Return of Design
November 03, 2004 | 
43 Comments
Summary: Let’s start talking about the “design” part of Web design again.
Over the last few years we in the Web community have been talking about all sorts of issues; standards, CSS, usability, IA, UX and more. One topic that I’ve felt, at least in terms of the Web, has been left out a bit, is design.
(For those semantically challenged by “design”, I generally mean visual design, but it’s more than that. It’s a craft that takes into account making things desirable, usable and more.)
Lately there seems to be a movement back toward design. I, for one, am all for it. It doesn’t mean that any of the things I mentioned above are less important, it’s just that there seems to be a need to swing things back a bit. I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks Web design has gotten a bit “samey” in the wake of standards and the rest.
In my mind there is need for a bit more balance. A bit more creativity. A bit more design.
A Metaphor: Building A House
Let’s pretend, for a second, that Web design really is like architecture. That’s always fun. And, let’s just pretend, that building a Web experience was like building a house.
For a great house you’d want an architect. There is your IA. You’d want windows and doors and stairs. You’d want a bathroom that works. Well, there is your user-centered design. You’d want it to be structurally sound, right? Well, standards can help with that. I could go on.
You also might want your house to be unique and different, and you might want it to look good, inside and out. A great house would have all these things and have them at a high level.
Looking at this metaphor in relation to professional Web design now we seem to be building quite a few functional log cabins, and a whole bunch of pretty dollhouses that no-one can live in.
A great house is one that is crafted to suit the wants, desires and needs of it’s owners. I, for one, want something that works well, looks good, has personality, is unique and suited to me. Sure I can live in a log cabin, but I’d prefer something a bit more “me.”
Back to Design
In learning to make functional, usable, accessible Web sites built with best practices and standards we seem to have pushed design and aesthetic creativity into the background a bit. There is still quite a bit of work to go in furthering best practices and and everything we’ve been working toward, but it takes all of these things and more to create a truly great Web experience.
I think it’s time to get more design back into the mix.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Ben Shewmaker said:
I would certainly agree that there is a quality of sameness among many standards compliant sites. But surely there are some exemplary sites to look to for inspiration? Are there any Frank Lloyd Wright’s of the web design world so to speak?
Posted on November 3, 2004 07:09 PM | #
2. Kyle said:
Honestly, I think it’s the sites that people are focusing on that give the web the ‘samey’ vibe. Take for example World of Disney (Recent launch). It’s… more or less standards, but time constraints and multiple publishers put some serious limitations into play. But the design - wow.
I think the issue is that people are starting to see through other’s eyes instead of looking through their own. Each person is bound to lean towards a certain style - if you look through the Vault, you’ll see a lot of commonalities - aligned to Scriv’s point of view.
So, while your point is valid - I believe it’s more lack of exposure than lack of design.
Posted on November 3, 2004 07:20 PM | #
3. Ryan Brill said:
Amen, brotha’!
Posted on November 3, 2004 07:26 PM | #
4. Keith said:
Ben – I think this is part of what I’m talking about. There are those people (Doug Bowman comes to mind, there are others) it’s just that the focus (in conferences, articles and such) has been on standards, usability, etc.
Some of the “voices” have been talking about everything but design, and that’s been good, we needed it and will continue to, but we need more design talk in my opinion.
Kyle – This is very true. Exposure is a part of it, as well it’s been that “design” hasn’t wanted to mix with “best practices” as much. If “design” doesn’t want to come to “best practice” let’s bring “best practice” to “design.”
Or something…I’d just like to talk more about how we can inject some more creativity, or maybe give some more exposure to great (functional, attractive, usable, etc.) design on the Web.
Posted on November 3, 2004 07:33 PM | #
5. Derek said:
I agree with Kyle, when all you look at in regards to web design is 10 or 20 select bloggers, of course you are going to feel like the web is only focusing on one thing. Sure, you might have to visit a few sites that don’t validate if you want to see some good design, but I think they’re out there.
I don’t know how many sites you read or which ones, but you don’t need to go much further than the design portals like K10K to see some design. You won’t see any talk of standards there at all. :)
Posted on November 3, 2004 07:43 PM | #
6. Keith said:
Derek – k10k is usually on the “dollhouse” side of the spectrum. To me that’s not always great design. Great design, in my mind, is functional and looks good. It’s content- and user-centered and shows ROI.
