Graphic Design on The Web

October 24, 2005 | 15 Comments

Gerry McGovern, a Web content expert, wrote a bit entitled Graphic Design Plays A Minor Role On The Web. It’s a short read that makes a few good points.

I think what he’s saying is that “visual” or “graphic” design should not be the focus of most Web sites. And to that point I generally agree with him. However, to imply that “style” or visual graphic design isn’t important on the Web at all is dead wrong in my opinion.

Have your cake and eat it too.

I feel that the best Web sites are usable, functional and have a good visual aesthetic. Take a look at Peter Morville’s awesome user experience honeycomb; you’ve got “Desirable” and “Credible” in there right next to “Useful” and “Accessible”. Those are areas where you can leverage graphic design to make your Web site or product better.

I realize the gist of Gerry’s post is to help inform inexperienced designers of some common pitfalls of designing for the Web, but let’s not take it too far. Graphic design is very important on the Web. It one of the few things that can enhance your Web site and help differentiate you from the pack. I’m a firm (FIRM!) believer that form and function don’t have to be at odds on the Web and I wish people would quite trying to drive a wedge between them.

You can have a beautiful site that functions well on the Web. It’s just harder. Read Jess McMullin’s piece on design maturity. If you’ve grown beyond that initial “style” phase as a designer, for example, you don’t completely leave style behind.

Sometimes to make something truly usable it’s also got to be desirable, credible, etc. You can use “style” to solve problems with design.

Filed under: Web Design
Keyword Tags: graphic+design web+design

Comments

1. Dan Mall said:

Ooh, touchy topic. I would say that I agree for the most part. The key is moderation and balance; if the package is pretty but the content is sub-par, the site as a whole suffers. Similarly, if the content is engaging but there’s no visual hook, where’s the initial intrigue?

We just have to remember that the web was invented to communicate information. Yes, visual design shouldn’t be the focus, but it is definitely a major player.

Posted on October 24, 2005 12:13 PM | #

2. beth said:

I mostly agree with this, but there are instances where designers don’t have ultimate control over the content a site, and therefore cannot ensure overall quality. Sometimes the client supplies you with content that is sub-par, or a site can change hands. I guess I feel it’s important to design a site as well as I can (without overshadowing the content), particularly when I don’t know what will become of the content later.

What do you do in this situation?

Posted on October 24, 2005 12:39 PM | #

3. Stewart Curry said:

Reading that article really got my hackles up. The implication seemed to be that ‘Graphic Designers’ are people who want to produce super-flashed up, impenetrable interactive art pieces.
What about the graphic designers who spend ages working away in photoshop, css and html trying to produce elegant, functional, sophisticated, attractive and easy-to-use websites?
It would be easy to take a cheap shot at Gerry’s website, as it’s not the prettiest in the world, but I’m sure that it serves its purpose. There are plenty of other “gurus” (self-appionted or not) out there with unattractive websites. What irrates me is that Gerry seems to have re-invented the term “Graphic Designer” just to prove a point.

Posted on October 24, 2005 03:10 PM | #

4. Keith said:

Dan – That’s pretty much my thinking as well. You need to achieve balance. However, I do think it’s possible to do that on a high level across the board.

Beth – True. That’s is one of the hardest situations for a Web designer to be in. In a perfect world you’d be handed the goals, the IA, the content, etc. before you began thinking about the visual aspect of the design at all.

I like to look at great design as something that encompases and brings together many things, as opposed to seperating them. Content is one of those things.

Stewart – I just think we pressed his point a bit too far. I’m sure he knows the value of visual design on the Web, but has been so put off my misuse of Flash, etc. that he wanted to make sure he drove his point home.

Posted on October 24, 2005 03:31 PM | #

5. Christian Watson said:

I think his point was mainly in regard to magazines like Communication Arts handing out awards for sites that look pretty but are awful to use.

This kind of ‘old school’ attitude to web design (it’s all about the looks) sets a bad example to upcoming designers who don’t get the importance of interaction when it comes to web design.

Posted on October 24, 2005 04:07 PM | #

6. Christian Watson said:

By the way, I know for a fact that he still uses FrontPage to update his own site.

