In getting ready for my upcoming panel at WebVisions the panelists and I took a stab at listing what was wrong with web design today.
I’ve not actually seen what my fellow panelists have listed, but I found it interesting to note that my list looks much as it would have 6–7 years ago, but for different reasons. There is still too much focus on technology and not enough on fundamentals. Content is still an issue. Style (or lack thereof) is still more important than clear and concise communication. The true value of design is still largely misunderstood on the web.
I wanted to take a minute and talk about what’s wrong with web design and what can be done to make it right.
Too much focus on technology
A few years back it was Flash. People were constantly reinventing the wheel with their interfaces and frankly over-design and over-engineering ran rampant. We still see quite a bit of that today with Flash, but there have been great strides making Flash more accessible and I feel that much of the Flash used today is more appropriate than in those days.
So we’ve made progress. However there is still too much focus on technology and not enough on people. I’ve written about this before and I think it’s something that bears repeating. Technology should work for people, not the other way around. A good designer should focus on people-centric solutions that work, not on the latest hyped up web 2.0 Ajax technique.
Not enough fundamentals
Speaking of web 2.0 and technique, I think there are many web designers out there who could benefit from some solid fundamentals in both interface and graphic design. To be honest, I don’t think you can ever get enough.
I can’t tell you how many designs out there suffer from a lack of fundamental design. A great web designer should get the technology but should also have a firm grasp on graphic and interface design. Knowing how a person reads on the web, for example, is more important than knowing how to use the latest Javascript library.
This is something I feel every designer should constantly work on. Especially those of us who’ve come into design via technology. Read up. Study design both in books and via the world around you. It takes time, and trust me, there is a never ending supply of things one can learn and do to become a better designer.
Content is a pauper
You’ve probably heard that content is king. I beg to differ. In my experience content almost always plays second-fiddle to technology and design. A great design is pretty hard to achieve without a good understanding of the content. Design is communication and how can you communicate if you have no clue what needs to be said.
The fault here doesn’t usually lie on the designer’s shoulders but it’s important to note. A design can only be as good as the content it’s there to support.
The style problem and the value of design
There has been a whole lot of talk about “ugly vs. pretty” on the web. People wonder how “ugly” sites like MySpace can succeed without the benefit of a good design. I feel that in many cases (such as MySpace) these sites succeed despite their design. The issue here isn’t ugly vs. pretty, or at least it shouldn’t be. A successful design should be nice on the eyes, that’s true, but it’s more important to function well, communicate what it’s supposed to, etc.
I’m with Jason Santa Maria on this. Design is communication.I’m also a firm believer that any design can be functional, usable, and look great. These things don’t have to be at odds and a great design solution figures out how to blend all of these things to get the correct message across. See Morville’s Honeycomb for more.
Putting time, effort and money into design can and will pay off.
Keith - I certainly agree with your comments about content. What brings it home to me is how little is being written about writing for the web.
I’m only aware of a few blogs and other relevant online publications that are focused on this topic, whereas there are thousands on web design.
Despite his hardline attitude, thank heavens for Gerry McGovern (and people like him) who is prepared to keep on hammering out the message (day-in, day-out) about the importance of quality content to the success of your online endeavours.
Christian — that’s totally true. Considering how imporanting content is to the success of any design it’s shocking how often it’s an afterthought, let alone the fact that it’s almost totally ignored by the Web design community.
“You’ve probably heard that content is king. I beg to differ. In my experience content almost always plays second-fiddle to technology and design”
How can you say that? Of course content is king, the purpose of web design is to present it in the best way possible.
Maybe I misread you, but I’d never design a site without acquiring lots of content first.
Olav you might have misunderstood what he meant. I think he’s trying to say that although content should be king, in his experience it has been the other way around, which is not how it should be.
Olav & J Phill — J Phill has the right of it. I think content is vitally important but that it’s often overlooked.
Ah, I see, my bad. I’m glad you’re not insane, Keith. ;)
I still do not get the whole ‘web 2.0’ phenomenon…
A good website or web application is a combination of good technology, graphics, content/IA, and processes. All those components should be well ‘designed’. There’s often a lack of expertise or in reality, the budget, to design those components together. The usability expert often don’t understand technologies enough, e.g. ajax could add extra load to the server and hence might create a slow or bad experience if not designed well. The designer doesn’t know the technical difficulties with the designs. The technical guy doesn’t know the front-end technologies. Even if all those are done right, the idea of the application or the website could be the reason for failure. How many firms or persons actually understands all these areas well enough to provide the most successful solution? Most of they are probably busy working on their own ideas :)
I absolutely agree with REX CHUNG. Good website is a complicated combination of many components.