Web Design is Web Design
April 02, 2004 | 
25 Comments
That pesky word “design” is on my mind again today. I’ve come across some very good discussions about the subject of design and how we define Web design in relation to other design disciplines.
For you perusal:
For some reason folks seem to have a problem letting Web design be it’s own discipline. It’s the Web big enough and unique enough to warrant designers that are dedicated solely to the Web? I sure as hell think so.
Graphic design, print design, interface design, information design, new media design — all of these disciplines and more have much in common with Web design. However, in my opinion anyway, Web design is a breed of design all by itself.
I’m a Web designer — what that means is I design products whose primary delivery method is the Web. Does that involve graphic design, interface design and information design? Yes, and other disciplines as well.
Web design should be recognized as a discipline unto itself. Schools should begin to teach it as such (instead of teaching graphic design, Dreamweaver and Flash to kids and calling it Web design), companies should begin to hire true Web designers (not glorified graphic designers or designer / programmer / sysadmin / writer / project manager / masseuse) who design only for the Web and are interested in things essential to Web design. Things like interface design, usability, and Web content layout.
(Ok, that sounds a bit idealistic, but hey, I’m feeling ornery today.)
It’s simple. Web design is Web design. There I just defined it.
That wasn’t too hard was it?
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Milan Negovan said:
Well said! I think during the .com boom too many people acquired bad habits of confusing web design with whatever they were practicing at the time. Same goes for web application development. It’ll take time for the “mighty change of heart” to take place… :)
Posted on April 2, 2004 12:34 PM | #
2. Adam said:
I’ll admit, I still try and avoid telling people that I’m a web designer. The negative connotations still associated with the word (“Oh yeah, my 13 year old cousin’s a web designer …”) always make me a little wary. Lately I’ve been opting for web developer, online content manager, content producer, etc. I guess I should be ashamed, but it’s just easier, especially when meeting new people.
Posted on April 2, 2004 12:54 PM | #
3. andrew said:
There also Owen Briggs’ famous rant about web design at: http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/design_rant/index.html
Like Adam, I still cringe, a little, when I tell people I work on the web. Depending on who I’m talking to, I ususually say “interaction desiger” or “software user interface designer” these days.
I haven’t heard anyone say “my 13-year old cousin’s a web designer” in years, that’s really a non-issue anymore. (If anything, it’s “my 13-year old cousin has a blog”.)
Posted on April 2, 2004 01:18 PM | #
4. Andrei Herasimchuk said:
I think you need to define “web” in the web design part.
Why? Because someday, the browser will disappear. There may be content readers that display HTML stuff, but the browser is not the web.
Product likes iTunes and the iTunes Music Store are where the real web will be in the future. Embedded inside applications so users can completely bypass browsers with the user experience. The iTunes Music Store does not live inside a browser, although it uses a browser component for a portion of the experience. (The key word here is “portion.”) It has all the behaviors available to it in a traditional desktop app, with real workflow that rarely requires the notion of “Back” or “Refresh.”
Embedded apps will also be coming soon. These are products that will essentially be custom apps, yet deliver “web” based content. Like the interface to shop for groceries online from a device that is embedded in your refrigerator. Content will probably use HTML tech as a means for delivery, but the app itself will not be browser based. The experience would not be robust enouh to make it work if it were solely browser based.
So, with that in mind, I think you need to go long term. What is the “web” in “web design.” Is it the browser? Are you relying on delivery inside the browser? If so, I think you may be backing yourself into a corner of obsolesence in the future.
Posted on April 2, 2004 01:32 PM | #
5. Jennifer Grucza said:
I agree, Keith. What we really need is for schools to have an interdisciplinary major which includes classes in graphic design, programming, usability, plus web-specific concepts. If they had had a major like that at MIT, I would have jumped at it! But then again, MIT doesn’t have any sort of art and design department (any art classes tend to be in the architecture department), and, at least when I was there, there were no classes in usability or interface design. I hope it has changed since then, but I doubt it.
Posted on April 2, 2004 01:47 PM | #
6. Bobby van der Sluis said:
Keith, I’m with you on this one: I identify myself as a web designer and I see web design as the total of graphic design, information design, usability design, etc. I always like to see them as different roles or hats though, because they have different focus points.
Depending on the size of the project and the budget, scrooginess or knowledge of a client one or more people have to carry those hats. But of course the more hats you wear, the harder it gets to deliver the work that covers all these areas of web design. So a single web designer must be quite all round.
