staging, and developer tools. Pressable is worth considering when several client websites need to be built, tested, and managed from one account.
Cloudways offers more flexibility but requires greater technical confidence. Rocket.net offers managed performance and a built in CDN for visual websites with an international audience. SiteGround and Hostinger cost less at the start, although their renewal prices are considerably higher.
Prices shown are monthly equivalents based on the billing terms displayed by each provider.
Creative websites often contain large images, complex layouts, video, animation, and interactive features. These elements can place more pressure on hosting than a basic blog or small business website.
WordPress.com is a good choice for creatives who want managed hosting without spending much time on server maintenance. Updates, security, backups, caching, and performance tools are handled for you, leaving designers to manage their website through a familiar WordPress dashboard.
The Business plan is the best fit for a professional portfolio or creative business. It includes 50GB of storage, a global CDN, staging, real time backups, and 250GB of separate VideoPress storage. Custom themes and third party plugins are supported, so designers are not limited to the themes and tools supplied. SFTP, SSH, WP CLI, Git commands, and GitHub deployments are also available for more advanced projects.
The main drawback is cost. Each website requires its own plan, which may not suit freelancers or agencies managing a large number of client sites. However, it remains a practical option for individual designers, photographers, illustrators, and creative businesses that want strong performance without dealing with the technical side of hosting.
| Plan | Monthly Cost | Storage | Staging | CDN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business | $25, billed annually | 50GB plus 250GB for VideoPress | Included | Included |
Login