Design is looks v. Design is looks +++

Actually, what I said was how it looks is a small part of the overall design. Design is far more than just the visual aspects.

As promised, we have moved this post to a new forum for further discussion.

hmmm don't remember writing that!

i still don't agree with you, but ah well just an opinion right

I'd like to hear your reasons for your opinion. Back up your opinion with information that the rest of us can benefit from.

Graphic design relies heavily on structural or functional design. How an element looks is definitely part of good design -- it should look like it performs the function it performs (i.e. a form element should look like a form element, a hyperlink should look like a hyperlink). As such, these have fairly restricted parameters for design. As long as the functional design is working, the topical or surface graphic design isn't AS important, nor is it even the majority of the design work necessary.

The functional design, including layout, where elements are located, whitespace, content blocks, et cetera is more important than the "decoration" applied to them after the fact (like racing stripes on a car).

Clearly for some things, there is a lot of mix-and-matching going on, like when the content is the graphics, or images, or when the textual content is either not there or is secondary to the visual presentation.

For more on this topic, I'd draw your attention to the psychological studies on design, esp. by Don Norman, and I'd invite you to look at essays by Bruce Tognazzini and other studies in gui and human interaction.

So, what we're talking about is how to define "web design". Some would say that design = looking pretty (and that's all), others would say that design = looking pretty + functionality + usability + scalability + business issues + many other factors. I think that in this business design is so much more than looking pretty that the visual aspect becomes subordinate to other factors.

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
I'd like to hear your reasons for your opinion. Back up your opinion with information that the rest of us can benefit from.

Graphic design relies heavily on structural or functional design. How an element looks is definitely part of good design -- it should look like it performs the function it performs (i.e. a form element should look like a form element, a hyperlink should look like a hyperlink). As such, these have fairly restricted parameters for design. As long as the functional design is working, the topical or surface graphic design isn't AS important, nor is it even the majority of the design work necessary.

The functional design, including layout, where elements are located, whitespace, content blocks, et cetera is more important than the "decoration" applied to them after the fact (like racing stripes on a car).

Clearly for some things, there is a lot of mix-and-matching going on, like when the content is the graphics, or images, or when the textual content is either not there or is secondary to the visual presentation.

For more on this topic, I'd draw your attention to the psychological studies on design, esp. by Don Norman, and I'd invite you to look at essays by Bruce Tognazzini and other studies in gui and human interaction.

The complexity of your answers is something i dislike anyway, but i read it all.

I agree with the placing of elements and the white spaces etc. don't get me wrong there, that wasn't what i was arguing about, i was arguing that you seemed to think having perfect code was as important at the graphical look of the site to the user. Which isn't correct at all at least in my opinion. The visitors don't see the code (unless they want to) they see the graphics and design. The positioning of elements and white spaces, to me, comes under the grapic design part of the process.

Yeah site design covers a lot more areas than how it'll appear on the screen to people, but to say its a 'small' part is whati didn't like about that, making it sound irrelevant.

Short answer: the code is what makes the design hold together -- crappy coding, non-valid coding, DOES affect the end user. It affects them by increasing load time, limiting the agents they can use to access the information, increasing the complexity of the task, and failing to perform as intended, removing their ability to use the web applications, or access the information.

Since that's the whole point for most sites on the web (having people be able to see/use a website), I'd say it's a lot more important than graphic design. Graphic design is VERY important, don't get me wrong -- it can make or break branding, influence usability and even accessibility, but it's not AS important as solid structural information/software design.

yeah i know code is very important, but like i originally said all those moons ago, its not as important as you make out - saying it won't work on this version of Opera etc. so it must be crappy coding. I think until my stats show otherwise i'll continue to write for the mainstream, i.e. Internet Explorer (no matter how crappy you say it is its still by far the most popular).

You don't want to use standard coding, that's your choice. I personally think it's a very poor choice because it only takes into consideration the short-term reality.

What happens when IE is no longer the top browser? When browsers aren't the top user agents?

