More On Opinion In Web Design
January 12, 2004 | 
38 Comments
Today I had a chance to read the Whitespace critique of Zeldman’s redesign.
As the one who started the original discussion that lead to Scrivs delving into the realm of design critiques I really wanted to comment on the critique, however Scrivs has closed the comments on that post so I’ll talk about it here.
When I first started thinking about this I didn’t really envision that folks would start writing up design critiques — and frankly I’m really not sure that is a good idea, especially with personal sites.
A personal site can be the creative expression of a person and totally subject to that persons style, attitudes, whims and tastes. There are many other factors that weigh into the design of a personal site that don’t come into play on professional works. I think it may be a tad unfair to do a detailed critique of a personal site unless it’s asked for.
Then again, I just don’t know, part of me thinks that if your site is out there, you should be open to feedback. I know I usually am, as long as it’s constructive and coming from someone who knows what they’re talking about.
Which brings be to one of the main points of my original posts — “informed opinion” — and something I think is very important. There are very few Web designers out there who’s opinion I really value. I think it’s very important when reading these critiques to note who is writing them.
I don’t want to knock Scrivs, he seems to know what he is doing and has (I think) a decent amount of design and Web experience under his belt, but I feel that any opinion offered needs to be weighed against the author’s own tastes, experience, body of work, etc. This goes for both the critique itself and just as importantly — the ensuing comments.
I think Scrivs’ review was a good one and Zeldman didn’t seem to mind so it’s all good. However there were lots of comments on the header and the colors and other design elements coming from all over the place. If this weren’t a personal site I’d be a bit more comfortable with them, but in this case it is a personal site and frankly if Jeffrey likes the header and the colors that’s all that should matter.
Even if it weren’t a personal site — it makes me nervous when people art direct like that. Especially when I don’t know their design background. This is what I mean by “uninformed opinion” and this is not what I was saying the Web design community needs.
Quite the opposite in fact. We already deal with too much information (and opinion — good or bad) coming from too many people who we know too little about. Read Web of Misinformation for more.
Your average Web designer isn’t qualified to art direct anything. I’m including myself in this. I’d be very wary of expressing in detail my opinion on anything of an aesthetic nature, especially when it comes to a personal site. Scrivs, to his credit, didn’t really do this either, and if he had I’m sure he’d have qualified it in some way.
To quote myself:
It might be nice from time to time to see some healthy criticism from the Web design community, from people who know their stuff, instead of an endless parade of “cool sites” all the time.
As much as I’d love to see more constructive criticism in the Web design community I think it can be taken too far, especially when it’s not asked for. Let’s face it, lots of times critiques are asked for, so there is ample opportunity to express your opinion about things.
My (unsolicited — I know) advice of writing your own design critiques:
If someone asks for it — knock yourself out. If you want to a detailed critique of a site and they haven’t asked for it — ask them first. If you do take it upon yourself to do this, make sure you’ve established who you are, what your background is and qualify any less-than-informed opinions.
Oh yeah, and if you want to comment on something and add your own opinion to someone else’s critique — don’t be a coward, leave your name and Web site — otherwise your words are meaningless.
I love to see people expressing their opinions and offering constructive criticism, these kind of discussion are great and educational for everyone. Lets just try and keep everything above the belt and on the level.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Mike said:
I didn’t really like the idea of reviewing Zeldman’s personal site, nor any personal site for that matter.
Discuss the content, the writing, the architecture, but leave the design alone. There’s a reason its called a “personal site”.
Way to write what I was thinking, Keith :)
Posted on January 12, 2004 06:01 PM | #
2. Scrivs said:
I am sure you can understand the reasons behind closing the discussion since some of it really was getting away from design issues and hitting more on aesthetic issues. That is why in my critique I tried to stick with design issues. Colors are a preference issue, but when they clash with how I view the site, like the crazy white at the bottom of the background, I have to mention it.
In hindsight, maybe I should have asked Zeldman first, but I didn’t and initially he did take it well. Unfortunately, it got out of hand. The good thing is though I have received numerous requests to post critiques on sites from designers themselves so it should work out better then.
