Login or Register
Facebook
Why Must I Go This Route?
Drawar allows you to register through your Facebook, Google, Yahoo, AOL or Twitter accounts. The reason this method is used is because it makes sure real people are going to use the site and participate in the Community. It also means no personal info is stored here which is a very good thing.
If you need a reason to register then just check out the About page. Drawar is a great place to learn and discuss design amongst great people.
A web design and development community for people with a thirst for knowledge. Follow the Community on Twitter right here.
We Don't Need You to Design Anymore
Warning: This article may bring up emotions that you didn't know you had. I'm not writing this article to enrage you or insult your profession. I'm writing this article because it is definitely an issue that should be addressed by anyone that makes money from web design services. It is a question that people in the world ask and it is in your best interests to have a good answer for them.
This isn't a rhetorical question or one that I am using to start drama. I thought of it because yesterday I came across 99designs and their new logo store. For just $99 you can get a logo and although most of them are cheesy and generic, there are some gems in there that could be used successfully. If you want an exclusive logo you pay just a little bit more.
Add that to the fact you can buy a design or theme for a web site for less than $400 and you are good to go. We know that award winning design doesn't make or break a website because a website is so much more than that. As long as the content is there and the site does exactly what the user is looking for, the aesthetics of the site could be the 87th most important thing to focus on. So this is why I ask the question are web designers really needed anymore?
How many popular websites out there can you think of that truly display award-winning design? I know the ones I visit frequently don't. They barely have good enough design, but they are successful and make a ton of money.
When a potential client comes up to you and says that they know a designer that can design a site for them for $500 when you are asking for $5,000, do you laugh and turn them away or do you realize that there is a chance your services won't justify the extra $4,500. I hate to see designers get undercut by others because it cheapens the value of our work, but really what is the value of our work?
Zappos.com is a very successful company with a very successful website and they are only now starting to focus on the aesthetics it. Before they implemented their new header and the world's largest footer, their site aesthetics were mediocre at best. They offer a great story and customer service however so what is great design to them?
Do you think it bothers the Gowalla people that they put so much care and effort into the design of everything that they do and Foursquare is still right there with them with a significantly worse design? Do you think it bothers both companies that MyTown has a ton more users than both of them and their website could've been built over the weekend?
It's one thing to say that your company puts a heavy focus on design because you care and another to watch a company care less about the overall design of their product and make a ton of money. How long were Apple employees frustrated to see less innovative technology companies dominant market share, while they were producing some of the best stuff around? They still don't dominant market share in a lot of categories, but they do dominant in terms of revenue and that has helped to justify their belief in total design.
Here is an extreme example. I don't know anything about this site or if people really use it, but is it too far fetched to imagine that customers of this store visit this site to find out the beer of the week? I can see it happening because although the page is horrible in many ways it still works and does the job.
Believe me when I say that I want to live in a world where everything I encounter is designed so well that it works smoothly and is a joy to behold. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world and neither do you and part of the reason is because many people aren't convinced of the value of design and after some thinking I'm honestly starting to have my own doubts as well. I know that great design has the potential to trump horrible design, but we know that isn't always the case so why would a business bother paying for it when they can save money and get something for less that will be just as successful?
Again, nobody believes in the importance of design more than I do, but understand that just because you and I may understand its importance, it doesn't mean others do. Especially when they can point out success everywhere around them that goes against what we believe in. If you really can't answer yourself why they need you to design then you might be in trouble. Do they really need you to design for them? Many times they don't, figure out the one time that they do.
This article was a bit different than what you usually see right? That is what Drawar is all about. It's not about being different, it's about helping all of us dig deeper into what web design really represents. It thrives off its members contributions so if you like what you see consider becoming a Plus Member or Drawar Friend.
51 Comments
Really, really good points. I am a web designer and I've also dabbled in starting a couple of business. To be honest, when starting those businesses I wouldn't don't pay what I charge as a designer. Why? Exactly as you say, sometimes an average site will do the job and it's not worth paying 2-5x the price for the marginal return.
