The last several years have been great for the internet. web standards has had a great increase in building sites that are more flexible and accessible than the previous generation of table based markup. AJAX has provided the tools for creating highly interactive web sites and Rich Internet Applications (RIA). Users are becoming more passionate about the sites they use. They’re creating communities based around sharing everything from photos, to videos or just their favorite bookmarks. And mobile is just around the corner.
Yet, to read this years Communication Arts Interactive Annual you’d get the impression that the only thing happening on the web is Flash.
I’m not saying this to be some curmudgeon who hates Flash, it’s a great tool. However, just because a site is done in Flash doesn’t make it good interactive design. Many of the sites featured this year use lavish animation and are very pretty, but more often than not this interferes with the ease-of-use. Not to mention the site are almost completely inaccessible. When this happens you’re left with a site that just looks nice with some bells and whistles and isn’t that useful for the users.
For Communication Arts to get back into the game they need to drop the singular focus on Flash. In fact forget technology all together, great interaction design happens regardless of the technology deployed. When evaluating sites ask some tough questions: is it useful, is it accessible, does it create a emotional connection and of course is it well designed (note this does not mean is it pretty). Finally spend some time looking to the future. For example, mobile is going to be huge and they should spend some ink exploring it. After all it’s much more than having your site viewable on a mobile device.
It’s a great time for our industry; it would be a shame if Communication Arts completely misses it.
Kevin - completely agree.
As far as I can tell, CA only thinks of design in terms of aesthetics. They don’t have any credibility with me as far as the web is concerned.
Still they do produce a lovely looking magazine and it’s a good source of creative inspiration - but that’s about it.
Kevin, I think you may be expecting too much of CA. They have always been an authority on what “looks” good, but not much more than that. They’d have to change they’re entire approach in order to gain credibility in the areas that you are talking about. I would love to see that happen but, in the end, it is up to the editors of the magazine to decide the scope of their publication. And in my opinion, the scope of CA has always been to cater to the typical “visual” designer (which they’re delivering on by highlighting Flash).
So you see, the problem isn’t with CA, it’s with you ;) Just kidding. What I mean is, designers like you and I (and Keith) simply don’t fall in to the “typical” category anymore. So, CA doesn’t appeal to us as much as it once did.
I wouldn’t wait around too long for CA to catch up. I don’t think you’ll see much change in a magazine like CA until, we designers as a whole (not just as a few), redefine that design isn’t just about “looking” good.
Matthew — While I agree with you to some degree, I think we should expect them to catch up. To leave off? That’d be letting CA off too easily. I mean, they do call it an “Interactive Annual” and if you take the time to read what they say about the sites (which I did beleive it or not), you’ll see that they are making an attempt to appear credible when it comes to this stuff.
It would be one thing if they didn’t mislead these “non-typical” folks so badly. They’ve got to be called out if for no other reason that by spinning it like they’re in the know, they could be sending people down the wrong path.
I’m in agreement with Keith that it would be too easy to let CA off the hook, especially since they have talked about this in previous Design Issues column. While there are those of us who have outgrown the “pretty pictures” there are allot that haven’t and are coming away with the wrong idea of what interaction design is.
CA also has a farther reach than just the design profession. It’s not uncommon for business types to pick up the annuals. Which is pretty scary if this is the only way they end up seeing our industry.
The problem isn’t just CA, but all the other design publications as well (HOW, PRINT, etc.). The problem is with the design industry in general, primarily where the history/slant has been on print work. I’ve had the opportunity to work with a number of agencies and studios where their primary work is print, and making the move into web and interactive. I’m surprised of how little these places know of standards and SEO. It’s the print mentality that appearance is everything and little knowledge of how the construction/code is an important factor.
adai defalcate talkfest anoncillo cuprobismutite overabound quechuan tammy ITG Europe http://www.lanterman.org/