It will always be a touchy issue simply because a lot of designers are not comfortable with the fact that someone would critique them in public. I can see how this would be the case with personal sites. For a while, I was always scared myself to ask for others’ opinions.
I am glad you understand the education value behind these exercises and I have a better understanding of how to go about them now.
Posted on January 12, 2004 06:09 PM | #
3. Dave S. said:
Good lord, can’t one have a place to escape this sort of thing? I rather thought that’s why we all keep personal sites.
I deal with critiques like that every day on the job. If I choose to add a 300 pixel high header to my own site, I really don’t understand why I’d have to justify it to anyone but myself.
You want critiques for educational value? Pick a multi-national company site designed by a committee, and go nuts. If you’re not critiquing someone’s personal site to their face, at their request, then you’re taking shots at them and that’s just unkind.
Good on Zeldman for handling it the way he did. I’m not sure I’d have that much patience.
Posted on January 12, 2004 06:29 PM | #
4. Matt Burris said:
I agree that criticizing a personal site isn’t the same as criticizing a business site, so a color choice made, the size of the header, or the style of the layout, are all moot points to criticize. Some people like shades of reds, others don’t. I agreed with many of Scriv’s thoughts, but that’s only because I have similar tastes in web design as he does. Zeldman has a different style, while this site has its own style. I think our web designs are extensions of ourselves, our personalities, and our traits, just like Picasso’s artwork is an extension of himself (scary, I know.)
However, I don’t agree that we should ask permission to criticize a site, whether it’s personal or not. It may be polite, but it shouldn’t be a requirement or even expected. The beauty of the internet is to express your opinion, and to do so without needing someone’s permission. Constructive criticism should always be welcome, whether you gave permission or not. How else would we ever improve our skills in life? If I’m doing something wrong, or if someone thinks something could be better, I’d like to hear it, and not hand out permission slips to receive them.
Posted on January 12, 2004 06:32 PM | #
5. Keith said:
Oh boy, here we go and we’re only 4 comments in.
Obviously some people would appreciate this kind of thing and others wouldn’t. That is why I suggest you ask first if you want to do one at all. I know I wouldn’t mind too much, but it really depends on who is doing the critiquing. With some folks I might be a bit put off.
Like Dave says, if you want to do and unsolicited critique, pick some faceless company or some such. Chances are they’ll not be offended and many of them need it more anyway.
I will say that I think people keep personal sites for all sorts of reasons and many folks would really welcome feedback, as Mike’s comment attests to, expecially if they are using their site to learn.
Keep in mind that not every personal site out here is kept by a working Web professional. The Web design community is made up of all kinds of people, from all different backgrounds and levels of experience.
Just be polite and ask first, or better yet wait until there is a call for comments – then be honest, open and helpful.
Posted on January 12, 2004 06:50 PM | #
6. Ethan said:
Mike, I think you just provided an apt definition for "courtesy."
Posted on January 12, 2004 08:04 PM | #
7. Ethan said:
Apologies — that should have read “Matt.”
Note to self: no more comment postings without coffee.
Posted on January 12, 2004 08:08 PM | #
8. Matt Burris said:
No problem, my dad’s name is Mike. :) You hit it on the head, that’s the word I was looking for (I could use some coffee too), professional courtesy would be the proper term to use here.
Posted on January 12, 2004 08:18 PM | #
9. jason said:
great design on this site.
Posted on January 12, 2004 09:15 PM | #
10. Suzanne said:
The problem seems to come mostly in the accompanying rabble, not the critique itself. It is a courtesy, yes, to bring up errors, opinions and problems with the authors first before stepping up to the soapbox, no? Once on the soapbox, neither the original designer nor the author of the critique has any control over the masses and their lashing tongues.
It’s a reasonable rule to not offer critiques to individuals who have not asked for them, period. We started that rule at the old bulletin boards at WPTS after individuals and businesses unwittingly found their sites raked over the coals in the most off-hand way and were, of course, mortified, leading to large flame wars, but were unable, even with that rule, to stave off the eventual collapse of the WPTS board because of those threads.
If someone puts up a site purporting to represent something they fail to represent, this is a different story. I would have no issue calling the government designers to task, nor corporate sites, nor even the WaSP or W3C for failing to follow their own dictates. But a personal site? No.
