Real World Web Design
August 17, 2004 |
19 Comments
Summary: What exactly do I mean when I talk about Web design in the real world? What makes a quality Web design in the real world. This post aims to answer those questions.
I throw the term “real-world” quite a bit. It’s something that is important in my writing and my discussion of Web design. You wouldn’t be alone if you were wondering why that is and why I try and make a point to talk about things in real-world terms.
I often ask myself these very questions, even more so lately as I’m working on my re-branding exercise for Asterisk.
(Which, by-the-way, has been very interesting learning experience. In the next few weeks I’ll be sharing lots of my lessons with y’all.)
Recently, and those of you who’ve seen my Web Visions presentation will have heard this, I’ve been “accused” of using the term “real-world” as a qualifier for some kind of “Web design street cred” and in a way that is how I feel.
This entry is an attempt to explain what I mean by “Real World Web Design.” It’s an exploration and I welcome your thoughts and questions. Bear with me if I wander a bit.
Why the focus on “the real world?”
When I started Asterisk I was pretty new to the whole “blogging” thing. In fact, although I’d had a personal site that was updated fairly frequently with similar type content to what I’ve got now, I didn’t understand the concept of a “Web log.”
I read Zeldman, Evolt and Digital Web. I’d written for A List Apart, had engaged in all sorts of discussions on lists and was just beginning to get involved with the Web design community. It was an exciting time for me.
I also noticed that many of the articles I’d read, and many of the discussions (flame wars) I’d had, were very far afield from what I dealt with in my daily work. This got me to questioning the validity of some of what was going on in the community.
I kept thinking, “that is great, but in the real world, I can’t do that.” I started talking to other folks about this and found out that many folks had been turned off of online discussions and Web design sites because of this very thing.
To much of what was being talked about wasn’t practical—wasn’t “real” enough. I wanted to bring the theory together with the practice and create discussion around that. I’ve been trying to do that with Asterisk. It seems to be working rather well.
Of course, I’m not the only one doing this. As times have changed and more and more people are self-publishing, I’m beginning to see all sorts of great, “real”, discussion out here on the Web. This, my friends, is a great thing and it extends beyond the Web design community.
But I digress.
Quality Web Design in The Real World
Let’s talk brass tacks. What makes a quality Web design in the real world? Is this even something we can nail down. With every project the measure of quality and success will be different. Having said that I’m going to give it a shot.
Update 8/17: The following list reflects what how I think it should be, not how it is. To say every project I work on has clearly defined goals is a joke. This list isn’t very “real” at all! I wrote a follow up, to try and set the record straight.
A quality “real world” Web design:
- Has clearly defined goals. You need to have clear goals laid out before you begin any Web design project. Without them your chances of success are slim at best.
- Is designed with users/visitors/readers in mind. User-centered design is a must for a quality Web site. Period.
- Is built with Web standards. Web standards development practices are the way to go.
- Isn’t cheap. If you want quality, you’ve got to pay for it. There are many designers out there who undersell themselves right now, but don’t expect that to last. The cream will rise to the top and if you want your money’s worth, you’ll need to pony up.
- Shows Return On Investment (ROI). Gone are the days when you can just “stick something up there” on the Web. In the real world you need to be able to show ROI and make sure the people paying the bills are getting what they paid for.
- Is accessible. There is no reason why a Web site shouldn’t be accessible. Not one.
- Isn’t perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect Web site, but a great Web designer doing their best will be better than most. Trying to achieve the perfect design on the Web is a road to nowhere. Concentrate on “great”—not “perfect.”
- Maintains balance. A good Web design will balance the best aspects of form/function, design/content and do it’s best to satisfy the goals laid out for it to the best of its ability.
- Is scalable and forward-thinking. Things change, sometimes rapidly, a Web design needs to have room for growth and the ability to adapt.
- Is simple. Don’t confuse simple with easy. Sometimes simplicity is very hard to achieve.
- Is what it needs to be. If a great Web designer understands the goals, their role in the project and is given the freedom and power to do what they need to do a quality Web design will be the result.
In Summary
Web design in the real world is about starting with solid design theory, adding foundation of Web best practices, mixing that with solid goals and creating a user-centered design that shows ROI in the real world. It’s about learning then actually doing—“walking the walk”—so to speak.
There is a reason why things need to be designed. All to often we lose sight of the goals, and that reason, and we need to remind ourselves that, as designers, we work for someone else who lives and works in the real world—just as we do.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Jason Santa Maria said:
Very well put.
Posted on August 17, 2004 11:35 AM | #
2. Mike P. said:
A quality “real world” Web design is what it needs to be.
Love it.
Posted on August 17, 2004 11:55 AM | #
3. Stephen Collins said:
Exactly.
Posted on August 17, 2004 12:13 PM | #
4. Kevin Tamura said:
Nicely put.
Posted on August 17, 2004 12:44 PM | #
5. Keith said:
Thanks guys, but really, doesn’t anyone have something to add or something to disagree with…
(opens can of worms)
Posted on August 17, 2004 01:05 PM | #
6. Adam said:
You should certainly add:
Sorry, couldn’t resist. In all seriousness, how about a “real world” design:
That my go along with your “isn’t perfect” or “is scalable” but I think going into a design knowing that you’ll most likely have to continiously tweak it is very real worldly.
Or, how about:
Instead of always trying to reinvent the wheel or create the next best thing, how about settling for just improving/changing/eliminating one thing in your next design. Spend all the time you need to make that one thing truly unique, but then focus on making the rest of the site really good – instead of stressing yourself over making the whole site ground-breaking or the “best-thing-ever-o-m-g”.