On another note, slightly disappointed, I was going to write a similar article myself.
Very well said. Been wanting to write an article on how designers are cutting each others throat here in India. I mean they design stuff for 5000/- that is like $100 so you can imagine the situation. It is not great design from the aspect of usability, aesthetics or ia or ux but it gets the job done. So I wonder is that time yet to come when people choose design even if it comes at a steep price or is that time already pass me. This is the prime reason for not jumping over to a permanent design career here for me. I take freelance work but not as a profession but more as a passion. So I can tell noisy clients to F*** Off, cheap ones to find a cheap one and the unknown ones about UX and why the 2 MB Flash on the Splash page is a bad idea! This is my story and need of designers.
Please do write it and expand on what I have said. There are still a million more points to cover and I have only done a general (if that) overview of the question at hand. Books upon books could be written on this subject.
Also, as someone else pointed in the comments, I would not pay myself the amount I charge as a designer. So I wonder why do others pay for it. Then I realise it is the way the world goes around.
There was a nice interview AIGA did with Matthew Butterick, the proprietor of Typography for Lawyers. (http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/typographer-at-law-an-interview-with-matthew-butterick)
As he put it: use good design, and: "Sooner or later people will say, 'Hey, why do your documents look better?' That’s how you win."
Yo Scrivs, another thought-provoking read. I was laughing when you mentioned the large Zappos footer. I thought DI's footer was pretty big until I saw theirs.
I completely understand what you are trying to say, and to be honest with you, a lot of the clients that I've worked with in the past probably didn't need a good design to be successful. I do think that it also has something to do with the industry that the business is in and to who they are trying to market/cater to.
While I know that design is important, it's not everything. I think that it's an added bonus and that it can separate a business from the others. For example, if there were two companies that did the exact same thing, had the same customer service, etc. and the only thing that separated one from the other was the design, I think the company with the good design would get more customers.
But also, a problem I see is that what might be good design in our eyes as designers may not necessarily be good for their audience. That is why as designers, our jobs are very complicated as not only does the design have to be good, but it also must fit the audience, and the message that a company wants to convey.
Anyway, another great article and one that every designer needs to read and to think about.
I've had those thoughts myself, which prevented me from getting into web design as a career earlier. That's also why I always want to expand my skill set and be even more useful to clients, so they will start seeing the value in what I do.
I ran across this earlier today:
Design Doesn’t Matter http://blog.kadavy-inc.com/post/455871317/design-doesnt-matter
He misses the point. The design makes it recognizable to him. In fact, the design cues his body to respond before tasting it!
It might not be *pretty*, but it's still design.
People make a mistake of equating design with pretty. Pretty is part of design, but not all of it. Isn't design meant to be functional *with* pretty?
You cite Apple. Apple has its own problems. The fugly Notes app in the iPhone. And the abomination of virtual shelves in the upcoming iBooks app -- this from the people who gave us CoverFlow. Fake shelves!
Sell design as functional, as the thing that makes it all run smoothly for people, with pretty as the attractor that brings them in.
To sum it up, I think it's far more important not to have bad design than it is to have good design. It's OK to be OK in the majority of cases.
Design is not purely visual, visuals are simply an interface, and the judge of whether a design is good or not is not how it makes you feel nor how beautiful or pretty it appears to be but how it works; if it works then it is good design.
Anonymous@drawar Don your flameproof suit now. :D
I'm going to start to have WiBu disclaimers about design not being purely visual. However, you have given me an idea for an article so many thanks.
@Mikecane: I like the idea of selling design as functional.
The practice of design is based on the synthesis of function and aesthetics. If you leave one or the other out, then you're just doing half your job. If one or the other just isn't done well, then the design ain't so great. I think saying that something (not just websites) is good design simply because it works is shortchanging and devaluing the profession of design whether it's web, industrial, architectural design or other. Assuming we're all designers here (or at least in the field), we have a much more sophisticated appreciation of all aspects of design. Clients have a hard time seeing past the bottom line, and it's our job to help them see the long-term value in paying for design that goes beyond something that merely "works". And as a "good" designer, you should be able to articulate why the service you offer is worth the extra cost. A client will never buy if you don't know how to sell.
