Where Design Has Failed: Designing (Intentionally) for the Web
Programmers receive a lot of flack, typically, when they make their first few forays into the web design world. Besides (stereotypically) being unaesthetically focused designers, they usually design using one or two of the most common themes for layout.
Of course, programmers aren't the only ones guilty of this; I've encountered numerous "web designers" who have started as artists (typically on an analog medium) and decided that "doing a website would be easy".
The two most common layouts, in my experience, would be the header, horizontal menu, content, and footer, or the header, vertical menu (on the left rail), content, and footer.
Go ahead and do a quick browse on the 'net, and you'll see that most sites adhere to that at least at a basic level (including at least one of my own, which has been needing a redesign for well over a year). More complex sites, of course, utilize multiple positions for menu based on a hierarchy. At least most of the successful sites have built something that works for them, is usable, and is also aesthetic.
Then you've got the rest of the unwashed.
Don't get me wrong - some sites do really, really well with a basic layout. Some artists utilize whitespace in a creative manner and accommodate those of us with a taste of minimalism. My problem points towards another spectrum of designer, though. The kind that gets lazy, and either doesn't visualize well, or doesn't create a proper mockup.
Mockups are useful in that they allow us to create a visual without spending the time to code it, and recode it after you change a few little things that break the old code. It goes beyond that, however; sometimes, you'll find yourself frustrated even after doing a great mockup. You have something that should look beautiful, but either because of rendering issues in a browser, or your own inability to find a solution to a layout problem, you sacrifice aesthetics for ease of development.
Sometimes, it makes sense (in both cases). I've had customers who want to pay the bare minimum for my design work, so I have to create something that will be quick to code. That means going with a template I've made, which does include the two aforementioned crutches. I make a concerted effort, however, to ensure that it doesn't feel like a crutch and holds its own against other sites in the same market, if not standing stronger.
I hope this entry has inspired you to look past the standard templates and create something unique, interesting, and usable.
Aside: This entry was started about 6 months ago but never finished beyond an outline, until I found Classicwfl.com featured on Smashing Magazine's recent post on 40 Creative Design Layouts)
Of course, programmers aren't the only ones guilty of this; I've encountered numerous "web designers" who have started as artists (typically on an analog medium) and decided that "doing a website would be easy".
The two most common layouts, in my experience, would be the header, horizontal menu, content, and footer, or the header, vertical menu (on the left rail), content, and footer.
Go ahead and do a quick browse on the 'net, and you'll see that most sites adhere to that at least at a basic level (including at least one of my own, which has been needing a redesign for well over a year). More complex sites, of course, utilize multiple positions for menu based on a hierarchy. At least most of the successful sites have built something that works for them, is usable, and is also aesthetic.
Then you've got the rest of the unwashed.
Don't get me wrong - some sites do really, really well with a basic layout. Some artists utilize whitespace in a creative manner and accommodate those of us with a taste of minimalism. My problem points towards another spectrum of designer, though. The kind that gets lazy, and either doesn't visualize well, or doesn't create a proper mockup.
Mockups are useful in that they allow us to create a visual without spending the time to code it, and recode it after you change a few little things that break the old code. It goes beyond that, however; sometimes, you'll find yourself frustrated even after doing a great mockup. You have something that should look beautiful, but either because of rendering issues in a browser, or your own inability to find a solution to a layout problem, you sacrifice aesthetics for ease of development.
Sometimes, it makes sense (in both cases). I've had customers who want to pay the bare minimum for my design work, so I have to create something that will be quick to code. That means going with a template I've made, which does include the two aforementioned crutches. I make a concerted effort, however, to ensure that it doesn't feel like a crutch and holds its own against other sites in the same market, if not standing stronger.
I hope this entry has inspired you to look past the standard templates and create something unique, interesting, and usable.
Aside: This entry was started about 6 months ago but never finished beyond an outline, until I found Classicwfl.com featured on Smashing Magazine's recent post on 40 Creative Design Layouts)
Labels: CSS, UI, Web Design
9:08 PM
| DiggIt!
| Del.icio.us |
0 Comments
Links to this post
