Web Design Archives
Reinvention: Slow going and second thoughts
June 21, 2006 | 
7 Comments
This is the fourth in a series of posts documenting and exploring my online reinvention. See this post for more.
What’s gone before
- I’ve decided to lay Asterisk to rest.
- I’ve set down some goals for what I want with my new site
- I’ve tossed around some ideas
- I outlined my goals (split into three groups; content, technical and creative)
- I’ve talked a bit about the specific “features” I’m looking to include
- I’ve shown you some of my creative process
Slow going
This site is taking me forever. I’ve got my designs worked out (more on that in a second) and I’m in the process of chipping away at the templates. It seems like I can’t find the time to just sit down and knock it out.
At the same time I’ve been working on nailing down a CMS. I’m really leaning towards hacking up some stuff in MT again (although the new site should be much less complicated than what I’ve got now) but I also really want to try something new.
It all comes down to time.
Second Thoughts
In the last week or so I’ve had some serious second thoughts about this whole project. There are a few reasons for this but what strikes me as the most important is that I’ve got reservations about the design itself and how its executed.
I like it personally, and the feedback I’ve got from the people who’ve seen it has been good. However, I’ve developed issues with it. I’m no perfectionist, not by any stretch, but…well, let me explain.
I feel like what I’ve got now, with Asterisk, is pretty darn good and design-wise I’m happy with it. I can see a few things I’d like to improve (I don’t believe any Web design will ever be perfect) but I’ve really got what you’re seeing down to it’s essential core. Then again, I didn’t do this because I disliked the current Asterisk design.
Anyway, the new design, while much more expressive and fitting of my personality (which were my goals going in) is also less effective in several ways.
- It’s got unnecessary elements. Mostly things that I, personally, find aesthetically pleasing. In that way it’s somewhat gratuitous visually. Not too bad, but…
- It’s not as cohesive from the homepage in. Meaning the homepage is tighter than the content pages and I’m not sure it’ll flow well as is. It’s a design problem I’ve not been able to solve and I’m not sure I want to compromise on it. I also don’t want to go back to the drawing board.
- From an information design perspective it’s not quite as clear what’s important. This is sort-of by design as I’m splitting my focus content-wise, but I’m not sure I like how it all comes together.
Now I realize that this might be a by-product of having worked on it for so long — it’s been slow going from day one. In addition it could be I’m simply being overly critical. I’ve been reading all sorts of great books on design the last year or so, and learning a lot, but it’s had a side effect of making me a bit more critical, especially of my own work.
It could also be that I’ve been doing much more client work of late and much of that doesn’t come out the way I’d intended. Dammit if I’m going to let something I’ve got full control of get away from me!
Anyway, I am excited about the design but feel that it might need something that I’ve not been able to find. Hopefully I’ll stumble across that last bit that it needs to bring it all together, but so far it’s been eluding me.
Such is design I guess. Knowing more and having more experience doesn’t always mean things get easier. In my case I’m going through a phase where my flaws really stand out! My plan is to push onward as I’ve got time and launch the new site.
If nothing else I’m sure it’ll build character.
Filed under: Reinvention | 
Permanent Link
Reinvention: Creative Process, etc.
June 02, 2006 | 13 Comments
This is the third in a series of posts documenting and exploring my online reinvention. See this post for more.
What’s gone before
- I’ve decided to lay Asterisk to rest.
- I’ve set down some goals for what I want with my new site
- I’ve tossed around some ideas
- I outlined my goals (split into three groups; content, technical and creative)
- I’ve talked a bit about the specific “features” I’m looking to include
A few decisions made
So, while it’s taken awhile I’ve actually made some progress on this. I’m almost to the point where I can begin actually building it out. I’ve decided to use my dkeithrobinson.com domain and make a clean break from Asterisk. This doesn’t mean Asterisk is going away, it’ll still be here, only that I’m going to start a completely new site over at dkeithrobinson.com.
This means a totally new “brand”, CMS, design, etc. While I’ve still not decided on a CMS and I’m exploring my options there, I have done some work on my new identity and design. Quite a bit in fact.
Creative
Last time I talked a bit about my creative goals for this project. I mentioned that I was going for something that really reflected my personality. I mentioned primary colors, rock and roll, contradiction, boldness, etc.