I'm going to start to have WiBu disclaimers about design not being purely visual. However, you have given me an idea for an article so many thanks.
It just seems like you, and many of the commenters, were focusing on what designers could offer on a very visual level.
Designers need to get real and realise that how something looks is largely irrelevant as long as it works and by works I don't mean barely, but really works to the extent it is a pleasure to use, not a pleasure because it looks pretty. Yes, visuals have a part to play in making something a pleasure to use, but as I've said before, they are simply a method of communicating and nothing more.
As far as using visuals as a tool of pleasure... well, we get in to a pretty big ethical/philosophical argument which I'm not going to dive into right now.
AnonymousI feel like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face here. If you think that making money online can be done by simply slapping together a "good enough" design then perhaps you're in the wrong field. Web design isn't just about pretty interfaces, it's about intelligent interfaces; interfaces that make the site as usable and accessible to as many people as possible while providing high click-through rates on the most important items. If all you've been doing as a designer is trying to make pretty websites then it may be time to hang up the Wacom Tablet. Amazon and Zappos may not be the "prettiest" designs, but they're profitable designs, and I guarantee they pay their designers extremely well to make sure they stay that way.
The same argument you're making about web design could be made about web application development, or book writing, or fly-fishing rod making. There's always going to be throngs of half-assers out there who price themselves out of profitability by offering "good enough" stuff, no matter what the industry is, and there will always be legions of cheapskates who buy their crap. But there will also be plenty of people out there who will pay a professional designer top dollar for a site that not only looks good, but also maximizes ROI.
Bottom line is, if you've painted yourself into a corner by not diversifying your skill set, it's your own fault, and if you can't land contracts in the face of "good enough" competition perhaps you need to work on your salesmanship. Becoming a web designer is easy, but becoming a web designer who actually provides real value is not. The latter will have plenty of work to do going forward and the former will continue to fight over table scraps.
AnonymousYou're confusing graphic artists with designers.
Graphic artists make things pretty.
Designers make things usable.
You can succeed with something that is usable, but not pretty. You can't succeed with something that isn't usable.
Howdy Scrivs! Long time no comment.
I'm with most of the other comments here; design is more than aesthetics, functionality trumps. A site design can look as pretty as it wants in Photoshop, but if it's a pain to use on the web, all that prettiness doesn't mean squat. A website that functions well is terrific, if it looks good doing it, that's a bonus to the general public.
Take Amazon, Facebook and Google for example. They perform there functions well but there are better examples of aesthetically pleasing websites.
You're examples are a bit off as well, the websites for Gowalla, Foursquare and MyTown are supplementary to there business; what I mean is that they really don't serve any other purpose but to say, "Hey look at this cool application we made." The main thing the users of those applications are after is just that, there mobile applications. The user totals for these applications aren't totally dependent on the websites either. Twitter is a perfect example, before celebrities and Obama started mentioning it, Twitter wasn't used by nearly as many people as it is presently.
As for the undercutting, there will always be those, individuals or businesses, which choose to cut themselves short. In our industry, websites that supply stock are just another hurdle good designers need to jump over; hop over it and keep moving. Nike didn't get there logo in a bargain bin.
AnonymousJeffryes, your comment is spot on!
I have a relevant example. http://brandpeek.com is a personal project of mine. The user interface is functional but badly needs a makeover. However, that has not stopped users from adopting it.
AnonymousI'm goin to be short:
"We need you to create cheap 'OK' design because we are pretty much 'OK' company with kind of 'OK' profits"
AnonymousGreat article!
I'm slowly making the transition from product to (web) service design and the state of design within the web interests me greatly, particularly when compared to consumer electronics.
