Forum Moderators: not2easy
I'm disappointed to see that a lot of the comments/critiques on various designs that are showcased in the upsurge of CSS Gallery sites sometimes degenerate into a slanging match or a who has copied who.. :( (and from 'names' I don't 'recognise' at that, well I don't recognise "anonymous" anyway)
I wonder now if that's why the CSS 'gurus' seem to always adhere to the K.I.S.S principle, when it comes to the design of their own site, rather than set themselves up for critique? Which btw inevitably seems to follow any big site CSS 'redesign' too..
This post is not criticism of anything at all, just an observation, but I do have a question:
Do you think we're headed for a Designers v Coders gap all over again?
Suzy
I wouldn't be surprised to see "design vs code" becoming a major - let's call it "discussion" instead of argument....
So far, in all the years I've been online, this has been a break-point everywhere; I noticed it with the MUSH games I was involved in, not only in the games themselves and the design and coding thereof, but in the design and coding of the game programs as well.
Y'know, I think it's maybe a "hard-coded" thing in people overall, because you see it in everyday things too - like the "designer" vs "architect" arguments as regards homes.... maybe it's just a matter of time in any endeavor until this particular divide occurs?
I suspect this rift mostly stems from a certain amount of jealousy.
I'm more of a coder than a designer (I have the aesthetic sense of a sea sponge), and I can honestly say that I when I see some of the really stunning design work out there, I feel humbled and embarrassed. Clients never say, "How come you don't have a Zen Garden entry?", but I say it all the time. I guess I have enough aesthetic sense to recognize really good design when I see it, but not enough to do it myself, i.e., I'm not an artist.
If you consider that at least a small portion of other 'coders' out there feel the way I feel (whether they admit it, or even know it, or not), it's not too surprising that critisism of good design would crop up, creating a divide.
Think about how very threatening CSS design gallery sites are to (no pun intended) garden variety coders. Here we are, sloggin away at code, knowing in our heart of hearts that our best attempt at a unified design resembles a fourth graders cut and paste project, and there, staring at us from the monitor is this BEAUTIFULLY designed page, a perfect blend of color and line and typography and graphics created by a designer who also, and here's the kicker, had to code the page.
So it boils down to this: there's nothing inherent in what a coder does that would prevent a designer from doing it, too. Meaning that a good designer can also, and simultaneously, be a good coder. But there's only so much design sense a 'mere' coder can learn; the rest is, like all artistry, simply something you do or do not have.
And that's a perfect recipe for critisism and strife.
(Anyone who has ever studied literature at the post-graduate level knows what I'm talking about. Nowhere on the planet will you find more people who wish they were novelists, and take the fact that they are not out on those who are, than in a University English department. It's no coincidence that most of the top book critics also happen to be Lit professors. Same concept.)
In a way I think design isn't that different from coding anyway. It's focus and assimilation and keep trying. If you look at a lot of designs, think about them, study techniques in photoshop, and keep trying various combinations, eventually you may well 'stumble' upon a really good design. Especially if you can recognise it when you do find it.
IMO, I'm not much of a graphical artist. Never have been. Heck, I even do stick men bad, and that is something I'm proud of! ;) So I can't really create a visually stunning and breath-taking site, no matter how hard I try.
What I do excel at, however, is design, particularly interface design. I seem to have developed a knack for it over the years. And hence, I'm also good at webdesign, since it's basicly interface design for a vast database of documents.
Now, as anyone with a few dozen DVDs can tell you, it doesn't matter how pretty the interface is, if it doesn't behave the way you expect it to, it sucks. DVD menus are often the wet dream of any graphic artist's, but the majority of them happens to be very poorly designed, and things like easy-to-navigate menus and consistency between submenus often gets lower priority than neat 3D-animations etc. And it's pretty much the same thing for the web. All too often I've seen sites that looks great but were horrible to actually *use*.