That said, I accept all private critiques and opinions as feedback for any site – and welcome them. User feedback, even for a personal site, is really important! It’s the public ones (thankfully rare) that make me angry and defensive, and I wonder why it was more important for them to score points off me than to contact me personally.
Posted on January 12, 2004 09:43 PM | #
11. Ryan Parman said:
Maybe it’s just me… I dunno…
But if so many people seem to be against critiquing personal sites, what was the point of this: http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archives/opinion_in_web_design.php ???
Or is it only okay to critique if everything is good? People said Redlabor was good. People say onetruefit.com is good. People say all sorts of different sites (personal or otherwise) are good. But if someone stands up and says “this is good, but perhaps this could be better”… people jump on him over it?!
I, for one, appreciate constructive courtesy on my sites… even my personal site. No one is a flawless designer – not even Zeldman (although many of us have a tremendous amount of respect for the work he’s done). Besides, if you’re putting it on the internet, you need to *expect* some criticism sometimes.
Heck, even then, who are you creating the website for if not for your users? Zeldman may not have asked for it, so he may not be open to it. But if someone critiqued my website – with or without my permission – and people voiced legitimate concerns over various issues with my site, I’d at least listen. If I was designing for myself, I’d not code anything IE-compatible, I wouldn’t use fonts from other OS’s, and I wouldn’t give a crap about the box model hack… because it doesn’t apply to me.
I have to give props to Zeldman for being a good sport about it, but I’d have to agree with Matt Burris’ second paragraph:
“…However, I don’t agree that we should ask permission to criticize a site, whether it’s personal or not. It may be polite, but it shouldn’t be a requirement or even expected…”
Posted on January 12, 2004 09:46 PM | #
12. Mike D. said:
Unsolicited critiques have always been a fact of life in the media. When you run a blog, you *are* the media. Yes, that’s what I said. You are the media. Like it or not.
So does Scrivs have the right to express opinions about zeldman.com? Of course. Does that make you respect Scrivs more or less? Probably depends on the quality of the critique. Scrivs chose to challenge one of the most respected people in our industry – the modern-day Yoda really – and whether his critique is valid is itself up for critique.
I personally got a little, but very little, from the critique. In fact, I think my opinion of the critic changed more than my opinion of Zeldman after reading the piece and its resulting comments.
I do very much like the design of Scriv’s personal site and he does seem to have good design judgement in general, but I’m disappointed he thinks he can write 8 short paragraphs about an entire site, half of it focused on gradients and header size, and call that his best effort. I mean, that is the sort of thing I’d expect to read as a *comment* on a blog… not an entry.
Anyway, I don’t mean to be flaming Scrivs here. I’m sure he’s a good guy. Just pointing out that when you write a “review”, it reflects equally on you as it does on your subject. More in some cases.
Posted on January 12, 2004 10:44 PM | #
13. Christian said:
Great last point Mike. I, for one, would be very wary about doing anything less than an extremely thorough and well thought out review, as it does reflect very strongly upon yourself how good it is.
I also agree with earlier points that it would be far more useful to critique business sites than personal ones, as such critiques might actually teach us something that we can apply to our own work.
To me, a critique on Amazon or ESPN would be more beneficial and less subject to emotion (I think) than focusing on personal sites.
Posted on January 12, 2004 11:13 PM | #
14. Chris Owens said:
I agree with Ryan Parman, I too see slight double standards going on here.
But I can see why some people hold an oposite opinion on this matter.
Posted on January 12, 2004 11:50 PM | #
15. Keith said:
There is no double standard, just a little indecisiveness. I think many of us are kind of riding the fence here, and I don’t see a problem with that.
I think the point that I (and some others) are trying to make is that if you are going to publicly critique a personal Web site it might be nice to ask the author of the site first.
I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about that.
I also don’t think it should be too much of a surprise to folks to note that many people create sites solely for their own entertainment, education or any number of other reasons and don’t really care what anyone else thinks about their site. Should those people be subjected to unwanted criticism?
I think constructive criticism is a great thing – that was the point of my original post. I did not say that people should start reviewing sites. Read between the lines a bit.