I did quite a bit of “research” and finally settled on going with something that had a rock poster feel. I wanted something clean, yet slightly off. Something warn and inviting, yet bold and challenging at the same time. That’s the contradiction I’m talking about. I wanted to use primary colors (yellow, blue and red), bold type and a worn, silkscreened feel. I also wanted to do something that I’d not seen much of on the Web. How well I’ve done that will remain to be seen, but even though what you’re reading here might not seem that original, I think it’s coming together nicely and very unique.
Anyway, this process has been taking quite a long time and while I’ve got lots of sketching and screwing around in Photoshop I could show or tell you about, I’m going to keep it at a few teasers.
The color scheme is, as you might expect, based on primary colors. I’ve also worked out a “mark” of sorts based on the whole primary color theme. I’ve tried for shades that are complimentary, rich and a bit more friendly than the pure primary shades. I actually really like where it’s going.
For my main typeface, which you’ll see a bit of in the final design, I chose a wonderful typeface from Fountain called FTN Farao. Peter Bruhn, Farao’s designer says about his inspiration for Farao:
There’s something warm-hearted about old ephemera-letters that clutch together, wacky baselines, spilled ink, bad paper and a mix of letters from different typefaces. None of which would be considered good type & printing, but still feels so much more alive than many of today’s gridbased fonts.
It’s really a nice, funky and off-kilter font that I think will work really well for the feeling I’m going for.
Information Design
I’ve also spent a bit of time working out the layout of the various templates I’m going to need. I started with an interior article page, as I feel that, when it comes to blogs, this is the most important page.
I didn’t do a honest to goodness IA process, preferring to keep it kind of loose. As I’m in total control I’ll probably mess with it quite a bit once it’s into HTML and I didn’t want to spend lots of time doing anything formal.
I’ve worked out a quick and dirty zone diagram that loosely lays out the content for each of my major pages. I’ve got a bit of a cleaned up example that’ll show you my homepage layout as well as give you a bit of a preview of the color and typeface.
With all of this done I’m almost ready to begin work on the templates. I’ve got a feeling that once I’ve got all this into HTML I’ll do a bit of tweaking and I’ve not actually done a whole lot of design on the actual content itself. I prefer to see things in their almost final form before I get too far there.
It’s coming along, admittedly slowly, but it’s coming. My hope is that once I’m done I’ll be able to live with this for quite a while and go back to writing.
Filed under: Reinvention | Permanent Link
A realistic chat about design process
April 18, 2006 | 5 Comments
There has been all sorts of talk about the role and process of design in various Web design communities of late. in that there’s been lots of differing opinion. Some feel you don’t need any sort of exploratory phases or documentation and that jumping straight to some sort of real deliverable is best. Others feel Information Architecture is a bit redundant as a practice. Still others doubt the value of design all together. I could go on…
I’ve held back from formulating a strong opinion on any of this. I can see pros and cons to almost everything I’ve been hearing as it relates to design process. (Those folks who doubt the value of design altogether are off their rocker.) As someone who has worked within many different processes, from the very, very rigid (Microsoft and Boeing) to the more freewheeling (Blue Flavor) and those in-between (Children’s and PBDH) I think I’ve seen quite a lot.
I’ve also been in the position to change that process numerous times. That’s neither fun nor easy.
Through all of this the one thing I’ve learned beyond a shadow of a doubt is that no design process is perfect. I also think it’s safe to say that your design process need to be able to adapt to the particular project you’re working on.
There is no “one size fits all” design process. It can (and probably should) vary greatly depending on the work style of the designer, the needs of the stakeholders, the budget, ect. Again, I could go on…
In theory I tend to lean towards the process with less overhead. Keep it simple, present “usable” deliverables as early on as you can, iterate often and make small course corrections as you go.
Having said that, I don’t jump straight into HTML. I usually start on paper and usually do quite a bit of exploratory work on my own. This is something I bill our clients for, yet they hardly ever see it. That might seem strange to some, but it’s something I use to get my creative juices flowing. I also like to do quite a bit of discovery with my clients to make sure I understand their problems really well. This often involves documentation of some kind. I know…blasphemy!
All of this works very well with my own working style. It’s really too bad I’ve usually got to work with others…
;0)
At Blue Flavor we try for a very collaborative design process. This means that we need to be very flexible with our clients. Nick and I are usually the players from our team working on the design. He’s much more, let’s say, “documentation”, oriented than I am. However, this often plays to our advantage. One problem with “getting real” to quickly is that when you’ve got to go back, you’ve got more rework to do.
