Maintaining a Relationship with Your Designs
July 26, 2004 | 
14 Comments
If you take a look at almost any job description out there one of the things employers want is attention to detail. Why then are so many business and professional sites out there so sorely lacking in that very detail?
When it comes to design, detail is something I feel is very important. It’s also something that takes quite a bit of effort and lots of time, especially on the Web.
Dealing with all the details of a great Web design can be much harder than what you might have to deal with for a print piece, for example. That’s not to belittle print design, only to point out that with the Web you’ve got to deal with things that could be outside of your control.
And when a print piece is done — it’s done.
On the Web the details can be a royal pain that could very well have no end. That doesn’t mean we should ignore them, but I often get the feeling this is exactly what is done.
A Lack Of Control?
Now, I realize that as designers we don’t always have the opportunity to watch over our designs after we hand them off. It’s a real shame, to be honest. How many of you have seen a great, detailed design go to shit after you handed it off?
I’ve been on both sides of that situation many, many times and I can understand the challenges from both sides — it’s really too damn bad that Web designers don’t have more involvement in the continuing life of their designs.
In any case, in those situations I’m afraid there isn’t much I can offer in the way of advice, except to make sure and nail as many details as you can before you hand the design off. Sadly I don’t think this is done many times either.
Nail The Basics
When I talk about details, I’m not even talking about details like what Dunstan put into his latest redesign. I’m talking about basics. Things like making sure your sites design looks (or will look) decently in all the major browser and is at least functional in others.
I’m talking about things like decent margins (where your text doesn’t overlap the border or another column of text) and a line length that’s not way to long, or way to short. Graphics that don’t distract, page titles that carry meaning and error messages that help the user understand what went wrong…things like that.
I feel these details are often more important than an original, aesthetically pleasing design. There are lots of sites out there that look great on the surface — yet breakdown when the details are looked into. Much of this is due to poor execution or the design of a site that hasn’t taken into account anything but the visual. This is thankfully seeming to be less and less common, but it’s still makes up much of the Web.
Details Are Lots Of Work
While I was in Hawaii I spent all of about 2 hours on the Web (it was awesome getting away). It was on a coffee shop’s Dell, running Window’s XP and Internet Explorer. I do most of my surfing on my Mac, so you can imagine how I was able to notice the lack of detail on many of the sites I visited that day — including my own.
If you didn’t know, or haven’t surfed the Web with OSX. Just about everything looks better — even the broken sites.
It got me to thinking about all the time I’ve spent on this site and others trying to nail down all the tiny little details. I usually spend more time on my designs after a site is launched than before — that should give you an idea.
And I still have lots of work to do.
Getting the details right on the Web can be a monumental (and ongoing) task. One that will eat up many hours and lots of brain power.
An Ongoing Process
A pain, these details, but it’s the attention to detail in every aspect (design, development, content, etc.) that set the good sites apart. If you’re dedicated to making your sites the best they can be you’ll check up on them, prune them and maintain them as long as they’re yours.
You’ll establish a relationship with your site. Sounds cheesy, but I feel it makes a certain kind of sick sense. You don’t have to nail the details right off the bat (I don’t think that’s possible — especially on a one-person run blog and things of that nature) but an ongoing effort is worth quite a bit in my book.
(Especially if the owner/manager of the site listens to constructive feedback and acts on it.)
Web sites take on a life of their own, they grow, expand and change over time (redesign or no) and to ensure a great site with a long life — pay attention, and keep paying attention, to the details.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Colly said:
Keith, you’re barely off the plane. Where did this nugget come from?!
I can’t help but agree. We’re probably all guilty somewhere (except detail guru Dunstan). I often shudder when I look back at old jobs and wonder how I let myself get away with ignoring certain aspects of a design. As Summer lethargy builds up, I’m on the hunt for articles such as this that kick us (me) up the backside and ensure we all practice what we preach.
Oh, and have to agree about Mac browsers. Text-rendering and clarity are vastly superior. Sorry PC dudes…
Posted on July 26, 2004 01:58 AM | #
2. Gabriel Mihalache said:
On matters of text quality, and every other Mac vs. PC flame war out there, it’s worth noticing that it’s actually NOT a matter of hardware, but of software.
It’s not Mac/PowerPC versus PC/x86 (or ATI vs. Nvidia) BUT instead it all boils down to Mac OS X versus Windows or Linux or whatever else you’d run on the x86 box.
If Apple were to release a Panther version for x86 CPUs + nvidia cards, they’d have to deal with the same drivers nightmare as Microsoft does, but we’d have the same text rendering quality.
Posted on July 26, 2004 02:16 AM | #
3. The Wolf said:
Back in the old days of IE5 and win95 there used to be a reg hack that you could use to change the font rendering quality. All it did was change the min no-AA size and the max no-AA site to 0. That way all the fonts where smooth. But some fonts look best without AA enabled.
Posted on July 26, 2004 04:23 AM | #
4. Yannick L. said:
I am currently working on a website for a client and wondered what would happen once it is handed over to them. You made some good points there Keith and I most certainly will pay attention to the details while I am working on the site for the customer.
Thanks!