I do read k10k (although I find it difficult to use at best) and I don’t mean to sound like I’m dissing it, but in general that’s not what I’m referring to here. Keep in mind my audience…I don’t think the k10k guys read my site. ;)
Posted on November 3, 2004 07:51 PM | #
7. Ty said:
To add to Keith’s point, many of the sites featured on k10k are “samey” as well. But in a different way. Also, they aren’t really professional. Not that they are bad, just not commercial or the kind of sites that pay bills. Lots of personal portfolio, flash, etc.
I think the kind of design I’d like to see would simply be a blend of creativity (something different) and best standards. Like Keith says – a balance.
Posted on November 3, 2004 08:03 PM | #
8. Jeff Kenny said:
My brain couldn’t help reading it as “blog cabin” - maybe that’s what you subconsciously meant…
My $.02 - I think that once good designers become more comfortable with the idea of standards, best practices, etc (yes - I think there are some already out there) things will begin to open up a bit more.
Posted on November 3, 2004 08:24 PM | #
9. Dave P said:
This is an interesting post Keith, and I should preface my comment by mentioning first off that “design” (as in the ooh la la it’s pretty part) is not my forte.
That being said, I can still appreciate good design. You say at the top of your post that web design is “samey”, and then use the house analogy. (Good) Point taken.
Last time I checked, however, most houses also have that certain “samey” feeling. They all have a roof on top, they all have a front door, they all have - it seems these days - hardwood floors.
My point being that it isn’t really a result of lackluster creativity, but a product of good design. I think the nature of creativity is being orignal and staying within those same boundaries, the boundaries of what constitutes a positive user experience.
So really, I think what we’re seeing with the web right now is encouraging… websites are similar the same way houses are similar, the same way cars are similar, the same way our computers are similar - even if you have an iMac.
Posted on November 3, 2004 08:28 PM | #
10. Marilyn Langfeld said:
Keith, When you say, “talking about…” I immediately think of the blogsphere, and that’s one place where we see a lot of sameness in design, but that’s at least partly based on the function of blogs (good old form follows function) – talk and comment.
In addition, it’s still pretty hard for beginners to make CSS-based designs work across browsers, so I think we see people doing what they are pretty sure will work, which is a restriction in itself.
I tried designing my site in CSS, but couldn’t figure out how to do a few things, and was told my code could be simplified, but I still don’t know enough to fix it. I’m committed to improving it over time, but there’s definitely a learning curve to master.
So, I think we’ll see more great design as people become more familiar with CSS, as techniques are perfected and as browsers support it better.
Posted on November 3, 2004 08:49 PM | #
11. Geoffrey said:
Maybe it’s more diversity in decoration we are talking about, not necessarily design. When an art director says:
“How can we jazz this up?” I no longer think we are talking about design. But that’s probably an semantic argument.
There is indeed a lot of “sameness” in CSS/Standards-driven design, but I think a big part of that is a result of the change in how we think of what a Web site should be. The trend towards thinking of Web sites as publications is an important one. How do you “jazz-up” a publication? Do you hire good writers or do you hire good designers? Hopefully both, but no amount of decoration, er, design will salvage weak content.
So maybe standards, design and content should round a good Web site. I see a triangle diagram coming on�…
Posted on November 3, 2004 09:00 PM | #
12. Keith said:
Geoff – Well, it’s all of those things. I think there needs to be less of a focus (for many, not all, of us) on things we already “get”.
It’s hard to explain.
Content can be designed, information can be designed and yeah, I mean decoration a bit as well, but it’s everything. I don’t like the word “decoration” because it seems like an afterthought. How about strategic visual design? ;)
It is probably a semantic argument. But I’m not talking about jazzing things up just for the sake of it. I’m talking about using design to help convey content, information and usability. Using design to differentiate.
I’m talking about being more creative and not using standards and the words of usability gurus as a crutch to build “samey” sites.
Sure they work. But a log cabin works also. Doesn’t mean I want to live there. I feel like it’s perceived as being more important to validate and boast a “best practice” layout than it is to do something creative, different and new.
I guess I think a Web site can be more than what I’m seeing most of.
I want both in my designs. On this site, and others, we’ve been leaving design out of many of the conversations. Look at Digital Web. It’s been mostly CSS/Standards, etc. Where is the design? When I post about standards here I get 4 times more comments as I do when I talk about design.