I also think that the owner of a personal site shouldn’t have to hear it if he or she doesn’t want to.
I mean, strangers don’t just walk up to homes people they don’t know and start commenting on their paint and condition of their yards. Neighbors do that, family and friends do that.
Establish a relationship first, ask permission or comment privately. What is wrong with that?
I understand that by putting your site out here you are opening the doors to a certain level of public opinion, I kind of agree with what Mike says about blogs being media. Kind of. My site is a personal site first, “blog” or “media” outlet second.
Frankly, unless you are someone I respect and know – your opinion is probably “uninformed” and next to worthless to me anyway.
I don’t know how many times I’ve gotten negative comments from someone who either won’t reveal their name, doesn’t have a Web site or has no clue why a design decision was made. Why should I, or anyone else, care what that person’s opinion is?
Scrivs review was borderline. He’s established a bit of a reputation, but was it enough to make his opinion worth hearing? I know him pretty well, but does Zeldman? Also, like Mike D. said, the review wasn’t really all that helpful and it was hardly detailed.
Zeldman is guilty of this himself with the Redlabor critique. Obviously he has the required reputation, but he was a little light on the details – the thing is he was praising, so who cares?
This is what I’m talking about. It’s not only about injecting some construtive critisim into the Web design community, it’s about doing it the right way, and having it come from the right people. Is Scrivs one of those people? Maybe. I’m not sure.
Now, if Zeldman were to write a detailed critique (after asking Scrivs first) of White Space – that would make interesting reading.
Posted on January 13, 2004 12:20 AM | #
16. andrew said:
Zeldman’s site is not a personal site. Zeldman makes his income being a professional web standards and design pundit. Zeldman.com is his primary platform, it’s the “sign over his door” so to speak that says, “I’m smart. Hire me.”
Posted on January 13, 2004 07:05 AM | #
17. clint said:
I’m also a little suspicious as to what motivated the “critique” in the first place. Due to its recent redesign, which was anything but the status quo, Zeldman’s site seemed like a relatively easy target. Of course a lot of people aren’t going to agree with the design, it’s different than most.
And it’s prertty clear to anyone who reads whitespace, myself included, that scrivs is trying pretty hard to make a name for himself. What better way to gain zeldman’s attention than critique his work?
Posted on January 13, 2004 07:35 AM | #
18. Suzanne said:
Andrew, HappyCog is his business site. ;)
How many companies put out free training for their competitors about how to compete with them? Conversely, how many colleagues share information and discoveries to help each other?
That’s exactly what Zeldman.com does – share resources and make the field _as a whole_ better. Yes, of course it speaks to his reputation in the field, just as any one’s out-of-the-office behaviour, whether they want it to or not, affects their reputation.
This comment, for instance, will help someone form an opinion of me. That someone may be a colleague, or may be a potential client checking my reputation and personality for “fit”. Does this make it a business comment? I hope not.
Posted on January 13, 2004 08:22 AM | #
19. Dris said:
That was a lot of comments in a little time, so I don’t have time to do much more than skim them. Here’s what I think.
As long as you have the designer’s permission, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a personal site or not. Some people would love to here critiques on their personal site, others wouldn’t. It’s purely subjective.
As far as the critiques themselves go, people did seem to go into the aesthetics side of things now and then. Critiques should be on the function side of design, not the form side. I do believe many of the comments on Scrivs’s post were helpful insights in the way the site was functionally designed. The few that offered opinion on the form side of the site don’t know how to be objective, and their posts should be thusly dismissed.
However if one were to really want to go into the art side of things, one could say, “The head on the front page header just looks bad,” or one could say, “The graphic on the front page header could make better use of its space, maybe create a more interesting negative space.” The former was a matter of opinion, and the latter was accompanied with actual description of well-known art and design principle.
But, giving your opinion on the function side of the design is, as always, much more valuable. Saying that disjointed tabs are breaking the metaphor, for example, would be useful to me.
All in all, I think the whole thing depends one whether the designer wants it or not. If so, it’s all fair game (though we should always remain objective, steering away from art-directing).