If you look at the top product design consultancies in the world it's safe to say that they are no longer product design consultancies, they sell design thinking, business design, innovation. They sell their process, their ability to think outside the box. Not their ability to develop products, something they are totally capable of doing.
I think web designers should be following suit. Selling not their ability to create great looking websites, you're going to be undercut by China and India who will always work harder for less. But sell your ability to think. Your ability to design a user focused service that focuses on each touch point your user experiences...
So are the Western web designers of tomorrow service designers? http://www.guardian.co.uk/service-design/introduction
And if so, I'm very interested to see how this fits in within the web start-up world. A space that values a quick launch and iteration over research led design.
twitter.com/jasecoop
"Do you think it bothers the Gowalla people that they put so much care and effort into the design of everything that they do and Foursquare is still right there with them with a significantly worse design? Do you think it bothers both companies that MyTown has a ton more users than both of them and their website could’ve been built over the weekend?"
Maybe you don't understand good design? Oh wait. I read you regularly. I know you don't understand good design. You're still thinking about things as pretty or not, not well designed or not.
I'm well aware that web design is more than just pretty things. I wrote an article on it to even show my belief in that. To simply classify good design as something that works is inaccurate because then what do you call something that works better based on looks or another factor? Good good design?
For everyone wishing to argue on the merits of what I believe design is then you are missing the whole point of the article. If someone who talks about design thinks this way then how do you think people who know nothing of design view it? All they will see is a logo or theme that looks good to them whether the IA, usability or ability to look good in gray sucks or not.
Great design isn't always great design.
The fugly Notes app in the iPhone. And the abomination of virtual shelves in the upcoming iBooks app -- this from the people who gave us CoverFlow. Fake shelves!
When staying too long in one corner it's too easy to become blinded and forget one's own past. Shelves, yes shelves. Shelves coming from the same designer who designed shelves for the so hyped Delicious Library and was subsequently hired by Apple.
Sometimes the best looking option isn't the most optimal design. Point in case I have 500+ albums in iTunes, thanks for iTunes 9 and grid view! CoverFlow, awesome but sorry doesn't cut it if you have an extensive library. The funny thing about grid view, I think I've seen it before. Windows Media Player (for XP). October 2006: http://amifamousnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/wmp-again.jpg Also don't forget that CoverFlow was NO Apple product but bought and then integrated in Leopard.
Fugly notes and virtual bookshelves? Agreed, but maybe when aiming at a switcher market, 'fugliness' might be the smarter choice. Markerfelt is a total refreshment for Windows, a very welcome breeze of fresh air. Books for most people belong on shelves. Unrelated: iPhoto gallery view for iPad sucks compared to iPhoto on Mac OSX but it does make sense.
Can't please everyone all the time and tech savvy people/geeks/designers are only a very small percentage when you want to conquer the world.
But also remember that design is not just how it looks, but also how it works, and this is of the upmost importance, when ask the question So this is why I ask the question are web designers really needed anymore? it's simple YES.
Even if they we not to design all the websites, we have developed and found how users interact with the web, we work as problem solvers and find out how to get users to look and click where they need to make the experience as good as possible.
We lead the thought for these things to be brought into existance, and then the thought and function will be taken for granted possibly developed, I mean how many times have you had a breif, that is like I want a header like xxx site a background like xxx site and a footer like xx site but with buttons like xxx other site, why do they want them? Because it works, and they most likely do not know why they work, but that is our job :)
Put simply: Designer = Idea Person Other people use ideas. without designers other people would not have ideas and function would suffer.
>>>When staying too long in one corner it's too easy to become blinded and forget one's own past. Shelves, yes shelves. Shelves coming from the same designer who designed shelves for the so hyped Delicious Library and was subsequently hired by Apple.
@franky Yes, I know the history of iBooks. Wait til you use it for yourself first.
AnonymousHumans are visual creatures. Something that works really well will inherently look good.
But something pretty will not necessarily work well.
