Forum Moderators: phranque
So, here's my question: Do you consider yourself a designer first and a technician second, or vice versa? Do you sit down and brainstorm and craft a design that is going to be something novel and asthetically pleasing, and then work out the techincal pieces as you go?
Or, do you concentrate more on how the site is going to function tecnically and then piece together a design later?
Being a right brainer, the first thing that always captures me when looking at a website is how cool, or how uncool, it looks. So I always focus on design first.
I'd be curious where other folks are coming from.
Pat
Form follows function. The underlying structure must be understood and developed, then apply aesthetics, or use this structure to add visuals as you go along.
Even in art instruction one of the things they teach you is to understand the underlying structure first (the skeleton and muscles) before putting on the skin.
So although I learned it backwards - BFA in Art, then got into the publishing industry - you must FIRST be technical, then structure the form around the function. This not optional, not if you truly want to succeed overall (as opposed to being a compartmentalized part of the industry.)
Form follows function.
Projects that come to me from "designers" who completely ignore this simple rule are bereft with problems throughout the project's lifespan. We constantly have to struggle and create workarounds that painfully extract the function from the form. If we change the form to accomodate the function, it's no longer aestheticlally pleasing - hacking it up to make one accomodate the other is a bi-directional mistake. :-)
"Well I'm a designer, not a technical nerd. Don't expect me to do your job for you." I hear this egotistical comment either directly or indirectly over and over again, and all it adds up to is a lack of understanding of the opportunity available to a designer, one that they often choose to ignore.
IMO, programming and technical stuff is not anti-creative. Server-side programming, Flash, and other tools on the web are just a different set of brushes, a palette of not only color but also motion and sound on a new type of canvas, different than any rag paper or cotton on which you've painted. It can change dynamically though time and dimension, and can be different things in different environments.
Most importantly - and the artists among you will have to agree - one of the things that artists have tried to achieve since we first etched a buffalo on a cave wall is enticing users to interact with our work. By understanding and becoming involved with the technical side of web work, designers can now make this a reality.
By assuming a hands-off approach to technical stuff - you're really closing off artistic opportunities. But that's just my take. :-)
On the other hand, you still have to take into consideration your target audience. For example, two architechts can buils two separate, completely functional, well built, solid and state of the art Churches. If one, however, builds his as a solid brick square with a sign on the front that says "CHURCH" and the other builds an asthetically pleasing, achitechturally creative masterpiece, which one is the average passer-by likely to walk into?
Same with web design - design two sites for your favoriate Bed and Breakfast with the same functionality, my money goes on the better design to attract customers, and ultimately, the client wants what they see to be pleasing (and functional) but coule really care less about whether it validates
Don't get me wrong, I have learned a ton about PHP/MySQl, Wc3 Validation, CSS and other relevant technical issues while perusing this board. It's obviously critical. But at the same time, why use the term "designer" in quotes like it's some sort of perjorative?
Design for me is different. It's more from an application architecture perspective... flowcharts, pseudo code, database designs, use cases, sequence diagrams and object models.
and then work out the techincal pieces as you go?
