As an example take the case of gmail and hotmail.
gmail has a very simple interface and uses very little graphics, on the other hand hotmail uses a LOT of graphics.

One can even compare apple.com and sun.com. Apple site is a one big image ;) and it looks super cool but sun's site seems to do all the job although its not that cool looking but its also much faster.
What do you prefer on a website? Simple , fast loading with little graphics or cooler, lots of graphics but a little slower website?

Oh and btw, you cannot compare the functioanlities of the website. So u cant say u find gmail better cause it allows grouping mails by labels,etc.
The comparison is based solely on looks.

I personally find it a little difficult to make the comparison myself, as i find gmail nice but then i also prefer apple's cool looks over sun's functionality.
Posted on 2005-01-16 21:52:25 by clippy
There is a book called "Simple Sites" with links to such. Definitely a world apart (A List Apart) and all the better.
Posted on 2005-01-16 22:26:10 by drhowarddrfine
It's more a case of usability, than graphics vs. simplicity.
The both apple and sun sites for example have good design. They are convenient to navigate and it doesn't take ages to find the information you were looking for. Despite of some sites where navigation menu is so cryptic, that you need to go trough fifteen pages only to find that download link.
The use of graphics is nice, whilst it is done with a good taste and doesn't make page too bloated. Those sites using huge amounts of pictures for every possible thing on the page is a big turn off.

So in conclusion - best site design, is the one made with both simplicity and cool looks in mind.
Posted on 2005-01-16 23:42:10 by arafel
I prefer simplicity - not to the point of "my HTML is basically a textfile with links", though. Simplicity isn't just about avoiding graphics, though - it's about site design too. If you click "developers" on sun.com, the result is... "where did the overview go?" menus to the left, right, and in the middle. Bad bad bad!

Also, simplicity doesn't necessarily mean your site has to look dull. I think http://decard.net/ is a good example of a simple site that looks good and works well.

Sites using flash as anything but a gimmick are simply no-no.
Posted on 2005-01-17 01:28:07 by f0dder
Simplicity :alright:
Posted on 2005-01-17 04:59:23 by Vortex
i wish for a long time to update my site with a new fresh style. it also should be simple as http://decard.net. But i don't find a good editor or template for dreamweaver. i also dont want learn html.

anybody know a good tool for creating such simple small sites? Or maybe a good tutrial page. I already googled but i didnt find what i need.
Posted on 2005-01-17 15:08:17 by diablo2oo2
Personally, I prefer websites with as few graphics as possible. The reason is, when I visit a site (unless a site on photography or graphic design) I'm more or less going there for information or a download. And neither of those require a bunch of flashy images. The images mearly slow down the loading (especially on dial-up) and ends up annoying me. But, just because I don't like a lot of images, doesn't mean I don't want the site to be 'pretty'. Images are okay if you want a nice logo/etc. But building your site entirely around the graphics just turns me away from the site. That's why when I designed my "Malcode Research" site, it was done so in all text (no images), since it was created for the tutorials and downloads. On the other hand, my personal site "CSA.UNI" was designed using a few images (banner and menu buttons) because it doesn't have quite as many pages and loading is trivial once the first page has been loaded (since the browser will cache all my images anyways). It really depends on the situation and what the site presents.

Regards,
Bryant Keller

Referenced Links:
Malcode Research Site - http://malcode.ath.cx (no graphics)
CSA.UNI Site - http://csa.uni.cc (few graphics)

EDIT: Macode Research now has graphics :)
Posted on 2005-01-19 11:17:54 by Synfire