Posted on January 13, 2004 09:50 AM | #
20. Ryan Parman said:
As far as Clint’s comment:
“…And it’s pretty clear to anyone who reads whitespace, myself included, that scrivs is trying pretty hard to make a name for himself. What better way to gain zeldman’s attention than critique his work?…”
I would be outstandingly suprised if this was Scrivs motive. If you’ve read more of his site for any length of time, you’d get the understanding that he is wanting to grow as a designer. He simply took what he thought was a cue from Keith here and led the way.
If you’re going to lead the way, you’re going to catch the most crap if what you’re doing is unpopular… that’s just human nature. But at least he took the initiative to go balls-out on something like this. He’s come under quite a bit of criticism for it in the last two days, but I have to respect him for trying something that has never really been done before… to Zeldman.
Whether it was a good idea, or a bad one, I have to give props to Scrivs for at least trying to push the envelope into this type of realm.
Posted on January 13, 2004 10:04 AM | #
21. clint said:
Ryan;
In fact, I’ve been reading whitespace daily since September and will continue to do so. And you’re right, I wouldn’t have had the balls (nerve?) to do what he did.
All I’m saying is there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Call me a cynic.
Posted on January 13, 2004 10:49 AM | #
22. Suzanne said:
BTW, this isn’t the first time Zeldman.com has been critiqued (and harshly) by an upcoming designer. It’s definitely happened before and I’m sure it will happen again. It requires some experience and maturity to see that tearing down the establishment isn’t necessarily the way to make a name for oneself.
Just like in real life, it’s often better in the long run to prove how great YOU are, not how bad the other guy is.
Posted on January 13, 2004 11:09 AM | #
23. Dris said:
I believe it takes some experience and maturity to see that a critique is simply a critique, rather than an attempt to make oneself look better.
Posted on January 13, 2004 11:47 AM | #
24. Suzanne said:
I’m sorry, Dris, I didn’t mean to imply that the critique in this case was anything other than a critique. Indeed, it was the commentary that followed that critique that I was speaking about, and the previous “critiques” that were actually personal attacks (2-3 years ago now).
Posted on January 13, 2004 01:07 PM | #
25. Mike D. said:
Ryan said:
“But I have to respect him for trying something that has never really been done before… to Zeldman.”
And what exactly did he do that has never really been done before? Wrote a design critique that was, for the most part, cursory and unilluminating? That’s been done before.
Again, my opinion of this critique is not based on what the subject of the critique is or whether or not he “got permission” from Zeldman first. Neither of those things matter at all. The only time you should “get permission” for something like this is if you want to give the subject a chance to refute some sort of controversial claims you might be making. Even so, you are not required to. It will just make your review all the better if you can sprinkle in a response from the subject himself.
Instead, my opinion of the review is based solely on the quality and depth of it… both of which are up for debate. So let’s stop berating people for expressing their opinion publicly, and start evaluating them on the meaningfulness of their opinions instead. I do a mental critique of every site I ever visit, but I would never write anything down and publish it for the world to see unless I thought I was providing the public with useful, insightful information. Did Scrivs provide that? Maybe, maybe not.
Posted on January 13, 2004 01:31 PM | #
26. Chris Owens said:
Keith, the point that I was trying to get across was that many, many, many PERSONAL sites make it onto thousands of weblogs every day purely because they are new(ish) or re-designed. No-one has a problem linking to and commenting on the aesthetics of these sites, especially when the comments are of the positive nature… So I just don’t see why it should be “frowned upon” to share one’s own opinion on the very same sites.
I agree that maybe he should have approached J. Zeldman, but what do you say? If he had approached Zeldman privately, would it really have made that much of a difference?
No comment…
Posted on January 13, 2004 02:34 PM | #
27. Mike said:
I expressed an opinion in the previous post about red labor, and an opinion in the scriv thread about zeldman.com. There’s no confusing me for a web designer so even though those opinions were (I think) benign, I can’t tell if I’m supposed to feel bad for posting in the first place, and for compounding them now with this post, based on some of the opinions expressed here.
All I want to say is that I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to wonder what appeal someone intended when they present something publicly, considering as an audience we’re often left to guess. To remove that from consideration is to divorce form from function.