Posted on August 17, 2004 01:29 PM | #
7. Mike D. said:
One thing that’s great about living in the real world is that you tend to tune out people who aren’t.
Posted on August 17, 2004 01:57 PM | #
8. Shade said:
Dis’ be mah hood! Represen’!
But don’t forget about us Web Developers…
I don’t do design… Though I know my share about XHTML, META-content, CSS and whatnot, I build corporate web applications…
Misconception:
A web applications developer working with a web designer is like pulling teeth
I don’t have any problem working with designers that follow standards; i.e someone who doesn’t still design websites with tables and FONT tags, or knows the difference between tabular data and listed data. I DO have a problem with self-proclaimed web designers who at do not, at the very least, have some kinda portfolio.
The depressing part about it is that it’s more an elitest attitude now, rather than simply collaborating and sharing one’s knowledge with others - i.e. ‘flame wars’. I do agree with you though, I think that some designers have lost sight of what they want to do with their talents/skill.
-Shade
Posted on August 17, 2004 02:17 PM | #
9. Adam said:
Mike: I’m not sure if that was a jab at me or not, but just to be clear I was being extremely sarcastic about the fixed-width thing. Hence the use of the word “blows”. I like to think my feet are firmly planted in this so-called “real world” of yours, thanks though.
Posted on August 17, 2004 02:23 PM | #
10. Adam said:
Ok, oops, embarrasing. Realized you weren’t in anyway referring to me. Haha, so anyway … how about those Olympics?
Posted on August 17, 2004 02:34 PM | #
11. Jennifer Grucza said:
I might add this (though it’s probably covered by the other points):
Posted on August 17, 2004 03:02 PM | #
12. Dave P said:
Adam:
I wouldn’t even bother to do this. Not for “real world” design.
To clarify, why bother making anything new and unique? None of the “Real World” techniques have anything at all with making some sort of artistic statement… although it’s a pleasant byproduct in some cases.
I agree with your point, but I’m less lenient than you are. Save the experimentation for personal sites, focus on tried and true methods in the real world.
Posted on August 17, 2004 03:02 PM | #
13. kronn said:
Great olympics, Adam… :-) Concerning width: depends (on content, goals etc.).
Keith: Well said, although I have a hard time with the perfection thing. I always want it… Yes, even in the real world. My addition:
What is a site worth (speaking ROI) if it can’t be used?
Posted on August 17, 2004 03:16 PM | #
14. Cody Lindley said:
Its a great list Keith, but with all due respect I don’t believe it worthy of the term “Real World”.
I am with out a doubt jealous if you truly consider these things “Real World”, but I feel in this instance you are as detached from the majority of the community as you yourself once felt. I believe in your world (peers as well as clients) this list could be considered “Real World”. However I think you need to ask yourself if your “Real World” today is an accurate representation of the mass majority. That is, enough of a representation to be considered “Real World”.
Your in a good place my friend if in your reality, your list is a reality! Wish I had that reality, it would be a good one.
No am not related to Dr. Seuss.
Posted on August 17, 2004 03:48 PM | #
15. Keith said:
Cory – Fair enough. And I guess, depending on how you read the list, you are totally right. I think I need to make it clear that this list reflects what it “should be” not what “it is.”
Having said that…What is Real World Web Design in your opinion and where does my list differ?
Posted on August 17, 2004 03:53 PM | #
16. Cody Lindley said:
I believe “Real World” web design claws and scratches at the opportunity to make the items on your list come true. Real World Web Design in my opinion would be making 20% of your list a reality.
Of course this is my reality, not yours!
Posted on August 17, 2004 04:09 PM | #
17. Kevin O'Keefe said:
I am not as cynical (if that’s fair to say) as Cody but it’s rare that design gets to rule the roost when it comes to site development.
The large players with the money like a LexisNexis company which bought my previous company allow far too many players (bus dev, marketing, IT, sales, and senior execs) all to have a say on design. Then bus dev with their project managers, despite knowing what may be desirable design, does what it can to appease everyone as best possible. You end up with a site where people say things like: “It’s pretty good or better than the previous one.” The problem is that everyone feels they should be able to comment on design rather than step back and let the expert do things.
I am optimistic that with blogs, traditional corporate people may see some creative design and let it slide rather than interfere because it’s ‘only a blog’ and not a Web site. Once they get used to seeing better design we may take the next step going to perhaps 80% of what Keith says.
Posted on August 17, 2004 07:47 PM | #
18. Beerzie Yoink said:
Great stuff. What’s funny is that I didn’t read the list as “real world”, just a list of goals to shoot for. No technology development project should start by aiming low; the higher you aim, the higher the mark you hit will be.
Posted on August 18, 2004 09:03 AM | #
19. tracyanne said:
In ALL the discussions, texts, how tos, etc on standards based web design, and your presentation at http://www.7nights.com/presentations/webvisions_2004/ doesn’t seem to be any different, I have yet to see anything that deals with the sorts of web sites I work on.
Every example, of Good web design, I have come across, deals with what are essentially static web pages. It’s true their content may be pulled of a data store somewhere, but the content is essentially static, once it’s created it doesn’t change.
Additionally, I’m stuck with the what Microsoft’s ASP.NET components emit. And while I can design and build my own components, very often, when the site is implimented - usually on a server I have no control over - I can do nothing about the fact that IIS and .NET treat ALL non Microsoft browsers as down level, and always emit the markup as tables rather than divs, unless I hard code that sort of thing, which is very bad practice.
Posted on October 25, 2005 02:17 PM | #
Comments are now closed