Posted on October 24, 2005 04:09 PM | #

7. Stewart Curry said:

What I found objectionable was the use of the term “Graphic Design” and the statement that it plays a minor role on the web. He gives, as an example, a flash site with moving navigation that eventually links back to itself. (Nike I think). Now, to me that sounds like a mistake on behalf of an information architect or project manager rather than a “Graphic Designer”.
When I think of graphic designers, I think of people who create layouts that help to define, explain and enhance the content (among a lot of other tasks).
What Gerry was describing sounded to me like what was known as “flashturbation” - fancy flash stuff just for the sake of it. It seems unfair to equate the discipline of graphic design, which has been around for hundreds of years, into the “fancy flash wizzy stuff” category, in order to make the statement that “Graphic Design plays a minor role on the web”.
Surely the old mainstays, like legibility, keeping important information above the fold, grouping relevant information together etc. are among the cornerstones of good website design, and are “graphic design on the web”.
PS I have no issue with ground-breaking flash animation and experimental flash work in general, but I do agree that it does have it’s place. Whetjer or not it belongs in say, a Nike website, is something that brand managers and usability “gurus” could argue about till the cows came home.

Posted on October 24, 2005 05:06 PM | #

8. Stewart Curry said:

…on the other hand…

“Nothing says ‘Internet’ like making it harder for people to understand you

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1337

Posted on October 24, 2005 05:10 PM | #

9. Keith said:

Christian – He does make a great point about how design awards often focus too much on the visual aspect and to be honest, I’m not sure that’ll ever go away. Look at all the CSS gallery sites. They do the same thing, only people, for some odd reason, equate CSS with “Usable”.

Posted on October 24, 2005 05:47 PM | #

10. Beto said:

Agreed in all counts. Something that has to be told, though, is that it takes true embracing, maturity and full commitment on the designer’s part to find and achieve that oh-so-precious balance between visual excitement and satisfactory, accesible content. Way too often, what you usually find are designers trying to show off or make “art” out of projects that lend themselves to a more utilitarian nature. Web apps and banking sites with mystery “hide and seek” navigations and gratuitous Flash fanfare are just two possible examples.

CommArts’s Interactive Design awards are, on this respect, one of the most pathetic awards shows out there - where it’s all too evident the winners are chosen only because of their amount of visual eye candy without taking any other elements into consideration i.e. user experience, customer satisfaction level, customer goals, how does design help on these aspects etc. Worse, by putting an overtly emphasis on style over substance, they simply influence upon and encourage designers to keep churning this kind of stuff. I can’t wait for the day when some designers realize the web has a purpose for something other than pushing MTV-style, motion graphics on people.

Posted on October 25, 2005 12:04 AM | #

11. logtar said:

I would like to start by saying that I love “graphic design” and respect it to no end… always wish I had the time and talent to do something about it on my websites when it comes to design…

I agree that functionality and design should never be at odds, they can coexist quite easily, it just takes talented people on both sides willing to work with each other and compromise. Web team should never start “limiting” each other with that “cannot” be done, instead of just saying, “let me figure out how to do that.”

The internet (as a whole) its only affected in a very small percentage by its presentation. Take for example the explosion of RSS readers. Sure, a corporate website should be well designed and appealing, but if you look at the Internet as the monstrous thing it is, its true core is information.

Some of the most visually horrible websites I have visited have provided me with the best information, and those are the ones that get book marked or linked. My biggest online complain is sound and then in various occasions I have actually exited a site at the sound of music being shoved down my throat… even if they were gorgeously designed, but that is a whole other rant.

The Internet is all about information exchange, a website succeeds or fails because of its structure, functionality, service and ultimately content. Without content, even the most beautifully designed website will be a see you once and move along kind of thing.

Posted on October 25, 2005 06:05 AM | #

12. Stewart Curry said:

I agree totally about content being the key, my problem is the statement that “Graphic Design plays a mitor role”. Graphic design (done properly) helps define the structure and functionality and makes the content work.

Posted on October 25, 2005 06:10 AM | #

13. Arnholdt said:

Stanford Web Credibility Research (http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html) finds that “people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone. When designing your site, pay attention to layout, typography, images, consistency issues, and more. Of course, not all sites gain credibility by looking like IBM.com. The visual design should match the site’s purpose.”

I guess that’s pretty clear.

Posted on October 25, 2005 06:47 AM | #