By using documentation you can often get buy off on a direction early, thus saving you rework down the road.
But it’s a balance right? When we’ve got clients with tight budgets, for example, we need to lose some of that documentation and explorative design. Basically they have to trust us to come up with a good solution as we don’t have the budget to get buy off via documentation. As well, certain types of documentation—wireframes come to mind—often present their own problems.
This can be awkward for me as I like to go into the design process full understanding the problem and I like to spend time exploring various solutions. If the budget won’t allow for that, I need to change my process. Be flexible and all that. It’s not ideal for me, but I try and make it work.
The goal of any design process should be to get to the best possible design or solution. (I don’t believe in a perfect solution.) How you get to that design could very well vary from project to project. I try to find patterns that seem to work and stick to those when I feel it’s appropriate. I never go into a project thinking that I absolutely will or absolutely wont do something. I let the project tell me what I need to do.
Since starting Blue Flavor I’ve had a bit of a different design process for every project I’ve worked on. I’m happy (as I can be, when you’re dealing with clients things tend to come out a bit different on the opposite side no matter what you do) with every design we’ve done so far, and our clients are too. (Hopefully we’ll have some stuff for y’all to look at soonish!) I wish I could sit here and tell you how it was done, but I’d have to tell a different story with each project.
I think that’s as it should be.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Designing For Context and Convergence
March 25, 2006 | 4 Comments
I’ve been talking and thinking about context quite a bit lately. This post is a bit of a brainstorm on the topic and I’d love to get your thoughts in the comments.
The Wikipedia defines context (as it relates to an event) like this:
The context of an event includes the circumstances and conditions which “surround” it;
When it comes to design, context usually refers to the medium (or media(s)) for which you are designing. This can create some interesting challenges when it comes to convergent media such as the Web, mobile and the desktop.
A quick story
I was speaking with a colleague (who shall remain nameless and blameless) about a situation he was having on the job. He’s working on a Web project (that I admittedly know little about) and asked me for a bit of insight into a user interface problem he was having.
A coworker of his was pushing for a flash-based drag and drop interface for a Web site. The reasoning behind this decision was that “users are familiar with drag-and-drop because it’s a common convention of desktop application for all the major operating systems.”
Without knowing the details there was little I could offer in hard ammo, but I do think my friend here was on the right track in calling this into question. (He was showing both skepticism and empathy — two great traits for any designer.) There are two things he could question:
- It’s rarely safe to make any assumptions about user behavior. Sure empathy and experience can help you see user patterns, but I’ve been proven wrong on my assumptions enough time to realize that some sort of validation is usually the best way to go.
- Even if this assumption is correct. We’re talking about familiarity with desktop applications—not a Web site or Web based application. The context is being left out. A user might be totally comfortable with drag-and-drop as a desktop UI convention, and yet totally confounded by it as a Web UI convention.
Mobile (Hot. Hot. Hot.)
A hot topic in mobile design (a hot topic itself) is whether to miniaturize (take existing content and make it fit a smaller screen) or mobilize (rework or in some way repurpose Web content to make best use of the mobile context).
For our Design Eye panel at SXSW we spent a whole lot of time talking about how people would use craigslist.org from a mobile device. We all felt that the context of that usage was extremely important.
Would people use craigslist via a mobile phone the same way they use it via a browser? If not, how would they use it? What would they do?
We had to ask those questions. To avoid them would be to ignore that context.
Jeff Croft wrote about the mobile Web and contextual relevance the other day. It’s a post worth reading. In that he talks about the mobile version of lawrence.com.
So what’s on the mobile site? Five things. Just five. We’ve parred it down to things we think people will really want to do on their cell phone or similar device, rather than simply reformatting all of our content. So what are the five things?
He also had a great quote that sums up the work.
We didn’t just simply make it work on a cell phone, we make it for a cell phone.
They say content is king…
…maybe context is key.
Zeldman wrote an inspirational post this week. In that post he talks about convergent media, Web 2.0, the future of the Web and lots more. At the end he concludes that, for him anyway, it’s about design and content.
…my web will continue to be about good writing and good design. Because that’s what I care about. And your web is your web because you care about what you care about. And whatever that is, there’s plenty of it to be found or made on this big web we share.
