A web design and development community for people with a thirst for knowledge. Follow the Community on Twitter right here.
Design is the process of finding the most elegant answer to the question of 'how do I?'
Paul Scrivens
When I talk about design I try to do more than mention the aesthetic/visual aspect of it, but it seems people tend to focus on that aspect the most. Web design however adds many more elements to the elegant answer that we are so frantically searching for. When I design a painting, all I have to worry about is the message of the painting. This involves colors and images. Although a great painting is hard to achieve we can not argue that there isn't really more to it.
Designing a great website that delivers the right message means that we have to look into the colors, typography, imagery, information architecture, information design, usability, accessibility, resolution on different screens and browser compatibility. All of these factor into how a user sees our creation and forms their opinion of it.
Sometimes ugly/mediocre visuals work because the design works. That is good design.
That seems to be the argument that some people are making in regards to what is good design. I don't buy it. When I wrote about how many aspects of web design have hit the commodity stage I was hoping some of the arguments would justify why I was wrong. When Google is brought up as an example of mediocre design that succeeds, people come out from the woodworks to argue that it is actually great design and base it on the success that they have had. I don't believe it.
It is good design, but it could be better. Google was fortunate that every other search engine on the planet acted more as a web portal and their search technology was horrible. It was as if the old search engines were beautiful cars with egg-shaped wheels, while Google was the ugly car with perfectly round wheels. It's technology was better and the design helped you get what you needed. That doesn't mean it was the best design for the job however and that is where many people make the mistake of thinking that it is okay to get away with good enough design.
It's silly to think that good results mean that you can't improve.
Do you think that the reason designers love rounded edges is because visually they look better? Well, that is probably the reason most of them do, but did you also know that rounded edges are easier for our eyes to process than corners? Same with pleasing color schemes. Go figure.
Color theory goes into great detail how different colors effect our emotions and vision. These are visual elements. These are part of design and this is why I still believe even successful designs can be improved upon if only at an aesthetic level.
Many of the successful websites out there already succeed on a usability and IA level. That is why they are successful. If a user can't use a website they simply won't use it. If they can't find what they are looking for then they won't use it. That is why successful websites can get away with low quality visuals at times. Web design is interactive and when you are interacting you need to make sure usability and the ability to accomplish the task (IA) are first and foremost.
We are surrounded by good enough design both on the web and in everyday life. I don't think as designers we should see a design that works and simply believe that it is good design because it does so. If there really isn't a better solution to the problem then maybe it really is good design or maybe we need to change our way of thinking. Most designers and their jobs are commodities simply because good enough design is so prevalent. The great designers go beyond good enough and strive for great and perfect design. They strive to find every possible solution and use the perfect one. The one that sets itself apart from the others.
Realistically though I know finding the perfect design on the first go around is near impossible so in the meantime we settle for good enough. The current design of this site is good enough and it bothers me. I'm sketching out version 2 now to hopefully get closer to that perfect design. It includes some accessibility changes, usability adjustments and visual enhancements because all of those elements play into the design. Web design is never one thing done well, it is a collection of qualities that come together that make the design solve a problem. Sometimes you can get away with one of those qualities being less than stellar.
Trust me, I know this, so no need to remind me every second. Web design will always be more than just aesthetics, unfortunately, the importance of aesthetics in achieving that final greatness get overlooked too often, so when I do speak of them understand that I do so knowing the role they play in achieving a level of greatness we very rarely see on the web.
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.
Beauty is a consequential thing, a product of solving problems correctly. -- Joseph Esherick, architect
I think the prevalence of off-the-shelf logos, templates, and designs are a product of the mass-marketing of what designers offer. It's a bit similar to microwave meals or even clothing. You know the TV dinner isn't all that good, but it satisfies a need and you don't care beyond that. You could buy some pants off the rack and they fit pretty well and you go about your way.