What happens when your client wants to provide an RSS feed? What happens when your client realizes that 50% of the hits are from cell phones and pdas and they want to capitalize on that? Here's what happens -- the people who are responsible for trapping the content in non-portable coding lose the contract and someone like me has to come along and clean up the damage that short-term thinking has caused.

There are clear advantages, and no good reason why any site/web application cannot be coded so it works acceptably in all browsers and user agents instead of just the most popular.

As discussed elsewhere in these forums and on the web, the audience of the site is the most important consideration -- if a site has 100% IE6 being used to access it, either it won't work in anything else but the content is so good people are willing to only use IE, or the audience only uses IE6 (rare, if this even exists) or doesn't bother trying to view the site at all. Again, what happens with this particular browser is replaced by a more popular browser, say IE7, with full standards support?

I'd be happy to DISCUSS things with you, and perhaps other people would as well, but let's discuss it for real -- come on, state more than just your point of view, tell me why your approach is a good approach!

As for IE being "crappy", it doesn't support the current standards. I happen to PERSONALLY think that's bizarre since IE5.2/Mac DOES support most of the current standards, but hey, just because a company is integral to developing those standards in the first place, that shouldn't make them accountable for supporting them in their software, right?

standards this, standards that...
i'm sick of the sight of the word!

'standard' coding is exactly what i DO use, since none of my sites have ever produced errors on the browsers people have tried them in. But thats not to say i go and test it on a 15 year old version of netscape then panic like mad cos it doesn't look perfect. I didn't say IE6 either, i said Internet Explorer which is allll of them.

The reason i was bothered is cos you pick to pieces other people's code, even when all they wanted was an evaluation of the looks of it or whatever. Imparting advice is one thing, making them seem inadequate ("someone like me has to come along and clean up the damage that short-term thinking has caused.") and that you're a cut above. Anyway this is my last post on it because it's not worth the effort.

DaveyBoy you may not post again but I sure you can't resist reading this since you seem to love getting mad at people when they are trying to help. Maybe you and I are reading different posts but I think Suzanne was actually talking about looking into the future with standards instead of looking into the past like you claim. Just because she picks apart code does not mean she thinks she is better than anyone, it simply means that she cares enough to help that person in any way possible. If you re-read this thread I am sure you will be disappointed at the way you came across. Its not just Suzanne who pushes these things and in my mind she is doing everything right. Can you really justify being lazy by calling someone else names?
-dk

Personally I'm a fence sitter on the whole standards thing, but my work performs as it should in 8 browsers...but I won't get into that....

My passion is the imaging and the 'design'.

Personally I think of 'design' and layout as not the same thing.

The 'design' is the whole enchalanda, when all elements are brough together to create something fluid, functional, and user friendly. I mean the images, figuring out the best structue and navigation...all of it.

The 'layout' is the physical placement of all of the elements on the page. That means working with the images, the content, figuring out what goes where, how big or how small for the best 'look'.

As for the coding: (and I'm a fencesitter on the standards thing myself.)

I think that neither one is as important as the other. That they need to work together as one.

What good is kickass design if it breaks in all but one browser? On the other hand, what good is kickass code if the page is neon green with blue text and nothing but a home button.

It's like a cake.........the ingredients need to be correct for it to be a cake, yet it needs the frosting in in order to 'look' like a cake.

And I'm one who looooooooooooooooooves my eye candy!
I also love 'toys', Flash, Java applets, dhtml, all of the fun stuff. However I refrain from using toys much because so many of them just aren't practical and user friendly.

Some good points Roo. I have to say that I wish dhtml was more user friendly also!
-dk

Well said Roo, I couldn't have put it better myself! I totally agree with you

Quote: Originally posted by dk01
Can you really justify being lazy by calling someone else names?
-dk

How am i being lazy?

I work my *** off on all my sites, so i find that an insult, thank you very much.

All i said is that Suzanne never seems to look beyond the standards part of design, every comment i see from her goes on about it, and why am i not allowed to say what i think, cos she's a mod maybe?