I realize it’s a hard concept to explain…I just think those who can marry best of breed design with best practice/standards can become the “Frank Lloyd Wright’s of the web design world.”
There are too many who think this can’t be done, and just like we are bringing people up to speed with CSS/usability, etc. maybe we should talk about the value of good, strategic design.
Posted on November 3, 2004 09:18 PM | #
13. Geoffrey said:
I don’t like the word decoration either, that’s why I used it. ;)
But yes, I agree with you whole-heartedly. You probably figured I was playing a bit of the devil’s advocate. But I still think the reason a lot of the CSS Vault sites look fairly similar is because the content itself is not being designed, just the containers that hold it. And also because the medium is still in it’s infancy.
I do think your point is right on, and I do think it’s possible to do all of the above. And I’d much rather talk design than boring old standards any day–so keep the topics coming!
Posted on November 3, 2004 09:45 PM | #
14. Dan Bowling said:
I believe that a movement towards standards (and by this, I am referring to the CSS/separation of presentation and markup issue) we are creating an atmosphere of good design. Every web developer I have seen has had a sudden burst of creativity, usability, color and an overall visual design benefit from the usage of a standards based site. Perhaps these two issues aren’t as separate as we thought? Perhaps we talk about standards, but achieve better design in the process?
And Kieth, I really do prefer your design posts, regardless of how many comments you get. I would love to take a good quality discussion over a standards debate any day.
Posted on November 3, 2004 10:29 PM | #
15. Jeff Werner said:
I like the house metaphor. I also agree (if I read this discussion right) with the need for more design-focused articles.
Lately I’ve taken advantage of real-world tutorials and examples (the how), like this article about a logo re-design, or this one about creating aqua effects (both by Veerle), or the wicked worn series from Cameron Moll.
But I also need a better foundation, which I try to get from the more theory-based articles (the why), like Mapped Pictures (Edward Tufte) or, hmmm, I actually can’t think of any others right now. But even this short summary of biomimicry from Kottke got me thinking in new ways.
I crave the blogs that can give me an insight into design theory and practice. I think I want to be a designer first then a web / graphic / industrial designer second.
Any suggestions for someone starting out in graphic design?
Posted on November 3, 2004 11:33 PM | #
16. Rakesh Pai said:
Yeah, seriously. Enough said about standards and markup and validation and well-formedness and sematics and accessibility. Not thiat its not important, but it’s cleared out now. Let’s talk about design. Amen.
Posted on November 4, 2004 01:20 AM | #
17. Kev said:
I don’t see the two subjects as exclusive. Good design should come from a structure of good discipline. If you are disciplined enough to use the right tools in the right way when starting a new project then you stack the odds of success in your favour. To extend the house analogy a bit - I see the foundations and timber structure of the house as the standards/usability/accessibility side of web design and the angle of the roof, or the type/colour of bricks used as the design side of web design.
The two things IMO are equally vital and I think a more interesting and possibly more advantageous way to look at both subjects is to study the interaction between the two areas and how to make that easier rather than concentrating on just design or just standards. IMO, this juxtaposition is what seperates us as web designers from the other design disciplines (print, product etc etc) as its in this pooling of the two concepts where our particular uniqueness in the larger design community comes to the fore.
Posted on November 4, 2004 01:44 AM | #
18. T said:
There was a great article by Zeldman called “Style vs. Design” on adobe.com.
“Many young designers confuse style with design, when the two are not the same thing at all. They mistake Style for Design, when the two things are not the same at all. Design communicates on every level. It tells you where you are, cues you to what you can do, and facilitates the doing. Style is tautological; it communicates stylishness. In visual terms, style is an aspect of design; in commercial terms, style can communicate brand attributes.”
I couldn’t agree more. Style is easy to imitate, which leads to a lot of sites looking alike.
The article is no longer online, but you can access it via the magic of Waybackmachine.org - take a look.
Posted on November 4, 2004 02:32 AM | #
19. Shade said:
If the standards had a point, perhaps the push for the technological evolution of others would have more of an impact. However, I pity the soul that downloads a new browser for most of the crud that people are spewing.