Depending on the goals of your project and the target audience you like to serve, some hats are more important than the other. Like Andy made his point today, in a lot of companies the hat of the graphic designer is always the most important one, probably because he is highest in rank within that company.
Adam, I share your feelings when people ask me what I am doing for a living. The job description ‘web designer’ really has a negative image with a lot of people. And now you are talking about web developer, I always wonder where the job description of web designer ends and where the one of web developer starts.
Posted on April 2, 2004 01:53 PM | #
7. Andrew said:
My issue with the state of web design today is that so many people call themselves ‘web designers’ but haven’t a clue how their medium works. They don’t know HTML, they don’t know CSS, they don’t know JavaScript, and they don’t understand HTTP. They might not need to know everything in detail, but many would struggle just to define any of those concepts.
An artist knows his medium. Sculptors understand stone, painters understand paint and canvas. They know their tools and the limitations and attributes of the medium they express themselves in.
And to me, there are just too many people who say, “It’s all just design” and jump right from designing magazine layouts to web pages.
Posted on April 2, 2004 02:06 PM | #
8. Steve Agalloco said:
I think Cooper may have best defined it as ‘Interaction Design’ in his book About Face. It’s basically the same definition you gave (interface design, usability, and content layout) only I think it’s better if we all standardize on a single name/description. Otherwise we’re going to face the same identity-crisis that Information Architects have been battling for some time now.
Posted on April 2, 2004 02:41 PM | #
9. Jeremy Flint said:
I agree with you Keith. Coming from an education in Graphic Design, I know how it is to be in a print-oriented program and see people trying to grasp web design (what is the color code for Panton 125CV?).
Even today, most universities are trying to cram web design into the print design curriculum. Some schools even teach it as part of the communication curriculum (journalism, etc.).
It is rare that you find an instructor committed to teaching proper standards, technique, and theory in web design.
Posted on April 2, 2004 03:26 PM | #
10. Keith said:
Andrei – I’ve got no problem at all with what you are saying. I do think “Web sites” will be around for awhile that that is where 75% of my work comes from so I think it’s ok to stick with “Web design” for now.
When my works shifts I’ll be more than happy to call what I do something else. I’m not worried about “backing yourself into a corner of obsolescence in the future.”
I’m adaptable.
I guess my feeling is right there with Andrew (#7) – The are too many people walking around calling themselves “Web designers” when that isn’t really what they do.
Then again – I’m not really a “Web designer” either. I’m more of a producer type. Even though I hate the term “Web producer” as it’s so damn ambiguous.
Anyway, this post wasn’t really about titles. It’s about the function of designing for the Web. That is Web design. If you design for Web enabled software applications or Embedded applications it’s something different.
Posted on April 2, 2004 05:09 PM | #
11. celia said:
coding is not design. painters know paint, but they don’t feel they have to know how to blend pigments. Too many web designers are so obsessed with standards and css tricks they forget proper design principals: color, line, layout, contract,weight, font. Why do all these css obsessed sites look alike?
Posted on April 2, 2004 07:29 PM | #
12. Jeremy Flint said:
Part of being a web designer, in my opinion, is knowing the limitations of the code and being able to design with those limitations in mind.
Similarly, print designers must know the limitations of their medium: 4-color, full color, paper weights, textures, inks, etc.
When you design for the web, and throw the limitations of the medium out the window, you are not using the medium to its fullest potential.
Most CSS sites do look alike, but the same can be said for table-based sites as well. Most sites are based on columns because it has been proven to be the most successful method for presenting content in this medium. However, I can take a look through the CSS Zen Garden and see very few that look alike.
Posted on April 2, 2004 08:03 PM | #
13. Dustin said:
You own.
Posted on April 2, 2004 10:14 PM | #
14. Rimantas said:
Oh well. Why do all the books look alike? ;)
What bothers me is that for too many web companies ‘web design’ ends at the point ‘it looks good’.
In not only should look good it should be good to use and a bit more than that.
I really enjoyed article Design: the Secret to Good Information and So Much More” on the www.experiencethread.com.
Posted on April 3, 2004 03:44 AM | #
15. Nick Finck said:
“I think you need to define “web” in the web design part.”
…I am not sure where you are going with this but the Web is the Web. Right now web designers simply design for the web. Sure, maybe in 20 years the browsers may be gone, but by then we will all have new titles anyway. I think Keith’s point is to worry about today, not 20 years from now (oh, and I am sure “broadband” will have opened up by then, right? 20 years? hehe).