You start with making it usable, and the understanding that visual appeal is part of usability. That is design.
Starting with pretty and hoping it's usable is not design.
AnonymousLet's get this straight, you're talking about aesthetics not design. Design is far more than how something looks and I'm sure you know that. Since aesthetics is only one factor in design you can still have a good site with poor aesthetics, or what many would consider poor.
Here's a very good article which I'd say is somewhat related: Pizza Flyers: The Height of Good Graphic Design? — http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002462.html
Anonymouswell, on the other hand many companies don't want templates. they want their identities, they want something made for them. templates are good, but generic. I even consider buying a template to work on it but never using it. I visited a client last week and they want a wp theme for their custumer service blog. First thing they asked me "you are not gonna use a ready template right?". so I still believe that design is the power. I am already tired of that blog/cms formula that besides the background, everything look the same. The beauty of our jobs is that: make it diferent and send the message. My advice is don't let all jquery stuff and wordpress plugins rule your world, make it happen!!!
AnonymousThis is a great article and a good subject to discuss indeed! I enjoyed the comments written thus far, however I think many of you are completely missing the point.
You need to remember that people don't come to you for just a website. They come to you for a solution and an *experience*. That solution and that experience is what makes the website worth $5000 (or much more). The buttons and graphics that make up the website really become secondary to the transaction. They are just proof that the experience happened.
Think of Starbucks. Why are they so successful? You can likely go to the local cafe and get a decent coffee for $1.00. Why do you choose to pay $3.50 (or more) to sit in a Starbucks and drink it?
When you understand this, you will realize that there will always be a market - and need - for higher end design companies who provide a great experience for their clients.
And you will then start to see the commodity design outlets as a blessing for your business. Yes, a blessing!
First, they attract the kind of clients you don't want to deal with. Fantastic! That's less unqualified leads you have to sort through.
Second, they are actually a fantastic source for leads - of people who realize the lack of service or commitment they receive from a company like that and want more. Those people will be on your doorstep in the next year or two, wiser and ready to engage in the real deal.
So I say... Right on! Let the undercutters undercut their asses off. Let them do it for free! The Big Blue Ocean is Still Blue.
Isn't it a bit like the movie industry? Millions of dollars and the best people in the business working on it does not mean its going to be a great and successful movie. At the same time, a low budget movie that breaks a few rules can actually return 10 fold.
I'm a web designer and its a job of constant compromise. Its about doing what appropriate. The worse case scenario is when you come up with a client that has in 'in house' expert whose sole job is making sure you follow everything single thing that JacobN says to the Nth degree. No understanding of the bigger picture or interpreting the guidelines rather than following them like laws. As web designers we can become introverted looking in on what we do, rather than think about what the audience would be happy with.
Not saying we shouldn't care or should try to do the best we can I just think every so often we should 'relax' maybe.
Logo/Branding/Icon is another example. I know a logo is not a brand, but many of my clients don't. I cna talk until I'm blue in the face but realistically the price of a full and proper branding job, as detailed in many places on the web, would just be about 10x their budget. So what does that mean? They can't have a brand because the can't afford focus groups, mood boards etc etc? Of course not, many are very happy with their $50 logos and have successfully gone on to build reasonable bussiness around them.
AnonymousThanks for the article!
The only thing is that you are looking at it in a short term basis.
From an economics point of view this is great! More supply that eventually is going to make shift the demand.
All these cheap mediocre designs and designers are at least helping promote start ups and training them a little in the design field. Eventually these start ups are going to grow and they will need to change those horrific and bad design made by excessively mediocre designers bringing great designers more work!
So thank you to all of those out there taking the bad clients and training them for all of us in here.
AnonymousVery interesting article. Conversations such as these always make me me wonder what some people think design is. To me, making things pretty is an important aspect, but not the most important one. The primary goal should be usability or user experience, followed then by prettiness. Ideally all these elements will work together as a whole. form follows function, it's an oldie but a goodie. Demoting design to pure aesthetics is doing it a disservice.
