Content vs. Design
May 05, 2005 | 
29 Comments
Ok, I’ve got to admit, the title of this post was designed to make you want to read it. If you’re reading this, it worked. The original and more appropriate title I had for this post was “Content by Design.” But I figured that maybe I could help make a point right off with something a bit more intriguing.
As you may know I’m a Web designer who loves to write, I’m still learning how, but I do love it. As I’ve grown in my career I’ve spent much more time producing (writing, editing, gathering, etc.) content than I have designing. The fact of the matter is, as much as I’ve got a passion for design, there is much more opportunity for me as a publisher, and as an IA/Producer to produce content than there is for me to design.
As well, I feel that the kind of sites I usually work on need much more help with their content they they do visual or interaction design. It could be argued that content is much more important than design in most cases, which is ironic considering the difference in effort that I usually see on projects.
Content is king and a queen bitch at the same time. Design, in my experience, is usually much easier. Well, unless you’ve got no content to work with.
Content Should Lead Design
Despite the title of this post, I’m not going to go to far down the “design vs. content” path. There are many times when they’re at odds, but in my mind they go hand and hand and are both important. The degree of importance really depends on the projects goals and audience.
A great design with horrible content is pointless, and great content can be dragged down by a poor design. I think that is fairly obvious.
What is important to note is that content almost always should lead design, and by design here I mean the “container” of the content. As part of that, content should be “designed” as well. I realize that might not make sense right away, so let me illustrate.
When you start a project you’ve got goals. With most Web projects those goals relate to some sort of content. That content can be a number of things. It could be textual information, a task-based process, images, sound, heck (ironically) even a graphic design. In an ideal world you’d have written, programmed, gathered, edited, etc. that content before you got to the “design” stage.
With Web sites this is especially true. However, what usually happens that that you design first and slap, plunk, pour, or plop the content in later. Now, tell me, how does that make sense?
Without content, what sense is design? I don’t know either, but look at the hundreds of thousands of Web sites our there that were launched, and continue to languish, in this very way.
Nail The Content First
I’ve got a theory about content and publishing on the Web. Put simply, I think that if your content is good people will read and get use from it. Part of what makes good content is good content design. What I mean by that is good writing, in the case of prose, for example. It takes time and practice to become a good writer. Shouldn’t someone put some effort into that before they go all crazy with visual design? I think so, if one has to make a choice.
Now, having said that, good visual and interaction design, can greatly enhance the effectiveness of content. But it’s damn near impossible to do right with out real content to work with. And, yeah, I don’t think “lorem ipsum” counts as real content. Real content can help direct and lead a design, resulting in a better end product.
The Bottom Line
If you’re working on a project that is delivering content in some way, get that content sorted before you get too far with design. With a content driven site (yeah, a blog, although I’m trying to avoid that term) I think it’s perfectly fine to just get in there and start writing and get the design sorted down the road. I’ve got a few sites coming in the next few weeks and I’m not going to go to great lengths to get them designed before they launch.
I can only do so much, and while there is no doubt I value design, I want to get that content flowing as quickly and of as high quality as possible. Spending time of design before I’ve got the content worked out, in most cases, would be a drain of creative energy.
If you’re concerned, you can always get the content prepared in private, then design, then launch. I think for some projects this is perfect. Again, what’s important is just getting that content to work with before you do to much design work.
With other projects there can be benefits to “just getting it up.” I think a site with good content can get pretty far with an “average” design. Proper design can come later and hopefully add to an already good experience. There are risks and benefits to both ways. Knowing your audience will help you decide and is key to getting the most out of your content anyway.
With a content driven Web site (as most sites are) the content, not the visual design, is what will make or break you. Both are important, but to be done right, the core—the content itself—needs to be designed and nailed before you get to the rest.
What Do You Think?
Last night I had some drinks with a few talented Web professionals and these topics, among other things, came up. As you might imagine there were some differing opinions. I expected as much and I found the conversation valuable.
(Not that it caused me to re-write this post at all. I’m sticking to my guns!)
In any-case, I’d love to hear what y’all think. I’d really like to hear from those who like to make sure a site is “perfected” before it’s launched. I think this is where most of any disagreement lies. I feel that the Web moves too quickly to spend to much time trying getting everything perfect, but I can see the other side as well. An ideal project would have content and design nailed before anyone saw it, I just wonder, who has time for that in a world when there is no such thing as perfect?
Filed under: Content
Keyword Tags: content design web
Comments
1. Nick said:
Content should be defined clearly before the interface is designed. I’d argue that it doesn’t need to be fully developed, but a plan for what will be developed and the overall tone of the content should be decided before design begins.
For some types of content (i.e. product specifications and details) the content should be fully developed as it will affect both the interface and back end design of the site.