“I think Cooper may have best defined it as ‘Interaction Design’ in his book About Face.”
I have the book sitting right here, he wasn’t just talking about the Web… this little industry called the software industry comes to mind… which in itself is a completely different thing with some similar qualities. I think Keith is talking specifically about the Web here.
“Painters know paint, but they don’t feel they have to know how to blend pigments.”
…and if that was the case that painter wouldn’t be worth their weight in dirt.
“Part of being a web designer, in my opinion, is knowing the limitations of the code and being able to design with those limitations in mind.”
Well Said!
With all that said and done, I also know some people who design for the Web but do not call themselves “Web Designers” because they also design for the software industry and other mediums… so they use the name “Interaction Designer” or “UI Designer” which is perfectly acceptable in my book, however, when you are designing for the web you are doing Web Design, no two ways about it. By “designing” I mean creating UI, and putting that into functional form within its medium; the Web.
Posted on April 3, 2004 08:09 AM | #
16. Andrei Herasimchuk said:
Imagine I have no idea what you are talking about… Now, tell what is the “web?” You too Keith! You avoided that part of the question. (Unless of course you want to call yourself a “web site designer” instead of a “web designer.” 8^) )
And after you define the “web” or even a “web site,” define for me what and where the iTunes Music Store fits into that definition if at all.
Posted on April 3, 2004 08:57 AM | #
17. Keith said:
Andrei – now your just being difficult. I get the distict feeling that you look down on “Web designers” from somewhere on high. You’re not a Web desinger – your an Interface Designer or whatever and your better than me. Satisfied?
(Don’t be offended I’m just kidding around with you)
When I say “Web” I’m generally talking about something that is delivered via a browser. This is usually a “Web site” or “Web page” but could be a host of other things. I’ve done UI design for Web enabled applications and it’s not the same as Web design.
The vast majority of my own work is now centered around the Web (as in delivered via a browser) and so I call that Web design. When I worked for Connexion and worked on custom Flash applications and things like that I called myself a UI designer.
Is that what you are looking for?
The iTunes Music Store is a Web enabled software application.
Posted on April 3, 2004 12:38 PM | #
18. Andrei Herasimchuk said:
Yup… that’s what I was looking for. And since you got the issue of the browser going away in the near future and are okay with adapting, then more power to you!
If you take a look at Longhorn and the stuff going on in software development these days, content delivered exclusively in a browser will start to go away. The interaction model is severly limited, as is the user experience, so this is a good thing. It’s just that the “web” will cease to be the “web” a little while after Longhorn ships. Everything will begin to look more and more like what you see in the iTunes Music Store.
Even blogs.
Posted on April 3, 2004 04:25 PM | #
19. Keith said:
Fair enough. I do think it’ll be quite awhile before we begin to see what you suggest. Longhorn isn’t going to launch until, what? 2006? Then you need to factor in the fact that it will take quite awhile to be adopted.
I think we’ve got to deal with the browser for quite a while yet.
I know people and companies that are still on Win 95. There is still quite a bit of support for Netscape. Also, I wonder how many UI conventions will carry over from the Web (browser delivered) interaction model.
I do agree with you that those changes will be a good thing and I think that many Web designers will be able to adapt – for the time being the Web is quite enough to deal with.
Posted on April 3, 2004 04:40 PM | #
20. Ken said:
I have stopped calling myself a “web designer” and instead prefer “web developer” as I think it describes a bit more what I do. I think the term “design” to many conjures up images of guys in turtle neck sweaters, black rimmed glasses and funky hair doos:
“I am an artist…your piddly business plan means nothing to me..I pee on your corporate branding and color scheme. I want the browser to come alive when they visit your site, I want them to weep with the beauty I create.”
OK maybe I went a little too far on that one, but I think you understand my point. Web development/design/architecture/systems are getting more sophisticated and as we move to seperate content from design it is going to be more neccesary for designers to be developers and vice versa. Developing for the web is both an art and science and one that is still inventing itself. Right now it is like we are still in the early days of television, who knows where we will be in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now (hopefully kicking back in my hover car with my robot dog while my clone is at home doing all the work), but technology builds upon itself. Theories developed in the early days of graphic design apply to what we are doing now, as does software development principles, film studies and systems science.