Posted on July 26, 2004 07:00 AM | #
5. David Benton said:
I’ll quickly say that I enjoyed the article, especially “nail the details”, but then I’ll run with the anti-aliased text tangent. Here goes:
Windows XP has ClearType, Redmond’s name for subpixel font antialiasing. To turn it on go to:
Display properties > Appearance tab > Effects
And check “Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts”. Then select ClearType in the box below. Or alternatively follow this link which I just found.
I am a Windows designer, and despite the greatly improved appearance, I don’t use cleartype. Why? Because I try to view the sites I work on as visitors will see them. Amazing what I put myself through for clients isn’t it? Btw, I do test in other browsers (I have IE 3-6, NN 4-7, and current versions of Opera, Firefox (my favorite) and Lynx installed and I use iCapture).
Posted on July 26, 2004 07:58 AM | #
6. Keith said:
Colly – I’m still on Hawaii time and couldn’t get to sleep last night, that’s where this came from! ;)
Gabriel – True. It is an OS issue.
David – I’ll admit that I’m not well versed in all the intricacies of how OSX renders vs. how XP renders, BUT, I will say that ClearType doesn’t even come close. I’ve tried it and frankly it looks kind of sloppy. The text appears blurry to me. But maybe I’m not doing it right…anyway, I do agree it’s a good idea to check and see how most people will see your site, and I do this with my own designs. It was just a shock to see many of the sites I view on a regular basis and how, well, bad, they looked in XP.
Posted on July 26, 2004 08:17 AM | #
7. Ian Gordon said:
Keith,
You nail this point right on the head, I couldn’t concur more. However, for me, I see most of the design process focused on prior to launch and even after I launch I am still racking my brain to make sure everything is “perfect”.
Posted on July 26, 2004 02:36 PM | #
8. The Wolf said:
I would like to see a demo of freetype, cleartype and the one used in osx, that would be interesting.
If I made a site with several styles of text, would someone using linux and osx take a screenshot? I can’t do the clear type screenshot either because I use w2k.
If you do, please email me (rowanjl [at] gmail [dot] com) the images, thanks, Rowan.
Posted on July 26, 2004 04:21 PM | #
9. Josh King said:
I have trouble laying all the blame on the OS. The type of display (CRT or LCD) and its quality has an enoumous impact as well. Also, the quality of the font itself makes a difference.
ClearType is not intended for CRTs, although if users follow David’s (#5) link to calibrate it you will be able to get satisfactory results. ClearType is mainly intended to adjust the subpixel rendering of fonts on LCDs (where each pixel is subdivided into R-G-B thirds). It does have an anti-aliasing component however, and after you calibrate it, it doesn’t look so bad.
Macs do have a leg-up in the sense that they have more appealing type settings on by default. But to single Windows out and say that it always looks ugly isn’t really being objective and only serves to add fuel to a Mac OS vs Windows fire.
Posted on July 26, 2004 04:29 PM | #
10. Keith said:
We’re getting WAY off topic here, but I’ll address the last 2 comments.
Wolf – If you get this up, let me know.
Josh – I’m not really trying to single Windows out. Just pointing out a simple fact – Web sites look better on OSX than they do on Windows.
Don’t agree – prove me wrong. I’d be interested to see the result as I have a Windows machine at work. I think it’d be great to have my Windows browsing experience be as nice as my Mac browsing experience.
Anyway, it wasn’t my intent to imply that all sites are ugly on a Windows machine. Many sites look just fine, it’s just when viewed on a machine running OSX they look better.
Posted on July 26, 2004 06:38 PM | #
11. sTEVEN sTREIGHT said:
I just visited the Apple Computer web site, www.apple.com, at least I think it was the Apple Computer web site.
The home page was dominated by an ipod promotion. There was just a tiny black apple at top of nav bar.
When I drilled into the site, text was misaligned, one sentence overlapping horizontally another above it.
Detail? Hmmm….
Posted on July 26, 2004 06:51 PM | #
12. Keith said:
Steven – That is what I would call detail, yes. Apple usually does pretty good, but I guess even the big ones have problems paying attention to detail.
Posted on July 26, 2004 07:05 PM | #
13. Scrivs said:
I wasn’t gonna say anything on this one since I am supposedly on vacation, but this is just too good to let it pass.
If you wanna get down to it, details make or break a site. Details are what distinguish many of the sites in the Vault from the rest. Details are what make you remember a site and return (along with content).
Dunstan’s redesign is a great example. It gets to the point where you just return just to find out what other new things you can discover. This is what I have been going for with the new Forever Geek. I haven’t officially announced the redesign per se since I am adding little things here and there, which in the long run you might not notice, but they will enhance the user experience.
The problem with details, as you mentioned already Keith, is that they can be a pain in the ass. They follow the 80/20 rule as does everything else in the world it seems. 80% of the work put into a site is finishing up that last 20% of the design. However, too many of us quit after we do the first 80%.
Posted on July 27, 2004 06:16 AM | #
14. Scott said:
You hit the nail on the head, Keith. That’s for sure. I greatly believe that content and detail is what keeps people coming, not solely the detail. My site for instance isnt that detailed but I have a few dedicated readers.
Scrivs, that forever geek site is coming along great. It’s very unique from what you usually see.
Posted on July 27, 2004 10:44 AM | #
Comments are now closed