What's Your Web Design Personality Indicator?

I'm a SAVD / SACE

Definetly an OSVD.

Actually, I take issue with the V in SAVD. Because most designers in that category would probably say that visuals is only one part of what design is. There are a whole lot of other components that go into that (usability, accessability, strategic design, content management, information architecture etc. etc.)

Molly E. Holzschlag (from SASS) wrote: with little interest (or more often, skill) in presentation

Hmmmph, I take exception to that.

Is my design really that bad?!

Anyway, am not amazingly impressed by that woman anyway, Dunstan had more of a clue and at least he wrote his own Blog software!

A good article though, suppose I should be glad I wasn't lumped in with the TTLM's then I would have really started complaining! There are a lot of TTYM and some CCWD (unfortunately). suppose we have to help the TTYM's learn more and help the CCWD's realise they are actually TTYM's...

Megan wrote: There are a whole lot of other components that go into that (usability, accessability, strategic design, content management, information architecture etc. etc.)

But surely these aren't the realm of the designer? Well, ok useability and accessibility are to a certain extent but information architecture? content management? These are not the places designers like to go. They like to hang around in nice fluffy, Photoshop-driven, high-level places - with pink clouds and as little source code as possible.

Not like us developers, hiding in our dark PHP caves, relishing our ER modelling, UML Use Cases and flow diagrams for some CMS we're working on, those are the things we enjoy, but don't get us mixed-up with designers

Note to self... All it takes to impress Jeeves is some custom blogging software...

Here's a dictionary definition of "design" just for reference. Note that only one out of five definitions mentions artistry or creativity:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=design

Megan: I'll need to think to reply to you so will have to do it later when I'm not still in work!

Quote: Note to self... All it takes to impress Jeeves is some custom blogging software...

LMAO! Oh, but have you seen it?! It used an XML weather feed to load an equivalent image of the view from his parents farm in the Cotswolds (he's English as well, so naturally I have to be all pompous and support my country!), now say it's raining there and it's the middle of the day, when you visited the site the image would change to one of the view in the rain with lots of clouds and rain - the sheep on the hillside would even go and shelter from the weather!

Now that is a peice of blogging software!

Okay, I admit it, I'm impressed. I just checked out his blogging software, and it's pretty cool. I wish a client would pay me to do something like that.

Megan wrote: You know what I think about your site

Yes, I'm amazed you liked it since I hate the eyesore! Gotta do something with that damn site.

Megan wrote: Perhaps this is simply an argument about terminology.

Hah! I love it when people argue themselves into answering their own questions.

You're absolutely right, it is an argument about terminology - won't be the first or last either - and maybe we're just looking at the same thing differently. My argument includes putting content together in the right way and this:

Megan wrote: You have to be intimately aware of the site's goals and who the audience is.

Naturally this is the case, the better you know the subject, the better the end product is. This is the case no matter what visual design is being undertaken, I'm seeing nothing in your argument that isn't about visual design in fact.

I do concede the point that a Web Designer is often also an Information Architect and that they have to think - technically - further than the average Photoshop user, however I believe once that designer reaches a certain - industry defined - point, building and planning database systems writing PHP, ASP etc then they become a Web Developer. I suppose it's mainly down to how much of each you do, and a person doesn't have to be stuck in a box they can be a hybrid designer/developer.

However! The Web Designer is mainly concerned with what appears on the viewport rather than how it gets there. As this is usually visual Molly's statement - although somewhat sweeping - is mostly true.

So, what you mean by visual is basically front end, and I'm separating that into various parts, where visual means what you see (the "with pink clouds and as little source code as possible") and functionality is built into that. You can't necessarily see the functionality. It's there, but it might not be readily apparent. The manifestation of the site's goals and how the whole thing works together is not entirely visual either. It's "front end", true, but I wouldn't use "visual" in the same way.

You're just not using the right words here, Jeeves. I was going to argue with your use of the word "subject" but I thnk I get what you're implying with that one.

JeevesBond wrote: however I believe once that designer reaches a certain - industry defined - point, building and planning database systems writing PHP, ASP etc then they become a Web Developer.

Oh, so, the natural progression is to get into the backend right? Because the backend is just better and more important ?!?!?!? Whatever, Jeeves.

Quote: Oh, so, the natural progression is to get into the backend right? Because the backend is just better and more important ?!?!?!? Whatever, Jeeves.

Oooh, someone's got an inferiority complex, worried about something? Anyway, I wasn't saying that people who do backend stuff are "better," just that they are called "Web Developers" instead of "Web Designers" if a Designer starts writing loads of PHP they become a Developer, if a Developer starts doing loads of front-end design they become a "Designer."

Simple, if you bother to read my post right, instead of getting all defensive

Megan wrote: You're just not using the right words here, Jeeves. I was going to argue with your use of the word "subject" but I thnk I get what you're implying with that one.

Meh? No? Don't understand?

Megan wrote: how the whole thing works together is not entirely visual either. It's "front end", true, but I wouldn't use "visual" in the same way.

But isn't it all working towards a visual experience? And exactly what do you mean by this "hidden functionality?" What functionality - within the scope of the Designers role - is hidden from the user?