I think that young designers and people just gettin’ their groove on really don’t understand what they’re getting into. Countless times I hear people complaining about how they’re latest site doesn’t validate in the Almighty W3C validator - they want to make it validate, but they don’t understand WHY it should validate…
Now, with the push of XML, XSLT and so forth, the distant rumble of confusion has become a deafening roar. Try as we might to educate people (a list apart, digital web mag and so forth) there are still going to be people (to borrow your metaphor) that build shoddy homes with warped frames. But it CAN still look good. Many java and cold fusion frames that were are quickly being replaced by the (php) open source rapid-app frameworks. Many of these frameworks still use HTML and not XHTML, and font tags instead of CSS.
Though there are some awesome CSS and Valid XHTML/XML sites out their (cssvault.com and csszengarden) I’ll point out that some pretty slick designs come out of sites still built in tables, complete with IE only javascript and spacer gifs. I think that in the design world the lesser of two evils should be chosen… But which is which?
-Shade
Posted on November 4, 2004 05:33 AM | #
20. Gidget said:
A timely topic, for sooo long I’ve been thinking it’s been way too long since I’ve seen anything on the web that makes me say WOW. (Until I saw www.noedesign.com…)
I have the heart and eye of an artist, but a very mainstream artist. A lush and beautiful Pottery Barn display is more appealing to me than an avant garde painting. Before “standards”, the vast majority of sites people thought were “cool” weren’t appealing…complex, small text, confusing.
Of course, with the advent of “standards”, things are somewhat boring. And really, blogs have little to nothing to do with that. A blog is a blog. When done well, they follow a formula that makes them both attractive and usable. From a design perspective, I enjoy it when the colors are pleasing, images are interesting, and they have that cohesive feel that says “someone spent time on this”. And while I love Jon Hick’s redesign, the strong artwork on the right side makes me feel funny while I read or navigate, because it beckons me off task.
My primary task is to create visually pleasing, usable websites for local and regional businesses. As a designer first, I feel “standards” are harder to implement than I personally want them to be. Lord knows I try, really really hard, actually. On my current project, I mapped out a CSS game plan with minimal use of tables, and I’m trying to stick to it, but deadlines, design possibilities, and the sheer mental torture of CSS are getting in the way. I would offer that designers like tables, because they are trained on a grid. You see a grid in your head, you can see a table. Can’t see a div. (Well, yes, I add temporary borders…but it’s just different…)
I’d think it would be really beneficial to see a contest, community, or collaboration that followed the “normal” process. Here’s a client, they want this. Generate design comps. Detail that thought process on how that translates to compliant markup and CSS, and if it CAN. Clients are not always willing to give up their ideas, and neither are designers.
I’d be more than willing to throw my effort into something like that, I can channel client and designer really well.
Anyway, this is much longer than I intended, but I LOVE design, want to be a good standards oriented web person, and have a lot on my mind. :)
Posted on November 4, 2004 06:01 AM | #
21. JimmyD said:
I’m not going to say anything that readers of this site don’t already know, but it’s nice to type out my view on things once in awhile.
I regard the whole standards movement as an opportunity to “start over” and learn how to make a structurally sound site. Walk before you run and all that.
I believe the roots of creativity grow from simple motivation. You can be the most non-creative, bland person in the world, but if you’re truly motivated to share something with the world, creativity just happens.
structure
+
creativity
+
compelling content
=
design
You can have one or two of the ingredients above, but without the third, there will always be something lacking. I think it’s reasonable to say that learning how to create compelling content is going to be the next big hurdle. I don’t think it’s enough to have enthusiasm about a particluar subject…if you cannot communicate that enthusiasm clearly, much is lost in translation. With so many excellent examples of structure and creativity available online, I think good content is being sorely overlooked.
How many times have you seen a beautifully designed site with rich colors and a warm atmosphere along with a skin and font size chooser, only to be skunked by terrible grammar and inane, rambling passages? Very disappointing…like opening a perfectly wrapped Christmas gift only to find a crappy pair of socks inside.
If standards are the foundation of the house and creativity is the paint on the walls, content is what makes someone say “this is home”. I just hope web denizens keep these three things in mind as we push our pixels forward.
