Forum Moderators: open
For those of you who don't know my background, I have spent 30 years as a scenic and lighting designer for theater and television. I've been designing web sites for about 4 years. My approach to web site design is clearly noted on my own site - "functional art." While I am adept at the technical aspects of the entertainment industries and HTML and CSS, I am not a computer programmer nor a script writer. It amazes me what people like Brett and many of you are capable of. With that said, what is the essence of a good web design.
First, I think the worst enemy of any web site design is the owner of the site. He/she has fanciful ideas imbedded from the marketing savvy of Madison Avenue and not the practical limitations of the Internet. People who would not tune their own cars are suddenly experts in web design and function. Few look upon web designers as "experts" or "professionals" in the field as "anyone with a WYSIWYG editor can design a web" (I've heard that several times). Those who do realize that there is more to it than "point and click cookie cutter templates" are generally the ones with better web sites (which I'll get to shortly). So first, our goal as web designers, I believe, is to educate the customer/consumer that ours is a skill unto itself, learned, honed, and built upon experience.
Insofar as a site's design, forget art and function for a moment and think audience and technologies, the latter having been discussed here thoroughly. If your audience is simply looking for information, a design like Nielson's is ideal. If your audience is interested in high tech visionaries, then Davis's site is good (though I did find reading the faint print difficult.) (see [webmasterworld.com ]) But looking at society today, who has the time to muddle through a complex site. We're all so well connected that few of use have the time to breath let alone surf involved sites. A site like Davis's is great for those people interested in that type of thing and who have the time. But most aren't and don't. When we speak of designs, we have to do so in general terms and think of the general audience.
As for technologies, the majority of people do not have broadband or DSL. Most are old fashioned modem types. Then there is the issue of accessibility, both for the impaired and devices such as PDA's. Again, those high tech sites just don't do well in this area, but simple, straight forward ones do. Forget browser compatibility because the issue is going to become cross-device compatibility. Eventually web designs will probably have to incorporate sniffers and multiple design presentations to an extent not yet used. But even then, how many people REALLY use a PDA to surf the web.
Most people use the Internet to obtain information and share ideas (exactly what we are doing here). Web design cannot be one extreme or another if we want to attract the widest possible audience. One client of mine told me that he liked my "down 'n dirty, direct approach" to web design. In that same vein, I lost a potential client because he didn't think I was high tech enough. For what it's worth, I've acquired more clients than I've lost. Also, remember that most of our lives have become complicated and many do not want to deal with complicated things, included web sites, when we want to relax. I am not suggestion that people are stupid, but in many cases, if you have to put too much thought into something, don't you give up.
In my opinion, it comes down to this: you have to remind the client that the customer is always right, and I don't mean the client. I mean the potential visitor to the site. The client has to put him or her self in the visitor's shoes and view the design from their perspective. Then issues of compatibility and technologies can come into play. If your primary audience will not be using PDA's to view your site, then why bother. If your target audience is say other computer programmers or designers, go as high tech as you want. If KISS (keep it simple, stupid) was not such an ideal approach to many things, the saying would not have survived all these years.
And as for what's a good web design, I'm reminded of a response when a question was once asked of a state attorney general of what is pornography - "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."
> First, I think the worst enemy of any web site design is the owner of the site. He/she has fanciful ideas imbedded from the marketing savvy of Madison Avenue and not the practical limitations of the Internet. <
I would add that he/she may not realize how INEFFECTIVE some of those print and broadcast pieces have been in actually getting an ROI. The flashiest ones, the "image" advertising, the winners of graphic design awards, and so on -- often these have not brought results, and for very significant investment at that. Whereas the stodgy, work-a-day piece often can be the most lucrative off line as well as on.
Sometimes Madison Avenue is not all that savvy! Sometimes they're caught up in the latest technical gimmickery as well. Did you notice how many ads used Matrix-like camera techniques soon after the movie enjoyed success? How many of those sponsors do you remember?
For me the essential decision is this: does this visual form carry and deliver the message well ... or does the medium overwhelm the message and draw attention to its own cleverness instead.
A simple choice of color palette can overwhelm the message, and streaming A/V can deliver the message. There's no one size fits all rule -- it's a judgement call in every case, but the site developers need to remember to make it.
Point is taken, but we must give credit where credit is due:
United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
Thank you. I stand corrected. I couldn't remember exactly who said it. Regardless, I think it applies well.
Reminds me of the struggle we have here in my office sometimes...
anymore, I believe the first question I need to ask after I see something from a designer is does it work?
and after that, I start to consider how 'well designed' it is wether it's a banner, web site, or email message, the design definitely needs to support the marketing goals at hand and not overwhelm them.
<aside> I find myself more intrigued by these discussions more than the 'how to get ranked in the top 10 :)' because frankly, I'm more worried about using what I've got, then getting more of what doesn't work </aside>
> I find myself more intrigued by these discussions more than the 'how to get ranked in the top 10 <
If this is your focus (it definitely is mine) here's a book recommendation --Jakob Nielsen's recently published "Homepage Usabiility: Fifty Websites Deconstructed". For the most part, he examines really MAJOR sites, and no, he doesn't say they should drop all their graphics ;)
However, Nielsen does look very insightfully at the graphics each site uses, whether they work in each case, or whether they are gratuitous. He also looks at the copy (IMO more of us should be doing this) from the same perspective: some copy draws attention to itself and some delivers the business message.
It's quite thought-provoking, and one of the most useful web books I've read in the past 2 or 3 years. Nielsen's clients hire him because he gets them ROI. He's good, in fact he's very, very good.
I find myself more intrigued by these discussions more than the 'how to get ranked in the top 10
I'll have to second that, to a degree. High ranking does not necessarily equal good web design, merely good SEO. If your web is difficult to view or navigate, people aren't going to stay around and all high ranking will get you is a lot of short hits to your index page. That's why I believe a good design is a marriage between us more artistic types and the technical/SEO wizards. Each is a craft unto itself which should compliment one another, not compete with each other.
In the entertainment business, I know a lot of great designers who couldn't build scenery if their life depended on it. I also know great carpenters who couldn't design their way out of a box. To pull off what they have to, they work as a team to provide the highest quality end result for the audience. That is what web design should be, especially the more complex sites.
It's rather interesting to me that the close I get to a "pure user design" on some sites, the better rankings I have. I mean in the since of hitting all the right user buttons of high speed and a understated page that reads fast. The more I complicate the page, the lower my rankings and the lower the click-to-user ratio.