These things are meant to be produced quickly and satisfy a general need, not be the ultimate in nutrition and taste or comfort and fit. This satisfies most people and that's just fine because we also know that there is a nicer alternative should we choose to go that route. The web has become so ubiquitous in everyone's lives that we now have marketplaces for off-the-rack stuff. It's just business, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
There is a middle ground between the bespoke suit and the discount store clothing rack, and that's where most people fit. The market for design is opening up in the same way, and now we have a marketplace for the middle ground. I see it as confirmation that you can get well-designed stuff into the hands of "regular" people. Like Toyota/Lexus or Nissan/Infiniti, the same company can produce a product for everybody as well as a product for a client who appreciates a higher standard.
Hi Scrivs, I've enjoyed your last two articles, watching from a distance.
One suggestion for your impending redesign: The current design is SO EASY to read. I use Arc90's Readability plugin on so many pages. Yours is one of a few sites I don't use it on. Just saying "you've done a good job already."
I had blogged about this a while back.
http://www.kumailht.com/blog/opinion/did-someone-beat-google-at-design/
IMO, it wont be long before someone comes up with a better way to search the web and improving upon Google's interface wont be terribly difficult.
This is great. I'm stoked to see more articles defending aesthetics. Far too long it seems I've been told by finicky clients to remove the "NDEs" (needless design elements) and haven't been able to effectively articulate the importance of good aesthetics in design.
I'm glad the dialog in this is increasing
The "Good (enough) is the enemy of great" discussion. It's always an important one and I happen to agree with you, Scrivs. Too often we get caught up in what works instead of what could work better. Even a small nip or tuck, a rounded corner, a color shift, whatever, can make the difference between good and great. To your point, design isn't just about the subjectivity of the designer determining what is great, it is more often physiological. Our eyes/brains have evolved to register organic shapes and colors. Straight lines and perfect symmetry are a new invention. Designers should always take into account what is attractive optically rather than mathematically and educate their clients about that at the same time.
I find that Google (Search) tends to be an anomaly since it's one of the few companies where its function far outweighs its form. Unfortunately, a lot of companies and designers use it as a lazy argument for "good enough" when it should be better. Yes, "better" and "great" tend be subjective words, which is always a design problem since everyone has an opinion, but as professional designers aren't we the ones who should set the bar?
RT @drawar New Drawar! Web Design? Screw Aesthetics http://bit.ly/9H7Mte pls RT
There's always a market for lambo's and ferarris.
Web design is a very iterative process. Like you said, Drawar is not perfect, but it starts somewhere and changes until the design is perfect.
I absolutely cringe when Facebook changes its layout even the slightest, not because of the change itself but the fact that I have to listen to the community gripe for a month until they just either don't care anymore. People generally don't understand or like these types of iterative processes.
More on the point, the aesthetics will come through iteration.
So... you're using rounded corners and certain colours because they work?
Good article, Paul. In web design is easy to get stats and really measure what works and what doesn't. Using a tool like Google Web Optimizer can end this discussion.
Really? You're attacking Google as your example? Bold, indeed, but not really the smartest move. Google works because it appeals to the mass market, Not just elitist designers. For sure, there are minor tweaks one could make, but when you have a look at the competitors google offered a service which delivered usability and aesthetics in a single package.
Good design has nothing to do with circle jerking fellow designers. It's about servicing your audience and reaching the greatest possible target range. Google does that without compromising. The unfortunate truth of the matter is; the majority of your users never went to design school, hell, they probably didn't take art past finger painting. So when it comes to web design, the idea is to create the most appeal with the least offence. Aesthetics are subjective. What works for you, wont for countless others. The trick of course is to achieve that "appeal factor" when working with people who have no understanding of design principles.
Don't forget that your audience is immense. Great design transcends cultural boundaries and innate principles of beauty. In my mind google does that. Although, I'd love to see your suggested improvements.
I think this will always be one of those questions you just cannot ask. Why? Because you'll never end up reaching a final answer for it. It is just to philosophical and personal to be asked to anyone, designer or not.
I think that we should try to achieve results in which good function and good formals coexist in way you cannot point it out as being a bad example of one of them. Although there is always someone that doesn't agree with what you do. But as Axions said before me: "Don't forget that your audience is immense. Great design transcends cultural boundaries and innate principles of beauty."
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.
@drawar function and form are often discussed in such a dichotomous way...