[/soapbox]
Posted on November 4, 2004 07:26 AM | #
22. Vinnie Garcia said:
Keith,
Great little writeup. The problem as I see it is that web designers come from all walks of education, ranging from none, to highly technical, to highly businesslike, to highly creative. The creatives get it, the others have a harder time with it. You have a generation of pseudo-designers raised on Photoshop tutorials they found on the web, and they can do great work based on that, but they can’t find their own sense of style/design. It’s my feeling that a good foundation of design theory is needed to be a truly great designer, but that’s very hard to get when you spent your college years working on computer science or business projects and learned your creativity from the how-to guides of others. What’s the solution then? Perhaps an increased awareness of the theory behind good design (color harmony, balance, etc.). But where does that come from? That’s where the “classically trained” designers should come in and speak up.
Also, count me in as one of the people who likes the design articles more than the standards articles. Standards are fairly easy to “get” (and they’re never more than a click away when you’re on the web), while design is a much more abstract concept to most people.
Posted on November 4, 2004 08:05 AM | #
23. Keith said:
Vinnie – I agree that good design theory is needed to be a great designer. That’s why I don’t consider myself all that good. I’ve been learning as I go.
See, part of this is selfish. I get the Web. I’ve been down with usability, accessibility, flexible functional pages, etc. for a long, long time. And I’ve done what I could on the visual side.
But when it comes to details all it seems we have are pieces on technique. How to do a dropshadow, etc. Where are the pieces talking about when NOT to use a dropshadow? Or when to question unnecessary details (thanks Eris) and other fundamentals?
It seems that there has been so much focus on tools and technique and best practice that we’ve left out some of what can really make a site shine.
I know I want to learn more. I promise to share things I’ve learned.
This, by no means, is just about visual design. It’s also not about leaving best practice in the dust. It’s about taking things up a notch. To a place where we get the best of all worlds for our sites.
Posted on November 4, 2004 08:23 AM | #
24. Vinnie Garcia said:
I totally agree with your last comment Keith. I’m not a classically trained designer myself (my degree is in MIS and web design was a hobby-turned-job, so my background is fairly business/tech). The question is, where are these people, these beacons of theoretical design knowledge? Why don’t they speak up? Or are they already doing so and we’re all looking in the wrong place.
Posted on November 4, 2004 09:00 AM | #
25. Lea said:
Standards is great and all, but it does put a damper on innovation at times. People scramble to master standards and when you’re just learning, it leaves creativity as a later resort.
I think one of the problems is that people have forgotten to imagine other possibilities with the canvas they have on the web–that it’s only a two-dimensional space with a limited palette and visual techniques. We need to think beyond that: how can we make the space three-dimensional? Interactive without being (too?) Flash-y? Is this the best way that text can be organized? Emphasized? Tilted? How can we make this website live?
I remember back in the late nineties, I saw some really creative pages back then merely because the medium was new and designers and artists used it as a playground. There was this one page that was entirely upside down. Another where the navigation revealed itself as your mouse scrolled over completely white space. Another page used meta-refresh so it had a “movie-credits-like” opening to the page in the pre-Flash era. And there are pages that look entirely hand-drawn. Or that one Flash site that every square you clicked, it expanded, like that Bell mobility commercial with the picture within a picture within a picture within a picture type of thing–except in this site, it was a navigational thing: it broke the rules of the the 2D space! :D
We need to look at outside influences–we know print isn’t web and vice versa, but it’s good to compare and modify to make it work on the web. Design is everywhere in life–in your home, on TV, what you’re wearing, what you’re eating. Designers need to take advantage of that.
How useful are the examples I mentioned? I don’t know, probably not that useful in some respects–but we as a group of designers need to start thinking outside of the pixel sometimes. Design is about communicating effectively, but it’s also about making it look good in the most creative way possible.
Posted on November 4, 2004 09:02 AM | #
26. Gidget said:
Thoughts from a designer (although not so much a beacon):
Use a dropshadow when you have a lightsource, real or implied.
Find the grid, it always works
SIMPLICITY above all
Use color theory: split complements and triads are your friends
Scale and proportion are hugely useful. A lot of the “sameness” comes from things being very similar in scale and proportion.
Yes, I know it’s not that simple. Just point out that we are here….
Posted on November 4, 2004 09:25 AM | #
27. Vinnie Garcia said:
And more info on “the grid” can be found at…?That’s the problem, many web designers without the classical background don’t know these terms. They require a little explanation.
Posted on November 4, 2004 10:01 AM | #
28. Adrian said:
I agree with you completely.
It’s not just standards, or content, or even design.