Sure, she's taking time out to help people but i don't need lecturing for having an opinion, either on an aspect of web design or indeed the validity of someone's advice - i could have sworn a message board was somewhere to express your opinions on certain topics and i did just that, as i see it.

edit : woo i got censored!!

right time for my two pennies worth...

I think the reason suzanne makes comments about standards is because thats her speciality... when reviewing sites i'll very rarely look beyond the design, while others comment on content.

Most web designers are specialists in one area or another, some flash, some html, some php, some making pretty pics.

Thats why we have this forum, so users can get comments from people with a variety of skills and see things from every perspective.

I'm not backing up suzanne or you, as i think your both right. Standards ARE important, but then so is design.

yeah they're important, case closed.

DaveyBoy I didn't mean you were lazy in your site design. I meant in your argument. The way you approach this coversation makes you SOUND lazy. I am not saying you don't work hard because obviously I can't say that since you probably work your a** off on every site. My point is that by picking these little fights every so often you make yourself look lazy by denying someone who is trying to help. Sure Suzanne focuses on standards but I don't think there is a case for denying standards. Of course you are allowed to express views but the way you come across is argumentative instead of that of someone who wished to have a discussion. I am glad to listen to what you have to say but in your first post to Suzanne you used personal insults which makes me question whether you really can debate in a proper manor at all!
-dk

What personal insults?

Quote: Originally posted by DaveyBoy
If fact, you'll made me re-think the whole business!

*Edit: Let's not get personal.*

Ban me if you want!

Would prove you have nothing to do in your life!!

-dk

Note the edited by taff line at the bottom of that one too

I was thinking of another analogy the other night - creating a site can be like finding a significant other. Sure, you want someone who is physically attractive, but also someone who has a good personality, treats you well, has a good sense of humour, is responsible etc. etc. etc. Everything comes together to make that person. And I think that if someone has a good personality they get a lot more attractive physically (if some hot guy turns out to be a jerk then what good is he!). So, if you've got good coding, good usability, good everything else, your site will probably look pretty good too

Quote: I think the reason suzanne makes comments about standards is because thats her speciality... when reviewing sites i'll very rarely look beyond the design, while others comment on content.

Right. I've had the same problem when I go on about writing style. People think I'm picking on them about something that's irrelevant but it's really just something that I happen to notice and happen to think is important. It happens.

Quote: Originally posted by dk01
-dk

Dunno where you get 'insults' from from that though

Look, enough is enough! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and sure you can say them in these forums but not when it becomes as silly as this has.

Pick all your toys up, put them back in your prams, then lets carry on and behave as civilised adults please.

Ok sorry everyone. After a re-read it sounds bad. I'm done.
-dk

Quote: Originally posted by The Webmistress
Look, enough is enough! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and sure you can say them in these forums but not when it becomes as silly as this has.

Pick all your toys up, put them back in your prams, then lets carry on and behave as civilised adults please.

thats the most childish post in this topic, actually

Yeah i'm done on this topic too.

Crikey, is it that hard to come up with valid reasoning about why graphic design is so important?

Bruce Tog has a big article on his site and a WHOLE BOOK talking about how pretty things work better. All other things being equal, studies have shown that attractive hardware, software, tools, et cetera work better than their aesthetically challenged counterparts.

No one wanted to bring that up? I would have thought that would be right at the forefront of a discussion of the value of design.

Anyway, to sum up -- the structure of the site and the code function of the site are vital to the functioning of the site, the graphic design of the site is vital to the user experience. Both parts are critiqued in the forums.

My area of expertise is the underlying code, so that is what I contribute to the critiques/forums. Others have other strengths, and that is what they choose to contribute.

People can contribute any feedback they feel comfortable contributing within the critique forum, as user input of ALL TYPES Is needed to help developers and designers fine tune or sometimes re-tune their sites.

None is better than another, all viewpoints are needed.

i didn't even try to explain why i think its so important.

That was kinda my point.