I have to add one important thing: there must be a concept behind the web. Webs aren't a success just for good design, but for the information they provide.
Facebook doesn't work because it has a pretty design or a good user interface. It works because of the concept of the website: a social network. Same with twitter, and same with other popular websites.
Then the design (aesthetics+usability)can help making more easy to communicate that concept. If you want a web to be more social, then you will create tools for that. The tool (usability) will look good or no (aesthetics), but the concept behind it it's what matters (sociability).
AnonymousI agree with all the people saying that you're confusing graphic artists with designers, and even to be more specific, the part where you say that Gowalla's vs Foursquare proves the point.
If you look at those apps, Gowalla is more "aesthetic" or at least the graphics are more elaborate (personally I always preferred foursquare), but that's exactly where we miss the point of what a designer should be doing, a designer should be crafting an experience for the user, not just pretty images, and proportionate grid systems, it's about making something usable, understandable, readable and intriguing.
And really, think about it, foursquare has gone through a lot of iterative design, since they started they have been designing an experience, and that's why they're beating the other players here, you could say the same about MyTown, this apps are easy to use, the designer created interesting and intriguing mechanics and so the user feels engaged, that is successful design, not making pretty graphics, so yeah, so in the end I partially agree we don't need pretty unusable websites, we need compelling usable things, they need to be crafted by designers, but certainly not people who want to make "cool" or "pretty" websites.
To say that designers aren't needed anymore is to say that we no longer need creativity. A Youtube video of someone picking their nose may have a hundred thousand hits. Does that mean that filmmakers and videographers don't need to go to school to learn the craft? Millions of people watch "The Biggest Loser" but that doesn't make it quality entertainment. H.L. Mencken once said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
The article makes valid points about functionality. It is true that websites don't have to cost a lot of money. Technology has put powerful tools into the hands of amateurs. For a couple of thousand dollars, you can by a computer that is exactly the same as the one that a seasoned graphic designer uses. For a little bit more money, you can buy software that is the same as what is used to produce Hollywood movies. There used to be gap that was measured in many millions of dollars. That gap has become insignificant.
Certainly some website are simple, even ugly by design standards, but they work on some level. They serve a purpose. They fill a niche. Craigslist.org is an excellent example. It is wildly successful. But, it has a brilliant concept and it has amazing functionality. It doesn't prove that design isn't needed. It proves that CONCEPT is king. What designers have to do is specialize in CONCEPT, not flash. That is the only thing that will keep them in business.
AnonymousI might have read a different article, but I don't think that this is missing the point of design as function at all.
I think it's just a chance to step back and evaluate the economics of design work. For startup web services, it is imperative. There is a need for design and they should invest in it.
However, what about your local beer specialty beer store? Their primary reason for a site is to promote the beer of the week and show hours of operation and contact information.
Do they spend $99 on something like this http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/1840 and $33 on something like this http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates/15083.html and pay someone on Craigslist $100 to input the text? -OR- Do they go to their local designers and get quotes ranging from probably $999 - $3000 for a logo and similar site structure?
Would the difference between the two be justified in a sales increase? Can you convince them that it will?
I could be off my rocker, but I think that this is what Mr. Scrivs was trying to get us to think about....
AnonymousI think that my clients probably pay a higher than average rate for me, and guess what, they don't complain. Why? I offer value. Much of that value can be measured and even improved upon through iterations/multi-phase approaches. You can't buy that for $100.
If you can show me a $100 web site that addresses visual languages/taxonomies, takes the customers brand/culture/business goals/target audience into account and delivers a quality user experience, I'll give you my first born son. You can't show me that. I know because I too have seen the million and 1 templates and insanely cheap offshore services and none of them address the above mentioned challenges.