I didn't say it was hidden. It's just not necessarily right there in front of your eyes (i.e. visual). And it's not just a visual experience, it's an experience in a broader sense. You're not just looking at it, you're interacting with it, experiencing it, reading, understanding, thinking, making decisions, doing something.

And about the developer thing - yeah, I get what you mean but it didn't make much sense in context.

OSVD - although i don't use any HTML export stuff, but yep nested tables are all the rage, booya!

Including Megans added class I think I am a CCWD or Completelly Clueless Wannabe Designer. Whatever I can pull together in PhotoShop is what I use, I am all for function not prettiness.

Ill put myself to the SAVD def...

As to jeeves and megans argument of sorts, IMHO what I strive for would be to have a good markup and make sense of it, and make graphics less convulsing for sites (where I learned these method here in TWF)... So far as to define such words makes me confused, thus I compell not to call my self a Web Designer, Rather I call myself Web Developer and Graphic Designer... So whats the main difference... Im getting confused with you Two, so lets continue brainstroming about these...

Definately a TTLM. Tryin' to learn all I can .

And as for the whole web designer/developer thing, what if a person was a guru in both visual aspects as well as code aspects (backend like php, databases, etc)? Is that where the terms "web master" comes in? Or is that something else entirely?

I don't really fit any of those so I'll make my own one up
I'm a LSNEDWP - Learn something new every day web pupil

If I could wish for my life to be perfect, it would be tempting but I would have to decline, for life would no longer teach me anything.
---Allyson Jones

Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.
---Sir Winston Churchill

The web is my master, therefore i am it's pupil
--- me

Megan wrote: You're not just looking at it, you're interacting with it, experiencing it, reading, understanding, thinking, making decisions, doing something.

But what part of the "user experience" in the current format of the web is not visual? I need an example to understand your point as, unless the user has a disability, there is nothing other than visual feedback on the web. You might wish to mention sound, but I know your opinion is the same as mine - waste of bandwidth.

Matt I don't think you fall into the CCWD category as you're willing to learn - I'm presuming this category is for people who believe they know more than they actually do.

When I visit a website, I look at it with my eyes, true. I see all the page elements, I see the text. But when I'm reading, I'm not just reading with my eyes. I'm processing information with my brain, which makes visual too simplistic a term. I'm also moving my mouse around, clicking, typing etc. with my hands. So, yes, you are designing only what the user sees but you have to take into account what they are thinking and what they are doing. The word "visual" isn't comprehensive enough. That's what I'm taking issue with - it doesn't cover the broad range of things that designers have to consider.

And yet, I think some people do think of it this way. That's the classic OSVD mindset where the appearance is the only thing that matters.

Megan wrote: That's the classic OSVD mindset where the appearance is the only thing that matters.

But then you said:

Megan wrote: Actually, I take issue with the V in SAVD.

Now I thought (note past tense there) that you were taking issue with the article and that Molly Holzschlag is wrong to label people in this manner. Am now thinking that perhaps you mean designers should be thinking more about accessibility, useability, and the overall "experience." Fair enough, I would absolutely agree with that.

But I also think that you're not giving designers of other media enough credit in the work they do. A print designer making a poster should think about the mindset of the person looking at the poster, the sorts of locations it'll be in, the size of the thing and how readily it needs to draw attention. A billboard is designed to be instantly readable, whilst the cover of a book holds much information. This is due to the designer taking into account what the user is thinking and doing, not only what they are seeing.

So, after all that waffle, comes the next question: Is the designer above only doing things that are visual and is any type of design purely visual?

No, no, not at all. You're putting words in my mouth again - I never said that it wasn't important for things to be visually attractive - just that it's not the only focus of a designer and therefore "visual" is an overly simplistic term for design. In most cases it is assumed that the designer's job is to "make it look good" and that's it. That part is assumed, and of course it is a valid and important part of the job. It just often recieves too much emphasis while other aspects of the job are given second rate consideration or no consideration at all.

Just last week I was reading a discussion on a graphic design blog complaining about how clients don't understand why designers insist on using small font sizes. These are the graphic designers who only care about what their type looks like - they don't even care if people can actually read it or not. Fashion is really bad for this too - you see all kinds of supposedly great looking clothes on models or even in stores that would never work on a normal human body.

In your case of the billboard design the designer IS considering usability, readability etc. etc. - what the user is thinking and doing when they see the ad. This is what design is really about and it's not purely visual. The same would apply to a fashion designer who uses normally sized fit models, or an interior designer who considers the lifestyle and usability needs of the client.

I'm trying to think of a form of design that would be purely visual. There's a line here between design and art. If it is purely visual, wouldn't it qualify as art rather than design?

Arguing with myself now - so, if visual design is art, then is there really such thing as a visual designer? Because true design is never just about visuals, there can be no such thing as a purely "visual" designer. A "visual designer" would more accurately be desribed as an artist.

Actually, I don't think this is a really common term (????) so that wouldn't really matter. I don't know - have you ever heard "visual designer" used in place of "web designer"??? The latter would be the more common term AFAIK. "Visual designer" also doesn't specify the media.

Come to think of it, you're right. I've never heard "visual" designer in terms of web design until this thread. Perhaps a better term could be used...