Here's an interesting twist for you. WHat do these sites have in common?

http://www.yahoo.com
http://www.msnbc.com
http://www.ebay.com
http://www.amazon.com
http://www.google.com

1. They are all among the most popular and well known sites on the web
2. None of them have particularly attractive designs
3. None of them pass a validator! (they all choke on either doctype or character encoding!)
4. Most also have usability problems (except google)

So, if you take site popularity as an indicator, you're both wrong

DaveyBoy,

I'm just curious but would you object to posting links to some of your sites?

Ha! Nice volley, Megan! Excellent point.

I'll counter with recent high-profile redesigns that are valid (or close to it -- there is an acknowledged problem with CMSs that generate non-valid coding) AND are tableless*...

Such as:

espn.com
wired.com

and the much touted:

cinnamon.nl

There are others, but the top two are really high profile and have little explanations about why they've made their choices.

There have been a number of people who have made valid tableless working models of some of the sites Megan listed, as well. From those behemoths of the web, we haven't heard much about why they have made their design choices. I'd really really like to hear why they've chosen the route they have, and why they think it's the right choice for them.

There is an annual report on the members of the w3c committee for standards and only a small percentage of them follow the standards themselves. Either there is something else happening, or there is a financial/time issue involved in moving all the legacy documents into standardized formats.

* which is not to say that this is the ideal for every site, just an interesting tidbit to add to the discussion

The sides that Meagn listed lets look at both sides of the argument for a moment:

They all have a target user group as *everybody*. So don't they need to develop the sites for the lowest demoniator that they can?

Okay, so pro standard folks can effectivily argue about that with standards comes better accessability. Yes, that is true! But.....it also requires newer browser use.

However.....
When your target group is so vast and varied wouldn't it be unwise to push the 'upgrade your brower' campaign?

Personal story:
I have 8 browers to test with. I now use Oper 6.5, but that's been just since going cable in March. Before that my browser of choice for my own surfing was N 4.8.

Why?

Becuase I have an older machine whith a CyrixII processor @ 366 megahertz, and the newer browser run so horribly sluggish on it that using them is an unpleasant experience.

It could also be effectivly argued that the majority are using the latest version of IE. True.

But with the sheer volume that those sites get daily should they risk the three or four percent using older browsers? When you consider the sheer numbers of users they get, it makes me think personally that they aren't willing to risk it.

And what about the AOL brower?

Would these companies spend more time and money on all of the tweaking they'd need to do to make things accesable to such a wide wide user base?

If they went totally compliant, how much would they lose to older browser versions?

As for the design of those sites...I think they are so huge and so established that they know that no matter what it looks like, people will come for the services they offer.

But does anyone doubt why Google is the search engine leader? It's quick, it's simple, it's easy...mainly it's focused. When you go to google.com you are not faced with news and qroups, and e-mail...it's straightforward search.

This is a good discussion!

Quote: Originally posted by flipper
DaveyBoy,

I'm just curious but would you object to posting links to some of your sites?

Not normally no, but the server i'm on is down...i've had a few of my sites up here before though.

What I like about the larger more popular sites is that they are slowly moving to eliminate font tags and other code bloat. Even if they aren't achieving standards yet, they are working towards that goal by adopting CSS.

There is no reason whatsoever that you cannot create a table layout that works fine in browsers that support tables (lets not forget that older browsers do not support tables, much less CSS, and alternative user agents render tables in peculiar ways), and still uses valid, non-bloated and extensible code.

Which is pretty well my argument in a nutshell -- you don't need to create cutting edge (bleeding edge) designs to follow standards. Standards contain their own benefits, SOME OF WHICH involve bleeding edge technologies, but the others are mostly the portability of the code.

Of course, having a completely standard and valid coded site doesn't mean it's portable code -- to do that, some expertise is needed to reduce the endless use of classes, to remove what Tantek refers to as Bed and Breakfast markup -- using instead of , and , instead of , and in place of logical heading elements.