Is that what you mean by only wanting informed criticism – that you primarily want the opinion of people who can professionally discuss form divorced from function? Would you say that was your guess why jeffrey zeldman got mad at, you know, those people who started to disagree with me?
Posted on January 13, 2004 03:16 PM | #
28. Dris said:
Alright Suzanne, sorry about that. Thanks for the explanation. Whatever happened 2-3 years ago is beyond my knowledge.
It seems that some people are trying to fabricate a problem where none actually exists. The critique was done, and Zeldman himself enjoyed it. If one takes the time to read the thing, one will realize that there were valid points, even if you exclude stuff that was purely subjective opinion. Everyone is happy except those who want to say that everyone is unhappy.
This was a first-time thing, so there’s bound to be a few things that can be done better next time, and we’ve all decided on those things and we all seem to concur. So what’s the big deal? It’s just a critique.
Posted on January 13, 2004 03:56 PM | #
29. Keith said:
Chris – hey, I don’t think negitive opinions should be frowned upon, that was the point of my original post. I just think that if someone is going to dis someone else, make it helpful or at least back it up.
Mike – you shouldn’t feel bad for expressing your opinion. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and should feel free to express it when given the opportunity.
What I mean by informed opinion is this:
The opinion of someone credible who knows what they are talking about, has put significant thought into what they are giving their opinion on and has the experience, knowledge and respect (for lack of a better word) to back it up.
The “asking permission” thing aside (as I think there are two sides that will just have to agree to disagree on this one) the biggest problem I have with these things is that the folks who all too often express their opinions on things (Paul Scrivens is NOT one of these people) don’t usually know what they are talking about.
There, I said it. I was hoping y’all could read between the lines. If this offends you I’m sorry, I’m not pointing at anyone in particular, but the Web design community in general.
It seems like (until this whole issue was brought up) the only time I’d read critical or negative opinions it was in comments posted by someone new to Web design who still hasn’t grasped that it’s not the same as graphic design, or maybe a Flash designer who hates everything that doesn’t move or even more often by “coward” or “lurker” or someone with a name and bogus e-mail not linked to any Web site.
An opinion is meaningless to me unless I know who it came from. And by “know” I mean, know – know their work, their background, etc. Know that they are familiar enough with the site, etc. to give a worthwhile critique.
Why do you think there are so many “good” reviews out there? Because it’s much, much harder to give a site a critical review that actually helps. There is way to much mis- and meaningless information on the Web as it is.
And no “I hate the big orange banner” doesn’t help anyone.
This goes back to Mike D.’s comments about what makes a critique worth it.
If you want to point out a cool or interesting site, or hell, even a site you like for no good reason – I have nothing wrong with that. If you want to say a site is ugly as home-made sin – sure, go for it.
Linking to sites, like the CSS Vault does, is great. It’s also not what I’m talking about. Simple commenting on sites is less helpful, but also not what I’m talking about.
If you’re going to do more than that, do it right. Let us know who you are. Put some effort into it. Teach us something. Back it up!
I don’t know, maybe do what Scrivs did and get people to want your opinion. Then express it via detailed critiques.
Posted on January 13, 2004 04:09 PM | #
30. Mike D. said:
To add to Keith’s sentiment and clarify it further:
If a critique is undeniably well-written and I agree with most of the stuff in it, it doesn’t matter as much to me who wrote it. Just because I haven’t heard of you doesn’t mean your opinion doesn’t matter.
BUT, if I read a critique which I find a bit suspect, the first thing I do is go to the source. If I disagree with 80% of your critique, and I feel it’s not well-informed, AND I’ve never heard of you, then yes, your opinion really doesn’t matter all that much to you. However, if I disagree with 80% of what you say, but you are a proven leader in your field, well then I must pause to consider that you may know many things I don’t know and that you just view the world from a different, but equally informed view than I do. That is I think what Keith is trying to say: If he disagrees with you and your reputation does not show you’re any sort of authority on the subject, then he will dismiss your opinion as unimportant. And that, I agree with.
Posted on January 13, 2004 04:32 PM | #
31. Chris Owens said:
Fair enough Keith, your last post cleared up some confusion (for me at least) as to what you were trying to say.