On their own, they don’t stand. It has to be a good blend.
Standards/accessibility/usability are almost a necessary evil. If a site has a fantastic design visually, but is not very usable, then I don’t consider that good design. To some extent form does follow function because the whole point of putting a site up is so that humans can use it, and it needs to be very easy for us to use, however, I think that too much focus has been on the functionality and standards compliancy and not on the “paint”.
You can make a very accessible two or even three column layout that is very usable, conforms to standards, and also has great design and style, and doesn’t really look just like all the other two or three column sites out there.
You’re correct that a lot of focus has been on standards and usability, and much of that attention to those has been deserved because usability and standards compliancy does matter, but many people stop at that and don’t spend time thinking about the 20,000 foot view of their site design and style.
Take my blog as an example. Even though I do a lot of web work, it’s mostly back end programming and not actual design work, so I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet. I don’t consider myself super good when it comes to design, but other than the usual blog elements that make up the basic nuts and bolts of a blog, the only real thing that I think could be common is that I have a two column layout that is fixed width. I wanted to make it pop out at you visually, and it’s pretty close to what I had in mind. The general layout is exactly how I want it to be, and it is very functional and usable (not to mention standards compliant), and even though it might seem “samey”, because it’s a blog and has a lot of common elements that most blogs have, I’ve yet to see anybody “paint” their site quite like mine.
In short, a lot of people focus on the nuts and bolts that make it work and not on the paint job that makes it look great.
Posted on November 4, 2004 10:39 AM | #
29. Gidget said:
Vinnie, trying to come up with an analogy on “the grid.” Virtually all layouts are based on some type of grid. The main column on this site is about 500 px, the side 250 px. Two third to one third proportions.
Designers are taught in rather exhausting detail about this concept, and then how to “break” it, change it, or use it creatively.
Tear a full page ad out of a magazine, and you can usually draw recreate the original gridlines the designer used with ruler.
Try googling “grid use in graphic design”
Posted on November 4, 2004 10:59 AM | #
30. Ray said:
I sometimes wonder… “if Paul Rand were still alive, what would his digital work look like?” I think it would be all about the basics and staying the F*** out of contents way. Some of the most pleasing, easily accessible work I’ve seen is all about low noise, typography, headings, leading and content. I also sometimes wonder if we’re looking in the wrong direction for “good design”.
Posted on November 4, 2004 11:34 AM | #
31. Mike said:
I’ve always started with the design on any site I’ve ever built. Web standards can, and in my case, should be applied later. If it doesn’t look good, who cares if it’s built with web standards.
The issue of “samey”: There is a difference between web designers and web coders. A lot of web coders try to pass themselves off as web designers. Even worse are those that try to pass themselves off as Interface Architechs. I am by no means an IA (my site could use an IA right now), but the sites I design I try to make look like nothing else out there.
Posted on November 4, 2004 01:16 PM | #
32. Geoffrey said:
Anyone curious about the grid should read some Joseph Muller-Brockmann.
Essential stuff for any designer.
Posted on November 4, 2004 03:44 PM | #
33. Adrian said:
The grid is good…
Posted on November 4, 2004 03:55 PM | #
34. Designer said:
imo the rise of blogs did it. They brought in that trend of “print” design. Simple, clean layout with an accent on the content side.
Posted on November 4, 2004 11:20 PM | #
35. Gidget said:
This morning, as I was working on a print layout, I was struck by a significant realization:
WHY DON’T WE HAVE BETTER TOOLS FOR THE WEB? Because that is a big part of the Return to Design Issue.
Print and web work have some surprising similarities. There are complex issues around inks, spreads, separations that have to be addressed for every job. However, layout software does this work for me. I need to understand it, but I don’t have to typeset (I mean that term in the old fashioned way), or do a lot of the manual work that existed even 20 years ago. I am free to concentrate on design (not just visual, the message, the usefulness, etc.)
However, to accomplish this same goal on the web, I have to not just comprehend, but be technically proficient at writing copious amounts of code. I can set up complex styles for an annual report in far less time than it would take to create the CSS for that same content online. All that code exists in the print world as well, but it’s been abstracted way, very successfully, allowing the primary focus to be on the medium.
Why isn’t there an InDesign or Quark for web work? A tool that produces the optimum standards compliant code, makes extensive use of style sheets, and allows me to focus on the goal, the audience, and showcasing the content? In print, I get our “out of gamut” warning if I use the wrong colors, and I can “preflight” a document to see what’s missing.