That sort of discussion falls into good coding practices, though -- what is the best way to code a particular site. Using list markup instead of a table or links with line breaks, for instance, is an example where it's a better coding practice (more accessible, more sensible to alternative browsers, semantic coding, et cetera), but is not any more VALID than using a table or using links with line breaks.

Glad to see a healthy discussion grow from childishness lol.

Glad to see that you finally realized that web standards is worth a healthy discussion instead of one that doesn't need to be discussed because it is not worth the effort or too nit-picky.

Converted yet?

I did a little digging back to some of your first posts Daveyboy and you really do have a couple of nice looking sites. Your coding seems to be fairly clean too. If you wanted to do some "standardization stuff", it wouldn't take much effort on your part to do so. (like getting rid of the deprecated font tags and swap to css) Sure they look fine like you have them now but why not go the extra step to use up to date coding methods. Especially if you offer design services to people.

If I had to choose between a web developer who only coded for IE only (can't remember if you said that or not---just trying to make a point here) or one who used the latest techniques to assure that my site would look good in as many browsers as possible, used coding methods to assure good search engine placement and made my site accessible to the handicapped, I would choose the later.

Auxiliary Benefits of Accessible Web Design - Good reading.

well the font tags only appear cos sometimes when i'm lazy, i edit in Dreamweaver and it adds a gazillion font tags to everything.

The thing is, most clients that you get won't have a clue about standards or anything, so the choosing of someone who complies to them is quite irrelevant really. But still, i agree that making it all backwards-compatible etc. is important.

I may be wrong here but I am beginning to wonder if backwards compatibility is really the issue anymore. ?? Seems to me like following web standards is prepairing us more for forward compatibility.

Just a thought.

Backwards Compatibility

I used to think that being backwards compatible was the way to go, but over the last four years I've become convinced that it's just not a good idea. It involves being stuck with legacy coding instead of making it accessible and viewable in older browsers, which is the goal of FORWARD compatibility. Being trapped in old methods to work with a shrinking population that can ALSO BE SERVED with standards just doesn't make economic sense to me.

Clients Know About Standards

Fortunately, most of my clients ARE aware of standards. They know what they are and expect me to be able to tell them the benefits and drawbacks therein. When it comes down to a budget, standards win hands down. I do have some clients who want to be standards compliant but who have too many committee members and outside input (including horrific 3rd party CMS scripts that utilize nested tables instead of semantic markup).

Balancing Decision Making

It is always a balance between economics, principles and long-term planning, but my job is to know what the best choice is given their restrictions, and time and time again, that best choice is standardized code.

The Evils of Legacy Coding

Legacy coding is horrible to work with. It's hard to clean, it's hard to make sense of, it's bloated, and it's hard to make accessible. Most of the time I end up just stripping out the content rather than dealing with the legacy coding, and remarking up the content. If the code was at least standardized to an older standard, I would be able to upgrade the code with a series of grep s&r. Legacy code requires an increasing amount of time and money to maintain, unlike standardized code. Legacy coding is, in many ways, like a static website with hundreds of pages that must be maintained by hand. Includes, databases, et cetera lessen the effects of legacy coding, but not when a CMS continues to create it.

I think it's foolish to entrap permanent content in legacy coding, which is the power of xml, really -- to protect the data and the content from the vagaries of today's methods.

The Type of Content is the Key

But I'm all about long-term investment in the web, in archives of human knowledge, so these comments only apply to that sort of information. Clearly when you are updating weekly and revising the design quarterly, it's not as important to invest in long-term thinking.

Some great food for thought there Suzanne. I think you and Sonia hit the nail on the head!
-dk

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne

[b]Clients Know About Standards

Fortunately, most of my clients ARE aware of standards. They know what they are and expect me to be able to tell them the benefits and drawbacks therein. When it comes down to a budget, standards win hands down. I do have some clients who want to be standards compliant but who have too many committee members and outside input (including horrific 3rd party CMS scripts that utilize nested tables instead of semantic markup).
[/B]

In my (relatively limited) experience, the clients i've had have no knowledge of the industry at all, they have no idea what HTML or any other scripting language is or is used for, so if you start talking about standards they won't have a clue what i mean - all depends how clued up your client is i guess.