He mentions multiple Webs (kind of) to get his point across. There is a strong idea out there that there is and should be only one Web, where every bit of unique content should exist only once. Hopefully this is Web that we can work with and that lets usn mold that content to our liking and our contexts. One that allows for easy “mobilization” for example.
Call it Web 2.0, One Web, Semantic Web…The Web is bringing multiple new media together, like it or not. And I’d agree that content (good writing, useful information, etc.) are of prime importance.
There are many different ways (different contexts) to access content and so many tools and technologies at your disposal to remix, rework and repurpose that content. Many designers (like myself) are just now starting to realize this and get our minds around it.
Convergence is upon us and for designers this can create some crazy problems…and some amazing opportunity.
Filed under: Technology | Permanent Link
Web 2.0 as an industry?
February 12, 2006 | 38 Comments
Bear with me as I try to sort something out here, and please, if you’d like to join in the discussion after, don’t hesitate.
This week I’ve seen all sorts of posts, news items, manifestos, etc. putting concrete definitions to that most nebulous of buzz terms “Web 2.0”. (Drink.) For my part I’ve got a hard time putting any meaning whatsoever to Web 2.0, as I tend to view things at a more micro level.
First a little background. Today I was reading a very interesting article by Emily Chang. It’s about what she calls “Agile Web Design” and it’s a very good piece, but more on that in another post.
I liked it so much I wanted to learn a bit more about the author (I know I’m out of the loop — sue me) so Iinked my way to Ideacodes.com and eventually ended up on the services page.
On this page there is a list of services by industry. One of which is “Web 2.0”. I’ve seen this a few times this week. The first time I thought, “Holy cow, Web 2.0 is an industry now? I really do need to fire up that feedreader I’ve been neglecting.”
Joking aside, this really struck me. How is a Web 2.0 company defined? Is it by the look and feel of its site or application? (And yeah, it’s tongue-in-cheek, but it’s funny because it’s true.) Or maybe by the various bits of technology used? Ajax, Rails and whatnot?
Does a company like Expedia get bumped from Web less than 2.0 to Web 2.0 because they add a crazy Ajax calendar that loads when you try to enter a date into a text field? (I HATE that by the way!) Can Fortune 500 company be a Web 2.0 company as well? If so, how does that work? What about when we’re no longer talking Web 2.0? What happens to these companies? Seems like as a business owner, I’d just as soon not be tagged with a version number, it implies my time could be short.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got no real problem with the idea that Web 2.0 could have an industry associated with it. What does concern me is that the measuring stick used to define Web 2.0 is most often technology and features. By putting companies whose products share those characteristics into an “industry” seems to reinforce what I think is already a bad way to look at the future of the Web as a platform.
At Blue Flavor we’ve been hearing the term Web 2.0 thrown about quite a bit, and I’m pretty sure some of our clients would fall into the “Web 2.0 industry”. I worry at time that because of that they are too focused on features and “that Web 2.0 look”. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Features are meanlings (Ajaxian or otherwise) if they don’t benefit the people who use your Web site or application. In fact, as with my Expedia example above, I blame the Web 2.0 hype machine for mucking up some perfectly good Web applications.
(And I’ve got a hard enough time pulling clients back to what’s important, but, again, that’s a whole different post.)
Web 2.0 might have an industry, but to me it’s still “The Web” and as far as that goes it’s about finding the sweet spot and making technology, regardless of version number, work for us.
What do y’all think? Should we be placing companies in their own Web 2.0 industry? And if so, what defines a Web 2.0 company?
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Designer or Information Architect?
December 15, 2005 | 29 Comments (Closed)
I think I’ve said before that there is a pretty fuzzy line between IA and Design on the Web. Heck, on the IAI mailing list they are constantly “defining the damn thing” and it’s been that way for-ev-er. You’d think a bunch of people who make a living classifying and labeling things could nail down their own profession. You’d be wrong.
I know how it is though. I feel that my skills and experience (at least when it comes to that stuff) lie smack-dab in between the two. In my current role I’m tending to lean a bit more toward the “design” side of things and while I really enjoy it, I’m finding out that I’m much more of a strategic designer than I am a visual designer.
That’s not to say what I do isn’t creative — not at all — only that my approach to design is very strategic. For example, I find myself spending much more time trying to understand and define the structure of a page than I do the visual elements.