For general copy, the tone should be decided and what content will be developed should be clear. After that, the copy can be written as the design progresses, there really isn’t a reason to hold up design waiting for the copywriter to finish writing everything.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:10 AM | #
2. Kenzie said:
A bad first impression because of an unfinished design might keep a visitor from ever returning. Maybe.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:11 AM | #
3. Keith said:
Nick – I would agree with most of that. By no means does all the content need to be developed before moving to designing the content’s container. BUT, the more you have, and the further along it is, the better. I’ve found that quite often “defining” the content sounds good in theory, but in practice doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:13 AM | #
4. Keith said:
Kenzie – That’s a risk you run, no doubt. It gets back to the audience and the goals. What I’m getting at is that you can make do, in many cases, with an “average” design. Design can always be redesigned. Content usually lasts.
The flip side to that is that a bad first impression because of bad, or unfinished, content will most certainly keep a visitor from ever returning.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:16 AM | #
5. David said:
I would have to agree with you that the content is crucial, but I also think that the design of the content (which you did mention) is even more crucial.
If you don’t have the information architected properly you’ll lose the user. A lot of the projects I’ve worked with struggle with this.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:32 AM | #
6. Jason said:
However, what usually happens that that you design first and slap, plunk, pour, or plop the content in later.
You must oh so be referring to the many design entries in the CSS Reboot that are relatively “content”-less.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:39 AM | #
7. Dave P said:
I always like to highlight the contrast this way:
First, Make a list of websites that you regularly visit.
Now, how many of those websites could use a redesign? How many are plain but ugly? How many have bad navigation or confusing layouts? With most people, there are at least a few in each category.
Now, think of the top 10 designs you’ve ever seen. How many of them are on your list? Chances are, not many; if they are, it’s not because they look good, it’s because they have something good to say.
Users will always return to a website if the content is good. You simply can’t say the same about design.
Design enhances the delivery of content, it doens’t work the other way around.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:39 AM | #
8. John Zeratsky said:
Having “the content” is not enough. That content needs to be properly organized (like David said) both in terms of IA and in terms of hierarchy – important things at the top, proper headlines, etc. One I have that, I like to use a modified version of Ryan Singer’s Patterns approach (yeah, I realized it’s not really “his”) to actually design the interface in a basic way. Visual design and other flourishes come last.
Posted on May 5, 2005 10:55 AM | #
9. Richard said:
Maybe another way to look at is is, how many of us put up with bad design to get at good content? Or, can we see good content through bad design?
This reminds me of watching someone from another country on an American news show struggling with English: how many of us native English speakers can sort out his problem syntax from the quality of his ideas? Even when one is aware of one’s ethnocenterism it’s still a problem.
Same seems to hold true for sorting out content and design on a site, for me anyway.
I can say this for sure (for me): when content and design are out of balance it shows. In my experience this tends to be a site which is a beautiful container with nobody home: no content and no activity, and no juice.
Maybe make it too sparse and it’s Brazillia and humans just don’t want to hang out there.
Of course, once people start hanging out, we put up with a lot (of bad design) to hang out with our friends.
Posted on May 5, 2005 11:03 AM | #
10. Dan said:
Know *what* you’re going to say before you decide *how* you’re going to say it.
Is that about right?
On the other hand, it’s interesting that on some sites (like blogs) the content is fairly unpredictable. There’s only so much you can get your arms around the content before designing a blog. In that way, the design influences the content: perhaps I write differently for my blog than I would for a static publication.
Sites like the Washington Post, on the other hand, have content that is more predictable than a blog: they’ll always have world news, national news, local news, sports, the style section, etc.
Posted on May 5, 2005 11:24 AM | #
11. Mark Newhouse said:
From my point of view, content informs the design. You have to know what it is you are presenting before you can make the important decisions on how to present it. But the reality is that you are never going to have all the content ready before you start designing.
And when you are talking design and content on the web, you are going to keep adding more content as time goes by. Sometimes this will cause you to rethink your design decisions, or add to your existing design to make room for a new kind of content.
What others have said is true, though. People will put up with any design they want if the content is valuable to them, but they are less likely to return to something just because it is beautiful to look at when it is design for design’s sake.
Two personal examples of how content and design interact for me: I read this blog for the content. The design is nice, but I am not here (primarily) for that. I come here and read just about every post, and the comments that interest me. However, even if I could read the posts in my news reader, I’d still come here because of the presentation of the content - the design.
I also enjoy going to the CSS Zen Garden periodically to check out the new designs. In this case the textual content stays the same, but the designs change, so it is the design that is the content. If the text and the design were stagnant, I’d never visit…
Posted on May 5, 2005 11:34 AM | #
13. John Zeratsky said:
Mark: The CSS Zen Garden is kind of a special case. There, it’s almost as if the *design is the content,* if that makes sense. Does it?