Quote: Originally posted by DaveyBoy
In my (relatively limited) experience, the clients i've had have no knowledge of the industry at all, they have no idea what HTML or any other scripting language is or is used for, so if you start talking about standards they won't have a clue what i mean - all depends how clued up your client is i guess.

In my opinion, explaining this to some degree is part of our job and even the unexplained is still part of our professional responsibility. You are right that many have no clue or interest in HTML, CSS, cross-compatability, browser resolution, etc. That's why they are paying us. They are in the _____ business, we're in the web design business

I've been working with architects lately and the analogies between a web site and a building site have been helpful.

Nice looking building but does the wiring work? Even if it works, is it wired in such a fashion that any qualified electrician can come in and follow it?

Will it withstand an earthquake?

How easy will it be to add an extension?

etc.

I've kind of shied away from this thread because although I'm big on standards in theory, I'm by no means perfect in my application of them. But I welcome the coding insight of folks like Suzanne. I consider them my "coding conscience" which I sometimes listen to, other times ignore

It can be pretty tough to code to a strict standard *and* give a client exactly what he wants *and* get the project delivered within a timely manner *and* make enough money to pay the bills. Sometimes you need to "cut a corner" or "apply a fix" and hope like heck that it withstands the next earthquake.

I also agree that it is time to push toward "forward compatibility" at the expense of "backward compatibility". On the other hand, if I pick up a client tomorrow who still uses Netscape4 or has an audience likely to do so, I won't turn him away. Sometimes the situation determines our course of events.

Could everyone please stop baiting each other, please? No more personal attacks or otherwise picking on one individual etc.. I've had to clean a few things up in this thread and I really hate having to do that. Thanks.
___________________________________________________

Really awesome example of the power of CSS for design (select a design on the right):

http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/

I'm thinking of doing a stylesheet for the Zen Garden. There are really crazy designs in there! So cool, so cool. It spawned a discussion about semantic markup (it has many spans in there that aren't strictly necessary) on a number of blogs-of-that-ilk. If anyone's interested, I can pass along the urls if you're not already familiar with the types of blogs that get into the nitty gritty of upcoming standards and markup opportunities.

I was thinking about using the zen to re-do my blog but I haven't had a chance to sit down and look at it real close. Seems a bit complicated.

Suzanne, need a guinea pig?

Quote: Originally posted by Megan
[B]Could everyone please stop baiting each other, please? No more personal attacks or otherwise picking on one individual etc..

we stopped ages ago, let it go!

Quote: Originally posted by disaster-master
I was thinking about using the zen to re-do my blog but I haven't had a chance to sit down and look at it real close. Seems a bit complicated.

Suzanne, need a guinea pig?

Er... I'm afraid to say yes, lol... What on earth would I get?

The code is probably fat, lol, to take into consideration all the possibilities. You want to make a design and see if I can force it into the CSS? lol...

Quote: What on earth would I get?

Some cheese!

Quote: You want to make a design and see if I can force it into the CSS?

Elaborate on what you mean here. Not sure I follow.

What do y'all think about this Zen so far?
It's a work in progress.

Wonder if it is time to start a Zen thread?

I am such a dummy. I thought the flower that I used on the page above was a rose. It's a tulip.

Quote: Originally posted by disaster-master Elaborate on what you mean here. Not sure I follow. [/B]

Just that you come up with a photoshop layout and I'll try to interpret it. But maybe not a good idea, lol.

Nope, not a good idea. That would be a disaster on my part.

Wow! this is the jerry springer of website forum threads. Being a highly effective electronic communicator, I am able to use my extra sensory powers to deduct that if you both meet halfway, you'll realize you're both right. I view design and functionality as equals in any development philosophy, one cannot succeed without the other. If you were to marry DaveyBoy and Suzanne, you'd have some great looking, highly functional website babies.