I think this is one of those topics that people will have to agree to disagree on – I mean, you have your opinion on how you would like to see these “critiques” handled, and others have their’s.
I guess it sort of comes down to how heavy a value is put on the article. For me it was nice to see that other people shared the same opinions as myself in regards to certain aspects of the site… But in the end it was just another blog entry on another blog.
Regardless, thanks for clearing things up a little further.
Posted on January 13, 2004 04:46 PM | #
32. Keith said:
Mike D. – Thanks for helping me clairfy.
Chris – Good points and no problem.
Posted on January 13, 2004 04:52 PM | #
33. Dris said:
Bad “critiques” are going to happen as long as comments are open to the public. However, they don’t occur as often as the ones that are worthwhile, and are thusly easy to moderate. I did see several comments on the critique that I would find useful. I saw a few that were just bashing, uninformed, or flame-ish.
Don’t let those few hold your impression for the entire critique. Even Zeldman said some of the comments made were useful, so who are we to say that they weren’t if it’s not our site being critiqued?
There were some uninformed opinions that should just be ignored. However, I disagree that we should only listen to those with the proper credentials. If someone were to say they had a hard time finding a piece of information on my site (such as my email address, as Suzanne pointed out to me today :) ), I don’t care how “experienced” they are in the field or how well I know them; it’s a flaw in my design of the site. If someone says they had a hard time figuring out where they are in a site, it doesn’t matter if they’ve had zero design experience; the site must be hard to navigate. Certain things like that just fall with the same importance as information gathered from user testing.
Credentials do matter in some areas though, and I would certainly take the point of view of the more qualified speaker if it were in conflict with the opinion of an “uninformed” person. I would have to agree with what Keith and Mike D. said above. But let’s not go saying that only certain peoples’ opinions have no meaning due to something so unrelated as their portfolio.
Posted on January 13, 2004 04:57 PM | #
34. Keith said:
Dris – what you are talking about above isn’t what I would call “opinion” at all. I want to be clear that, in my mind, what you are talking about falls way outside of the realm of this discussion.
If someone has legitimate usability issues with a site – that is an altogether different breed of cat and of course they should be listened to.
I totally agree with you, it’s just in my mind you’re talking about two different things.
In can be a fine line to walk, and there are many out there that will disagree with me on this, but to over-simplify quite a bit – data is to function as opinion is to form.
That’s data your talking about right there, not opinion at all, but that’s a whole other post. :)
Posted on January 13, 2004 05:11 PM | #
35. Dris said:
Okay, I see usability as being part of design (and a very important part).
Though I’d say that opinions can differ somewhat when it comes to usability (some people prefer navigating bread-crumb trails, while others find it more natural to start from the top navigation), I see what you’re getting at. I don’t think opinions on the visual aesthetics of the design really belong in a critique unless they’re really objective.
Thanks for the clarification. :)
Posted on January 13, 2004 05:28 PM | #
36. Keith said:
To quickly clarify a bit more – I’m agree wholeheartedly that usability is very important part of (Web) design and obviously opinions can differ as to how to address a usability issue. Your comment sort of implied (probably unintentionally) that I didn’t think usability was important.
I do think there is a big difference between usability observations and aesthetic opinion. One effects usability design decisions and one effects visual design decisions – in an black and white world.
What usually is the case is that there are many shades of grey and so these things intermingle and overlap quite a bit.
But I think we’re on the same page in general.
Posted on January 13, 2004 05:57 PM | #
37. Dris said:
The implication was unintentional. Yep, we’re on the same page! :)
Posted on January 13, 2004 06:24 PM | #
38. Joe said:
This takes me back to crit time in design school. Some people loathed it, others (like myself) loved it. I saw it as an opportunity to grow as a desinger and artist, giving more meaning to the work. Nothing is worse than only hearing, “It’s cool” from your peers. I can’t say that I really like personally subjective comments like, “I don’t like it”.
I was surprised to see the crit of Zeldman’s site though, as Web design seems to have been free from such criticism. Until now?
Posted on February 16, 2004 07:30 AM | #
Comments are now closed