Nick (Finck, our “IA guy”) would say, “dude, you’re an Information Architect, don’t worry about it.” Which in many ways is true, however I feel as a designer I spend more time thinking about how things look than most IAs would. I also see IA differently than many. To me it’s more of an art than a science. Do you see where I’m going?
In my mind a Web designer has to be a bit of an Information Architect. When I work with Nick I take his stuff and tweak it so that it looks good, but I also put a whole lot of thought into the same stuff he does. I weigh business goals against user goals and I try to envision how people will interact with my designs as well as how they’ll feel about them. In the process I pull his wireframes apart and put them back together again.
A truly great Web design is one that looks great and is strategically well aligned. This is where Web designers and IAs should live. Embrace the grey area and learn to love the fuzzy-line between the two — that’s my advice.
Has anyone else thought about this? I’m curious to know if there are lots of folks out there in the same boat.
Filed under: Information Architecture | Permanent Link
Realigning Design
October 27, 2005 | 12 Comments
In my weekly article for publish this week I did a bit more exploring on the ideas brought up in my Graphic Design on The Web post.
This time I used the Slashdot redesign that Khoi talked about last week to explore what it really means to be a designer. I’m getting the feeling that there are quite a few designers out there who are frustrated by how the rest of the world views their role.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
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.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Blue Flavor Flav!
September 27, 2005 | 33 Comments
As some of you may know by now I’ve been working on getting a small business off the ground. This business, which goes by the quirky name “Blue Flavor”, hit a pretty major milestone last night: Our Web site launched!
So, I imagine you’ve got some burning questions? What’s Blue Flavor? Who’s involved? Why would I care?
Well, here’s the cliff notes:
Blue Flavor is an experience and Web design company formed by Brian Fling (Strategy, Mobile, Design), Matt May (Technology, Accessibility, Programming), Nick Finck (IA, User Experience, Analytics) and myself (Creative, Content, Development).
We’ve all got a similar philosophy towards work and technology. We’d talked off and on for a while about doing something and about a month or so ago, when the timing was just right, we decided to take a shot.
So far, so good. There is lots of work out there and we’ve already lined up a few small clients. Not too bad for not even having business cards yet, eh? That’s the next thing on the list.
We’re still working on sorting everything out and so far it’s been pretty fun, as well as educational and quite a bit of hard work. It’ll be interesting to see how it all works out and I’ll be sure and share along the way. Also be sure and check out the blog. I promise it’s not going to be a bunch of rehash from our other sites.
Want to know more? Check out blueflavor.com
Filed under: News | Permanent Link
The Myth of Perfect Web Design
September 22, 2005 | 13 Comments
Orignally written August 4th, 2003.
“Perfect is the enemy of the good.”
I overheard that in a meeting recently and I wholeheartedly agree with it. It’s obvious to me that it can be meaningful to many endeavors, but I think it has a particularly strong meaning when applied to Web design and development.
In my opinion, there is no such thing as a perfect Web design. I’m surprised how many people don’t agree with me on this. I’ll take it a step further, striving for perfection in Web design, while admirable, can actually end up having an adverse effect on your projects.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Mock-Up Design Control
August 19, 2005 | 26 Comments
I hate doing mock-ups, you hate doing mock-ups, so let’s all talk about doing mock-ups! Chew on it, it’ll be delicious.
Although I haven’t been in the freelance gig as long as some peers of mine, I’ve been in it long enough to say that I’ve had a wide selection of clients. Either way you have to work in their best interest, whether you code the site over a beer at a bar or if the client is threatening to shoot a beer bottle off your head for not complying.
Avoiding the pricing factor, one of the biggest variations in the design process is how many design mock-ups (and revisions of those mock-ups) are provided. On one side we have clients who want to get the most for less, and then designers who want to make the most doing less. But that situation runs into issues such as, “We never agreed on this site, but that’s what I paid for. He only allowed 2 tries at it,” or “This guy kept nagging me over one more change, but I’m tired of this.”
Now remember that this applies more to designing for the web than to say, designing for logos or print. Recently I asked for a quote on a logo and it only inlcuded 3 mock-ups, one of which I had to choose and run with.
Personally, I’ve always ran with the philosophy of, “make this customer happy and then they will tell 5 more potential customers about you.” So in accordance, I provide as many mock-ups as I can providing as many revisions as necessary. Now before you start throwing knives at me, this is more of a marketing statement. You’re letting the customer know that you are willing to work with them for the purpose of getting them a design they will be happy with. Putting this into practice, I design as many as I can think of (which is usually 3-4) and make the client participate to help revise as necessary.