I think the underlying issue here is the quality of clients. My clients have done their research. They already know that templates and off shore design services are not going to address the challenges of their project. Occasionally I have a client that hasn't done their homework and I educate them on my value. If they still believe I am too expensive, I point them to the formerly mentioned cheap resources and wash my hands of them. Most designers like to call these kind of clients; BAD CLIENTS. They typically turn any project into your worst nightmare.
So all in all I disagree with just about everything that you said. "Design" is not about designing "pretty things" and making web pages out of it. Design is about taking a set of requirements and building the best possible experience.
My advice to you is to stop doing "graphic design" and start doing "user experience design". Better clients, more money, and far more personally rewarding.
AnonymousAs a side note. Also keep in mind the FAST, GOOD, CHEAP triangle. You can only get 2, never all three.
AnonymousThis is a very good and accurate article. You're right, a lot of clients or business people out there are looking for mediocre, because they don't want to pay or can't afford to have the awesome design, or even the pretty design. Having a plain Jane web site works for them.
However, I like to think of web sites like cars. The Hyundai will get you to the grocery store, and so will a Lamborghini. Which is going to get the looks?
Another commenter made a good point: if Company A is just as good as Company B but Company A has great design, it may give him the edge.
Apple products are better than many on the market, and opening the products is an experience in itself. The packaging design is so simple, rich, and brilliant, it's just as much fun to open a new MacBook as it is to turn it on.
Design isn't all about making something look pretty, but usable, functional, but also creating an experience. Mediocre doesn't create an experience. Great design, like the Lamborghini, creates an experience.
Anonymous"...and although most of them are cheesy and generic, there are some gems in there that could be used successfully..."
Here is the biggest problem, in my opinion. Its not whether or not a good design is needed (there will always be clients who need and are willing to pay for quality design), its the upcoming trend of reasonably good designers, unaware of their own quality, working for sites like 99designs. Thats what worries me. Its easy to explain why your design costs more than some piece of crap, but why does it cost 5 times more than a logo thats just as good?
It's almost like asking people to switch from IE to a modern browser. If it works why would/should they right? Wrong! People don't seem to care about everything and it's our job as professionals to educate them why we charge what we do.
- @iamhenrym
AnonymousIt all comes down to subject matter. Design is a huge focal point for creative websites (artists, musicians, photographers etc). Design is not just about pretty images and colours, its about the way the site is laid out.
Now look at something like Facebook, really not an overly pretty site, but the way it is 'designed' is more than just looks its about arrangement of content and minor things that the everyday user may overlook.
In any profession there is always going to be someone out there that will do something alright for a cheap price, but thats all it will ever be, 'alright'. If you want something that displays content based on theory and makes the site visually pleasing then you pay for a better designer.
Good Post, it is definitely something that gets a reaction.
Twitter: @scottifydotcom
AnonymousSince you slapped me around textually over the whole Smashing thing, can you unspam my comment on this post? ;)
I included three links because I thought they were relevant, so I'm sure I went into the depths of akismet.
Whoops, sorry about that Dan, indeed it was in the spam folder and the way this site is setup I don't get informed when they enter those depths. Should be posted now, sorry about that. And sorry about the Smashing thing, I just feel a little too strongly about certain things. One day we will laugh about it over marshmellows, but we will make Adelle pay for them.
AnonymousBelieve me, I understand not checking the spam folder. I figured it put me in as a spammer. The FYB debate was fun, you slaughtered me in round 3 of the debate. I'm laughing now, but I'm up for the marshmallows if they're roasted.
Interesting article indeed, that eventually raises more questions that provides answers. :)
I go with many in that both usability and "beauty" are supposed to be taken into account when designing a site.
Still, those are 2 different jobs. Allow me (ruffly): 1 - Usability is (or should) be managed at wireframe level. 2 - Good look is to be managed at graphical level, once the wireframes are done and block level data are placed within the view-port.
Many people tends to think that being able to design a good looking site requires same skills are wireframing a usable site. I am pretty sure it does not.