Posted on May 5, 2005 11:54 AM | #
14. Raanan said:
Wow! When I read your title in my RSS Aggregator it drove me to your post like a shark sensing a trail of blood. I was mad, I was pissed, I was moved. Your site could have looked like a page from the ‘80 (or worse, from the ‘90) I would still read the entire article. ergo, content (designed or not) rules.
Posted on May 5, 2005 02:59 PM | #
15. Ariel said:
Hi Keith, my first comment here, oh boy! This is a subject I’m pretty passionate about.
Coming from a writing background I tend to focus on content. What’s the point of a website (or book, or magazine) but to showcase or give access to the content? But like you I also love design and think it’s an integral part of the overall package. My 2 cents here is that I think content becomes easier and more meaningful to the user if it’s supported by good design. And not just page design, but the design of the content itself:
- Is the text organized thoughtfully, does it flow?
- Is the “point” of what’s being presented easy to find and understand?
- Do headings, images, and infographics support the text, or distract from it?
I think it’s all about the interplay between content and page design, but you have to have content to begin the process.
Posted on May 5, 2005 03:42 PM | #
16. Keith said:
Ariel – “but you have to have content to begin the process.” That is the essence of the point I was trying to make. As well, the content iself (as opposed to the delivery method) needs to be “designed” in a way also and sadly, that isn’t often the case.
Posted on May 5, 2005 03:51 PM | #
17. Brad Wright said:
I hear what you’re saying Keith - I really do.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you 100%. However, this isn’t going to be a “me too” comment.
Unfortunately, in my experience in the web industry (admittedly short - a meagre 2 years full-time), clients just don’t usually see it this way. They want the “experience”, the “mind-space”, and they want it yesterday. They don’t care about the content - they just want eyeballs on their website.
Of course this is a generalization, but it has happened to me enough to doubt my convictions about content and design. What is there to do? How to convince clients that this is the best approach? And perhaps more importantly, whose responsibility is it to create this content? Not all web shops have the capability to do this, and clients certainly don’t.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but I feel a little like you’re preaching to the converted here. Blog readers, of course, care about content. You really know your stuff Keith, which is one reason that Asterisk is one of the few blogs I still visit. I get good, practical information. I’d be more interested to hear, from your perspective, how to approach this in real-life, how to sell it to clients, and how to PRODUCE copy like this.
How do we get the people we work for to be as passionate as we are about this, when for whatever reason they just don’t “get it”? And they don’t - I’m the lone voice in my company. These people have been in business for 7 years. That’s not even touching on the client situation…
(PS: please don’t take the above as a criticism in any way, as you’ll notice I tempered it with a few compliments too ;)
(PPS: “Do what I say, not what I do” - my own website isn’t finished!!)
Posted on May 5, 2005 04:35 PM | #
18. Brad Wright said:
Sorry - just realized I missed something. Hopefully this will make my first comment a little more relevant.
Websites aren’t launched “perfect”, in my opinion, because the client doesn’t care enough about the content. “It has to look good, yesterday. Don’t worry about content - we’ll fix that up after the launch date.”
Posted on May 5, 2005 04:41 PM | #
19. Keith said:
Brad – You’re right on with that. That is the problem many times with clients. It’s usually they that place the design before the content. I’ve spoken about this many times and have quite a few ways and ideas as to how to get around this. Some have been effective and some havent.
But that’s a topic all by itself–how to get content from clients.
I promise to talk more on that soon!
Posted on May 5, 2005 06:00 PM | #
20. Oto said:
This post addresses the most common problems associated with the OLD web developement approach that was started by the graphic designers that got into Web design in the late 1990s. The Website proposal was always started by a graphical proof that determined who gets to do the site.
This is, however, the opposite approach that should be taken! The Website development process should start by clearly identifying the goal of a Website, then organizing the content (Information Architecture), then defining the functionality, and only then the design should be put together.
As a matter of fact, you can read all about this in the Where does the Design Fit In? article I have posted on the Web Assembly Line blog.
Website Development is Not an Art is another great article about this topic worth looking at.
Posted on May 5, 2005 07:06 PM | #
21. Jeremy said:
Umm, Oto, that was the point of the post. Hello?
Your comment reads a bit like spam to me as well.
Posted on May 5, 2005 09:40 PM | #
22. Janne said:
Dan (#10), blogs provide episodic content. They can be compared to TV shows in certain extent – you really don’t know what will happen in the next Simpsons episode, but you’ll know the general settings (if you are following the show on regular basis) and thus can anticipate certain metastructure in the show. You can anticipate the way Keith handles his topics here, but you cannot predict the topics themselves.