Yes, this statement could get taken advantage of, so make sure you have backup - in writing. Remember that fine print everybody hates? You can have it to. Besides, it is good practice to draft up some type of contract before starting any work. If you disagree with my approach you could limit your mock-ups to 2 and only provide revisions as you deem necessary, but have it in writing. If you must limit, agree on it beforehand so it won’t show up as dirty laundry later on, and I can’t stress enough on putting it in writing.
Even if you’re not working with the ideal client, try and make the situation more comfortable for you. Don’t do more work than you have to, but then don’t rip-off the client. Above all, know what you’re in the business for and apply those rules to your work. I might not get as much money from my clients as some others, but at least I can say that I have met their expectations in all cases. Some might not look at it that way and use the bottom line as a factor of success.
So take from it as you will, and share if you have the desire to.
Take care,
Bryan
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Is Pastel The New Palette Of The Web?
June 27, 2005 | 21 Comments
I think the folks at 37Signals are having an effect on more than just how people build and develop for the Web. Sure lots of us identify with the whole “getting real” process and who can deny the influence of technologies like Ajax and Rails.
Another way 37Signals and other folks like them are having an effect on the Web is with design. One thing I noticed today was the influx of light, white and airy pastel color palates in Web applications and sites.
Anyone else seeing this?
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Web Design For Advertising
June 15, 2005 | 9 Comments
I’ve recently begun work on a project that has a few requirements that deal with placement of advertising. In the main these are your typical, if some what awkwardly proportioned banner-type ads.
I’m finding this to be a bit more of a challenge than I’d expected. In my previous experiences with advertising we’ve just kind of slapped them in after the fact, or somehow crammed them into the design and not really worried about it.
If a design isn’t worked up with ads in mind there is only so much you can do. So this is the first time I’ve begun work on a project where I have the opportunity (if you can call it that) to design for ads from the beginning.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Web Design Skills: Your Take
May 26, 2005 | 61 Comments
A “Web designer” has never actually been just a “Web Designer.” In fact I tend to wonder if there is even such a thing as a Web designer.
I’ve heard, oh, I don’t know how many times, how Web professionals need to focus on one area and become the master of that one thing. Yet I’ve yet to be in that position myself and I don’t know too many people who are. I certainly know few Web designers who can say all they do is design.
I’ve often been asked questions like, “what skills do you need to be a successful Web designer?” That, my friends, is a hard question to answer. I’m sure many of you know that. It could be because the “Web designer” is a catch all descriptor for multiple job responsibilities.
Be that as it may, I’d like to take a stab at answering that and I’d like to see what y’all think. What skills does a Web designer need to be successful? First let me give you my thoughts.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
The Scourge of Kubrick
May 24, 2005 | 48 Comments
I see Kubrick everywhere! I mean, everywhere. It’s a great template, or “theme”, don’t get me wrong, but really, I swear, if I see another new Kubrick themed site I’m going to…well, I don’t know, but it’s not going to be good.
One of my original hang-ups in looking at Wordpress and Drupal that rely a bit heavily on “themes” is that they tend to produce and end design that looks a bit vanilla if it’s even original at all. Now I realize that this is 100% the fault of the user, but, as I can attest, these systems make it too damn easy to go with a theme and a bit to hard to go with a custom design.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Content Brief
May 16, 2005 | 8 Comments
I’ve written about, and we’ve talked about, the difficulties in dealing with content for the Web. I think many of you agree with me that content is probably the hardest part of getting any kind of Web site up and running and that it’s made especially so when it comes to working with content outside of your own control.
I know that over the years this has been the single largest source of headaches for me when dealing with clients and internal stakeholders. Even at Boeing, where I had dedicated writer and editors, the content issue would present itself as an almost daily problem.
At my current gig it seems that getting the content we need is the single biggest barrier to making sure our sites are as good as can be. I’ve been trying very hard, to varying degrees of success, to find ways to make our experience with clients and content easier.
One that shows great promise is the use of a content brief.
Filed under: Content | Permanent Link
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.
Filed under: Content | Permanent Link
Designing for 1024: Your Take
April 29, 2005 | 43 Comments
Thanks to Geoff I just noticed that The International Herald Tribune (which is a great site) has gone to a non-liquid 1024 width design.