Posted on April 3, 2004 05:34 PM | #
21. Veerle Pieters said:
I’m with Jeremy Flint (#12) on this one. I think that the function of a web designer has kind of 2 parts. You have the graphical part and you have part of transforming it into a webpage. To be a good web designer you need good skills in both areas. But I don’t think you either have to choose between being a designer for print or for the web. It’s perfectly possible to do both. You just need to have the courage and perseverance to dig into the technical side of things to be good at it. At least that’s how I do it. I started as a graphic designer just for print but since the web came along I became both.
Another point is that the software creators lets you think that creating web pages is SOOo easy, you don’t have to know the code. To become a web designer is so easy and it doesn’t need any big investment and that’s one of the reasons why the title of web designer has some kind of a bad taste.
Posted on April 4, 2004 04:06 AM | #
22. LazyJim said:
I’m very happy with the idea that ‘web design’ is a whole discipline in its own right.
I always assumed that was the case, until I entered the scene and found a mix of coders, programmers, graphic designers, artists, marketers and more calling themselves “web designers,” “web developers” and even “web masters.” It all seemed a bit haphazard to me, and I never saw evidence of any actual design being done (the purpose-plan-intent-impliment kind of design I mean), I hoped it went on behind the scenes but no-one seemed able to discuss it -every one I spoke to thought ‘design’ just means drawing patterns and making graphics. Everyone seems to think I’m going loopy when I say ‘aesthetics’ is just a small part of design, I suppose most of them don’t know what it means!
I think we need to define what is meant by the “design” in “web design.”
It means so many things to so many people, that not only do I not know which sort of designer any other “web designer” is (and vice versa), but also our clients have no way of telling which sort of designer the are about to hire.
If you don’t know what I mean by two sorts of designer, I’ll be delighted to elaborate.
Posted on April 4, 2004 11:10 AM | #
23. JohnnieC said:
I’m a programmer who sometimes creates software that is delivered by a web server and used within a browser. I would call that a web app. I believe I have many ‘web design 101’ skills – I use CSS, and am concerned about usability, colors, accessibility etc. But calling me a web designer would be a stretch. In the same sense, calling someone a web developer because they sprinkle in some client side JavaScript or edit raw html is also quite a stretch. These are different disciplines. Yeah it would be great to have both skills, but that is very rare.
I am envious of many of the web designers. I sometimes have the same problem you do with the desire to differential yourself from the pretenders.
I like the author’s description of a web designer. I think the discipline is old enough now that people pretty much get it. I would stay away from titles like ‘content manager’ or ‘content producer’. If you are truly a web designer, those terms devalue your trade.
As far as web developer, I would really expect the person to be a programmer. Some clues to whether the person is a programmer would be: Is the content created dynamically? Are they capable of creating code (asp, php, java, etc.) that creates web pages dynamically? Is there a back end database system?
The term ‘web’ pretty much assumes http traffic between a web server and a web browser. iTunes (or ftp, or telnet, or anything else you deliver across the internet) is something different. Web designers don’t design for these things, they design for the web.
Posted on April 6, 2004 03:01 PM | #
24. Peter said:
I would agree with LazyJim’s comment that there are different types of designers, but I wonder if it’s not just an issue in ‘web’ design. I have worked with designers in the past that are really artists. They are most interested in showcasing their interpretation of a concept, than addressing the goals of the project. In my experience, these people usually come up with something visually striking and so people think they did a good job. Then you step back and think about the user and the desired action you wish the user to take and it’s hit or miss as to whether the artist’s output will help the user along that path.
For me, a good ‘designer’ is less like an artist and more like an editor or typographer (someone who designs type. not sure what they’re called). The goal is more on the desired action of the user rather than the emotional reaction of the user. An editor wants to get the story read. A typographer wants to make it easy to read the story. In a way, these people know they have been successful when people don’t notice their work. Instead they remember the content.
Of course there’s plenty of room for both kinds of designers, but I would suggest a majority of the time, ‘web’ designers need to be more like editors and less like artists. Your design can be unique and original, up to the point it overshadows the content and desired action from the user.
Posted on April 12, 2004 02:24 PM | #
25. Susanna said:
“Web Designer” is a good term. It’s how I describe myself when people ask what I do for a living. I don’t say “Graphic Designer” because that implies working with print, something I rarely do in my job.
If there were a term for “graphic designer who works solely with electronic media,” I’d use it.
Posted on April 12, 2004 02:26 PM | #
Comments are now closed