Most interface designers like to keep things simple, since if you keep it simple, not only does it get easier to administrate; it gets a whole lot easier to navigate the site than if you have lots of distracting eye-candy. Simplicity and spartan design is often seen as "bad", when it's actually the opposite way around. Some of the best designs I have seen have had a spartan design.
So to answer your question, Suzy, it's not because the CSS Gurus fear to get bashed that they make use of the K.I.S.S. principle; they just like to keep things simple. And I personally think the biggest divide in the future will be between that of Graphic Artists vs Interface Designers, but that's just me...
the mind to solve programming problems and produce elegant robust code
Oh, cr*p. If this is what 'coders' do then I'm not one of them, either. ;)
thesheep, I think you're right that a certain level of design can be acheived through trial and error, study and contemplation, etc. If I didn't believe I was capable of producing something at least moderately attractive I don't think I could take people's money in good conscience. But there is a line between the 'okay' stuff that I do and the really talented stuff that true 'designers' do, and it's not a thin line, either. It's a big, honking line. Something is going on in the heads of those who get featured on sites like the Zen garden that really doesn't go on in my head. I'm sure some percentage of that is training; some of it is practice; much of it, I'm sure, is vision.
Perhaps you're right that something goes on in a good coder's head that might elude other people. My wife does home based print design work and photography and she's amazing at it (come to think of it, my mediocre design is probably the result of calling her in the room every twelve minutes and saying, "How about that?"). Anyway, she's got 'vision' but complains of headaches should I leave a page of printed code out on the table. So maybe there's something to that.
Still, this is a visual business, so having the 'vision' is a big step toward validation as a designer, and I think this is where the criticism of 'designer' sites comes from. It's the, "If they're going to 'have it' (and I'm not), then they'd better be perfect at it or I'll knock 'em down," mentality (reaction? mentality may be too harsh).
To put it another way: for every successful artist, there's three dozen failed ones ready to critique her work. As vkaryl said (or meant to say, or should have said ;)), it's human nature.
wertigon: excellent point about interface design. It's certainly more essential than graphical design, which is why non-artist folks like us can build successful web pages.
... staring at us from the monitor is this BEAUTIFULLY designed page, a perfect blend of color and line and typography and graphics created by a designer who also, and here's the kicker, had to code the page.
I think this is what's known as stating the b***ding obvious, but I'm glad you did. Because the gallery sites are fairly new, most of what's featured in them are sites that have been designed and coded by the same person. There are a couple of CSS Designer/Coder Teams that I've noticed.. 2 x different skillsets and obviously it would nice to be brilliant at both ... perhaps that's the future, design teams need to include a standards/css coder as well as a graphic designer if the project is meant to be "beautiful" as well as practical
thesheep interesting point... presuming a good designer can learn to hand code (advanced CSS still needs it) 'cos you can is a more likely a case of not thinking highly enough of yourself :)
Yes sure they can use an code editor and their graphic designs will be lovely. But maybe their editors will contribute to the production of similar interfaces/pages too due to their limitations (or tutorial sections)? Whereas coders who learn the basics of design might not be using their graphics programmes as well as a Graphic Artist..
We need to go out and marry our opposite :) Then we'd have the perfect partnership LOL
BonRouge.. no it's not a 'battle' (at least I don't think it is and I hope that it doesn't become one ;)) Mainly what I hope is that the 'jealous criticisers' don't spoil these new Galleries. In hindsight I wonder if Zen Garden probably knew what it was doing by not opening the very first "Gallery" to critique, knowing that it might be destructive?
I mean I'm all in favour of constructive criticism (it's like proof reading, everyone needs a spell check!), .. I just felt that a lot of the comments were not constructive at all.. like they (commenters) were just looking for a reason to "knock 'em down" whether it was that one page didn't validate or that a design was similar to someone elses.. or a hover didn't work perfectly cross browser.
Didn't I hear/read that there's no such thing as true originality anyway, it's how you interpret/use anothers technique/idea..
Suzy
