The Role of Graphics on Web Pages

What purpose is served by graphics in a Web document? Compared to text, they take a long time to download and render, causing users with slow modems and old computers to gnash their teeth. Some of the most popular sites (like Google) have almost no graphic elements.

Why then does anyone ever use graphics? I can think of four good reasons and a few bad reasons.

Good Reasons

Illustration. When an image illustrates the text or is itself the information conveyed, that's a fine reason to use an image. One good example is a map, like my maps of race and density. Another appropriate use of graphics is a photo of a person on their home page; the photo illustrates who the person is.
Navigation. Graphics can be useful to help people find their place in three ways.
- First, if a Web page is long enough that readers have to scroll, graphic elements can help readers keep track of where on the page they are.
- Second, if there are multiple areas on a Web site, an image can help readers remember on what page they saw something or even what area of the Web site they were in.
- Third, if a navigation bar is graphic, that can help readers quickly find the navigation bar on the page.
Branding. Consistent use of graphics can help to unify a site. This makes it easier for readers to tell when they have left your site and moved to someone else's. (I once had someone threaten to sue me for copyright infringement because he didn't realize that I linked and didn't copy his site.) Consistent use of graphics can also help burn your site's identity into the readers' brains. Yahoo does a particularly good job of branding.
Conspicuous Consumption. Beautiful, well-crafted graphics are expensive to produce. They thus demonstrate affluence and robustness. By having them, you are saying, "We have more than adequate resources for our needs. We don't have to cut corners because of money. Furthermore, we are not going to go out of business and leave you hanging."
Size isn't everything. What is most important is that the elements look like they cost a lot to produce. They need to be pretty, well thought-out, and consistent. Do not have your 14-year-old nephew whip something up. Do not have half of your images be very cartoon-y and half of them be very realistic.

Bad Reasons

Old Paradigms. With traditional media, the cost to distribute a message is very high and attention is hard to get. That means that traditional media have to worry a lot more about getting attention than about transferring lots of information.
The Web makes distribution cheap, and if people come to your site, it's because you've already gotten their attention. You don't need to entertain me once I'm there. In fact, it's likely to annoy me if it gets in the way of finding information. (The worst example of old paradigms is the "splash screen" -- a page with lots of beauty but no content that people have to go through to get to what they were really looking for.)
Entertainment. This is similar to the above. Very few sites on the Web are really about entertainment. Suppose you're a car company, for example. Do you really want to attract people who want to be entertained? No, you want to attract people who want to buy cars.

So in summary, I think that illustration, navigation, branding, and conspicuous consumption are all valid reasons to have graphics on a Web page. Entertainment and a slavish adherence to old paradigms are bad reasons.