According to the latest stats from W3Schools those using 1024×768 are around 66% and rising. Forget the fixed vs. liquid debate. It’s 800 vs. 1024 baby! ;)
Seeing a site like IHT go to a wider design really made me stop and think. In the past I’d never really considered going that wide. I’ve never been too concerned with a small horizontal scroll, but adding 224px? No way.
Now I’m wondering. I have to think that IHT thought this decision through. You can see that the majority of content and functionality lies well within the 800px range. Did they figure that the 34% on smaller resolutions could deal with a sizable horizontal scroll? Maybe they know that a higher percentage of their own readers use 1024×768?
I’m still not convinced, but I’ll think twice about making my fixed designs just a little bit wider in the future. What do you think?
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
May 1st Reboot and Css Reboot
April 28, 2005 | 13 Comments
It’s time for another compare and contrast post. Much like the Stylegala/CSS Vault exercise I’m going to go with two sites that have similar goals and a similar audience. This time though, the delivery couldn’t be further apart. In timely fashion we’re going to compare and contrast the May 1st Reboot and its cousin site, the CSS Reboot.
Before we get to that, I want to provide a bit of context for those who might not know about these sites. A few years ago (maybe 5?) was conceived by some talented and passionate individuals as a Web design showcase to help inspire Web designers all over the globe. The idea was a pretty simple one: on May 1st, those who participated would launch a newly redesigned site for all to see. It was great fun and provided fresh inspiration for many designers as well as it’s share of innovation.
It was a great success, however, most of the sites tended towards the all-Flash variety. This isn’t a “problem” really, but over the last few years, as Web standards were making some headway and CSS was on the rise, it began to occur to some that there was a distinct lack of non-all-Flash sites participating in the reboot.
Well, this year, some other talented folks decided to rectify that by organizing the CSS Reboot to help get a bit more variety into the May 1st reboot. In a way they are just different parts of the same thing and so their sites serve the same purposes.
I’ll start us off by giving my views on the two sites and then, please, chime in with you’re own thoughts.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
The Difficulty with Originality
April 21, 2005 | 93 Comments
As many of you might have guessed, the little “spat” between Garrett and myself was staged. It was done to have a little fun with what I’m going to call, for the purposes of this post, “The Difficulty with Originality.”
First off, I want to apologize to anyone we really fooled. We knew it wasn’t April fools day, but why limit the fun to one day a year? And to be honest we didn’t think people would take it that seriously. We figured the over-the-top harshness of Garrett’s post coupled with my light ribbing would be enough. Our bad! Well, actually it was Garrett’s idea, so if your funny-bone is mad, blame him!
But there is a point to all this silliness. I hope.
We really wanted to have some fun with a topic that we see as important, but kind of touchy. It’s hard when people take your hard work and compare it to someone else’s work. It’s happened to all of us, and this whole shenanigan was pulled to help show that it’s really not as big a deal as we sometimes make it out to be.
If nothing else it caused some entertaining and informative discussion that I’d like to follow up on.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
The Benefits of Process
April 20, 2005 | 9 Comments
A few days back Garrett wrote a great post that got people thinking about how ideas are presented to clients. He makes some awesome points. The idea that your clients are paying you, as a consultant, to direct and advise them is a solid one that I’ve thought about quite a bit in my newish agency career.
I think one of the reasons why designers go with more than one direction is as a safety net. It may be uncomfortable for a designer to go with one direction because they might not have the confidence or be informed enough to bet the house on one direction.
This is where a good, and easily explainable process can step in and work wonders.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link
Stylegala and CSS Vault
April 17, 2005 | 28 Comments
Have you ever had to write an essay that compares and contrasts two things? I have and those were some of my favorite exercises from my school days. I always thought it was especially fun to compare/contrast two things that have quite a bit in common, or at least aren’t exactly “opposite” in a bunch of ways.
I thought it would be fun and probably entertaining to start a series of Web site comparison exercises here and let y’all chime in and talk about what makes two sites different, the same, better and/or worse than each other.
I do have a few pairings in mind and I think it’s logical to do this with sites that have, in some way at least, similar goals and audiences. First up is an easy one: Stylegala and the CSS Vault. Ready? I’ll get us started.
Filed under: Web Design | Permanent Link