Another thing that is not present in the discussion : The market ! People are talking about price, costs, lower and higher etc... It looks like we tend to forget that we are in a world wide global market (even more in web than anywhere else) and that competitors could be anywhere on the globe. Everything else being equal, a designer based in India will cost less than a US one. So why would US customer go with US designers ever ? Trust, timezone or accessibility may be.
Somehow saying "WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DESIGN ANYMORE" is the same are saying to GM, "we don't need you to produce cars any more". We'll buy from elsewhere for cheaper. And that goes for any single thing you buy every day !
AnonymousI completely understand your feelings questioning the relevance of what we do and why we do it.
However, it's worth asking yourself a few important questions in life: Why do you design? What really compels you to get up in the morning, drive 2 hours through traffic to create something original for a client, for a colleague, for purpose XYZ? Do you truly love what you do? Are you passionate about things like user-experience, branding, information design, creative strategy, interactivity, technology, helping clients solve problems. Do you have a family to support? Is design your calling in life? If not, what else could you visualize yourself doing? Would it be as stimulating as being a designer?
If you're at the point in your design career where you're questioning the value of what you do and if the services you provide are in fact really needed, quite frankly, you're probably not providing enough value to your clients, or you need to perhaps reevaluate what it is that makes you (and your work) unique. If you come across clients who want to nickel-and-dime your services and play the pricing game -move on because it's just not worth your time and energy. In the end the old adage "you get what you pay for" applies to design solutions.
Seek out like-minded people to collaborate with -especially clients who appreciate the value of thoughtful, focused, design solutions -not prefabricated generic ideas -but real, emotionally-driven design insight.
Here is a fantastic talk given by Tony Robbins that will absolutely inspire which I feel is relevant to this discussion: "Why We Do What We Do" http://bit.ly/ckJDBQ
twitter.com/Djonckheere
Are web designers needed any more? Yes. Because someone has to create those themes in the first place. ;-)
Ha, because of this post, I started blathering onward on Twitter about my thoughts. In short, though: when a client decides between a $99 logo or much more, and same with websites, they are considering more than just the pure visual design, even as an uninformed layman or "normal person." E.g. "Will I like this person?" is actually a heavy factor in decision making. Meanwhile, if they don't see more value, they often do get what they paid for, and whether that's good or bad is completely dependent on their goals and the ensuing outcome.
Nike's logo was done by a graphic design student for $2/hr, and a whopping final bill of $35. Could they have gotten the same "value" if they spent $1M? For a billion-dollar brand, it can be justified to spend that much. However, they only got great value because the mark was successful. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't have this conversation. Also to add, all of Nike's ensuing projects have been through an agency.
Also, there is a market and audience for everything. Plenty of Fish is a godawful looking dating site that is extremely popular and made the creator extremely rich. However, lots of people I know wouldn't touch that site with a 10-foot pole because to them it looks wayyy too sketchy even if it's completely psychological or irrational. Therefore, a competing site would be smart to hire a designer to fill in the gap to cater to those who want some extra visual polish to add to their feeling of security.
AnonymousWhat's crazy is that we are still spending money designing controls for websites. This is pretty much a solved problem for desktop apps. The cocoa controls already look nice which saved you a lot of wasted effort. Hopefully Cappuccino (http://cappuccino.org/) will do the same for the web.
Post A Wonderful Comment
To comment you need to take a couple of seconds to login or register. Seriously it takes seconds and if your comment is worth it, which I have no doubt that it is, then you should do it.
This is definitely a good article and I absolutely agree that many people really don't care about good design, but from what I can say, a cheap price tag isn't the most important thing for many clients fortunately.
Most of the clients who come to me aren't just looking for a quick and dirty design which somehow works — instead they are seeking for advice, appreciate experience and knowledge, enjoy the process of being part of the development of something unique they can be proud of and doubtlessly don't mind paying a bit more for somebody reliable who will remain available in case they should have any questions or problems on the long run.
This said, there's always somebody who can accomplish a project for less, but in the end I believe that you just get what you pay for.