Newspapers and their websites, on the other hand, provide periodical and regular content. You can compare blogs as columns in the newspapers. They are witty and talk usually from certain viewpoint, but the topic may be totally different every single time.
Posted on May 6, 2005 02:52 AM | #
23. Richard said:
I have found that knowing the content makes the design so much easier, although I am not much of a designer. I am currently working on websites for two clients. One knows exactly what he wants and has given me content. It was then just a matter of site structure and then working with him on the design.
The other guy has no idea what he wants on the site and it is almost impossible to get started. If he doesn’t know, and it is his business, then how the hell do I know.
If you’ve got some content you can work out where it goes, then put it in some pretty clothes.
Posted on May 6, 2005 06:21 AM | #
24. Keith said:
Jannie – This is one of the reasons why I don’t really like the term “blog” for many sites. I use it, frankly because it’s a “buzz” word and people know it, but it’s not always appropriate. What you say is usually true, about blogs having episodic type content, and to me this is one of the problems with blogs. I don’t see Asterisk that way at all and I’m working on ways to better deal with permanent content.
Some blogs (Scoble comes to mind) just let their entries roll off and don’t really handle permalinking very well. It’s a bigger topic, but this is one place many sites could be improved. Not every blogger sees their content like that – I certainly don’t.
Posted on May 6, 2005 08:41 AM | #
25. Coop said:
This is a topic that is very near and dear to my heart. As a programmer, I always work with the content of the program. The user interface comes last. I’ve worked in the newpaper and magazine industry, and I think it’s interesting. Content is written in a basic text editor like Word. Once the content is written, it’s then that the layout and design of the page is created. The same holds true to a web page. All to often we think of the web as an opportunity to express our creativity through design, but design doesn’t keep the user there. In some cases, it does, though. It depends on the purpose of the site. CSS Zen Garden has a purpose of sharing design ideas. Therefore, it’s the design that keeps the user there. Other sites, like corporate sites or blogs, are based on content to keep the user there. With the birth of RSS, it’s the content that pulls users to your site.
And what happens when your client is lacking both? Take a look at my current client’s web site. www.metalforming.com. The truth is they don’t have a clue about content or design. The purpose of this organization is to represent the metalforming industry and lead innovative companies toward superior competitiveness and profitablity. Maybe it’s just me, but I find nothing on the website that serves this purpose.
With clients, it often times requires web professionals to train them on appropriate content. They fight you at first, but I like to show examples of websites that I have worked on. I show them the statistics of the site with revitalized content but the same design. The increase in traffic on former clients’ sites usually convinces the new client that content is what attracts users, not design.
Posted on May 6, 2005 09:09 AM | #
27. Janne said:
Keith, your blog/journal/site is much more focused than most of the blogs I happen to read. And you provide also more depth to the articles, and this sets your site apart from the medium blog.
But still the format you are using is a blog. If the content would be organised with some other criteria than date, the site would no longer feel like a blog – but it would be harder to follow.
I’ve done some cross-boundary experiments in my site to blend the journal content with the rest: the front page is portalish and the reviews in the travel section get their content from the journal, but arrange it with different criteria.
Maybe you should consider adding another interface to your site to look your entries using different model?
Posted on May 8, 2005 07:36 AM | #
28. Steve said:
Great post Keith, good food-for-thought.
Here are my thoughts regarding which comes first, the content or the egg…
Heinz (the ketchup company) didn’t begin by creating a really cool bottle to dispense something people will want to use on everything. They started with the content (the ketchup) and probably in mid development decided they better build a really good container to get it out to the end user in. I’m sure both aspects were considered and compromised back and forth on in order to deliver a good balance of both being superb.
Design world translation:
I’ve just been tasked with writing a proposal for a new project. I’m not designing the layout until I have a solid understanding of what the client needs or wants displayed. Their desire for x, y, and z on the site will dictate the grid, or layout, of the site. This will in turn, enhance x, y, and z, by being a damn hot design!
I think for us not-so-good-writers it’s more important to have a higher level of site design (mine excluded from that category as I use the default WP template on my personal blog, steveguberman.com) over higher level content. Better writers would probably put more emphasis on the words and let them speak for themselves.
Isn’t it always all about balance anyway?
Posted on May 10, 2005 08:35 AM | #
29. Tinus said:
In my opinion there’s no general rule in this case. Steve hit the nail on its head with his comment. It is allways all about balance.
Posted on May 12, 2005 03:41 PM | #
New Comments Disabled
About The Author
is a writer, designer, etc. in Seattle, Washington.
Hire me
Links
Home | Search | Archives | Subscribe
Random Old Stuff
Halloween and A Blast From The Spooky Past
My Recipe For Learning Web Design
What's The Big Deal With Gmail
Do you think you will ever get bored of designing Web Sites?
Hosting provided by:
The highly recommended Dreamhost!