In fact, it should be easier than print, not harder. While there are some major browser variations, there are unlimited types of printed media, finishes, folds, die cuts, etc.
The “WYSIWYG” tools available today don’t meet either goal, they are not friendly to design or standards of any kind.
No offense intended here, but the majority of the creativity community should not/are not/can not be efficient and productive codeslingers, and the really great code generators shouldn’t be designing.
It’s fascinating to me to compare the print and online world from a productivity standpoint.
Posted on November 5, 2004 09:30 AM | #
36. richard said:
I contend that web design isn’t like architecture at all, due in part to the industry’s immature tools and processes mentioned by Gidget, which encourages more technical, less creative web designers than would otherwise be the case, but also because websites are often “cranked” out very quickly.
Several factors enable this rapid development which subsequently degrades design and ingenuity and further encourages techies over creatives - since techies find current web design and development tools perfectly adequate - Notepad suits me just fine!
First, unlike architecture, websites continue to evolve after delivery and can even be totally redesigned with relative ease. Websites would be of much higher quality of design and stability if designers believed the client had to “live in it” for years to come.
Another factor is that “architects” are considered professionals who thus demand higher fees. Web designers are often freelancers, young, and with perhaps no formal training. The resulting lower fees encourage many designers to sacrifice quality for quantity to generate sufficient income. These “self-imposed” deadlines encourage us to look around “just a little” for some design inspiration for the next site - resulting in that “sameness” in design we’re now seeing.
However, it is actually web design’s immaturity and lack of forced adherence to standards that allow web designers to be more creative than architects - whose designs are very limited by “enforced” restrictions and standards. This was eluded to by Derek who pointed out that some of the best web designs aren’t very standards complient.
It’s the techies who love CSS and standards. Creative designers should only have to be concerned with development tools and standards to the degree they understand what’s possible and what’s not.
Which leads to the final point… designers and implementers shouldn’t necessarily be one and the same. This is the case in larger web firms, but many of us who frequent sites such as this are freelancers doing it all - and I’d bet there’s more techies than creatives among us.
BTW, if you want “architectural” design inspiration, check out this work by James Hubbell - a friend of my wife’s family. Their home recently burned in the Cedar fire in San Diego. Prepare to be inspired - www.hubbellandhubbell.com.
Posted on November 5, 2004 05:21 PM | #
37. Geoffrey said:
Gidget:
I like your point, it would be cool to have a “drag and drop” web design tool that would allow a web designer to focus solely on the “design” of a site. But a Web site is so much more than a print piece.
Typically a Web site is a living, published document that has to accommodate a continuous stream of live content. The rules of “print” don’t always apply. It’s not a brochure, an annual report, or identity system. It’s a publication that needs to work on a wide range of media. And to be truly proficient at Web design you need to understand the delivery. Much like a print designer needs to be able to understand paper and binding and PMS color, etc.
Sure, there will always be those Web sites that break boundaries and carve the preverbal letters in the chest of the internet, but we can’t all work with unlimited budget for the next Nike micro site, some of us need to get our hands dirty.
Code is the X-acto knife of the web. It will be obsolete soon enough, but those of us that understand it now will be much better designers in the long run.
Posted on November 5, 2004 08:42 PM | #
38. Ireney Berezniak said:
Yes … the talk regarding standards has been certainly overwhelming in this little community. The cult of standards is the proverbial “king”, while the visual design is suffering. Look at Meyerweb or Zeldman pages … sure, those may incorporate the W3C standards to the tee, but visually they are quite un-insiring. Who cares about the 2 or 3 column design that is composed of valid XHTML … the design is boring, lacking visual stimulation that “mainstream” web-surfers find exciting. Is that what “web standards” is about? If it is, count the “design-chalenged” rif-raf out. The rif-raf I speak of forms 90% of the folk that surfs the web.
I’m not a designer myself … I am your average web developer. I spy the community for inspiration … I seek deviation from the “norm”. Instead, I find eccentric blabber that does close to nothing in furthering standards; it relishes in it’s pro-MAC fetish that turns the Wintel community away, which results in further propagation of Win IE, which this community seems to ignore. Sadly, it is this Wintel community that should be targetted, considering it dominates the web numerically.
Regardless of the platform, the web developers and designers need to be informed and encouraged to follow web standards. Safari is great – I gather without ever touching it – but it means nothing to me. If you think design revolves around MAC OS entirely, you are sadly mistaken. The standards-based design that I have explored myself is rarely inspiring … certainly, not inspiring enough to have anyone drop their table-based, transparent-gif spacer layouts, and dive into CSS which still results in unpredicatble results unless various hacks are employed.
Preach the standards, not the platform, I say, and encourage visual design over XHMTL/CSS semantics. If you succeed at the first, the former will come naturally. Web developers are not idiots … they understand the need for standards … except that the standards seem to have gotten in the way of design, pushing the semantics, and ignorig the pure visual appeal that most seek.
ib.
Posted on November 7, 2004 01:23 AM | #
39. alvin said:
All in all, i think the web is moving in the right direction. Few years back, no one even cares about web standards, css or careful usage of tags (br).
Its moving slowly, but its moving. The design will come along ;).
Posted on November 7, 2004 10:47 AM | #
40. Paul said:
You write about so many truths. Much of the “design” I see out there all looks the same. Ironically, it is the same people who are pushing web standards - which are not. Maybe in a few years, but I feel like it is back to Netscrape vs IE back in the 90s.
That said, I believe that there is a lot of important headway being made into webstandards which I hope people will use to break free of a lot of problems which used to haunt web developers (like deployment). I am thanful that people are making positive progress into implementation.
It is just not the end all to be all. I hope we see some more originality in designs. With this last May Reboot I saw some twinkles of possibility - but we will see.
Posted on November 7, 2004 03:15 PM | #
41. Marilyn Langfeld said:
Thanks for the kick in the pants. I’m continuing to read these comments and to reread your article. It has encouraged me to stroll around areas of the web I’d started to ignore, since beginning to use RSS feeds. I love feeds; they help me to keep up with blogs, but I’ve discovered you can go around and around in circles, if you just follow the links others provide.
This means that standards-based blogs mostly reference other standards-based blogs, ad infinitum. There’s plenty being written on design/web design, but unless you poke your nose out into the greater world you might not see it.
Right now I’m interested in the ideas of form, function and metaphor in graphic and web design. You used a fine metaphor to begin your article, and metaphors have defined ‘the desktop’, etc.
I hope you continue to explore design in addition to web standards. And I hope the standards we have continue to evolve (so I can use type on a curve and keep it type rather than image, for example).
Posted on November 9, 2004 09:19 AM | #
42. dan said:
you hear this argument more and more, and I tend to disagree.
Standards have offered us more freedom(design wise) than ever, just look at the garden.
I think what is happening is that the “Concepts of Web Design” are forming. If you look at a magazine it’s main purpose it to deliver information, just like 90% of sites. Magazine rarely go out of the box when it comes to design, because it’s a standard and it works. Look at any site 10 years ago and you’d tear that design apart today. It went from animated gifs and big buttons, to flash and super tiny text and now css and gradients. The web is still beginning.
We all follow, because we are creating the web together. And if you ask me, yes most the sites look alike, but they are some of the nice “Web Designs” thant have appeared. And in ten years we’ll all look alike and laugh at our drop shadows(we did once).
Posted on December 1, 2004 08:03 PM | #
43. Michael Isaac Almond said:
Keith, great post as always.
Of course, I have my own spin on the issue as well.
Designers, not design, are frustrated; and for good reasons. I say designers for the obvious reason that design hasn’t gone anywhere. It is just fine in it’s skin. What I believe is that designers are looking at and discussing the wrong problem.
What is lacking is a cohesive, well articulated ideology; that is, meaning. And content doesn’t count for everything; that’s a cop out.
If we could force ourselves to look to the past, just for a moment, we would see that much of the history of design involved ideologies and collective action. There where profound and meaningful ideas that defined real movements, just as we see in the history of art. The Bauhaus is the perfect example.
I am of the opinion that much of this is not our fault. Design education and the professional world have not encouraged nor educated us in other areas and outside disciplines. They have more and more promoted transparency.
However, I also believe that it is our problem to solve, regardless of how it came to be. Without this, we will remain transparent.
Just my four cents (inflation)
Thanks as always.
Posted on May 10, 2005 08:27 AM | #
Comments are now closed