People commonly use two or three column design in their weblogs for a reason - it WORKS! It makes sense for the type of information presented most commonly. If it doesn’t work for what you want to display, then come up with something else. No one is stopping you.
Different is cool, but different for the sake of different isn’t.
Nice of her to start a rant but not invite discussion via comments.
I think what Heather has to say has merit. It tiresome to see the same templates over and over again. And yes, I know I’m as guilty as everyone else. The important question here, though, is this:
Should lack of design skills prevent your from enjoying the self-publishing boom?
I really don’t think so. Not everyone is a designer. Some of the folks that ren’t designers, though, are brilliant writers, and have wonderful things to say. I’ll take their content in a dreary, boring design over no content at all any day of the week.
But, look in the “design blog community.” Are we as designers pushing the envelope enough? Can we move away from the typical two or three column layout? Can the typical two or three column layout be evolved further? Who are the designers who are leading the way as far as innovation is concerned? Are those designers who are not especially innovative on their blogs doing so because the two or three column layout works well for this type of publication, or are they doing so because it’s easy and proven and they are too lazy to innovate?
Interesting discussions to be had here. Wish Heather would have opened her page for comments, but I certainly understand why she didn’t. She would have been too overwhelmed by flames from the overzealous segment of the standards community to moderate a healthy discussion about design.
I tend to agree with her in the main. Somewhere in all the functionality, usability and standards-ness of the Web we’ve lost a bit of that pioneer spirit, that ennui that used to make the Web fun and unique.
Still, it’s all about what you make it. People use, design and build for the Web for different reasons and there’s room for everyone here. Maybe it’s just that as a society we’re (meaning Web people) are in a practical phase.
Nothing wrong with it, but yeah, I’d like to see a bit more art, experimentation, etc. myself. If only I had the time and brainpower to take it further.
Ah and Dale, no kidding on the rant sans comments — what the heck is that about? Guess we’ll have to do it here…
Let’s please get off the idea that somehow a two or three column layout is evil for blogging purposes. It’s not a copout. It just works. Why do you think a magazine is always layed out tabloid style? It’s easy to fit in your hands, easy to flip through the pages, and easy to read. It’s proven. It works. The content of most blogs is 99% text and that creates the necessity of the layout. If you want to add your own twists to it, go ahead, but don’t do the opposite just for the sake of breaking the mold.
With regards to “standards killing design”, anyone who has read any of my nonsense knows how I feel about this issue: Not knowing when to compromise standards may be killing design. Standards themselves aren’t killing it. I look at standards much as I look at speed limits. They are there to encourage safe living and ostensibly make everyone’s lives easier. If always taken literally though, they tend to slow things down. How much collective time would be wasted in the world if everyone drove 55 mph or less on freeways? The government puts the 55 number in your head as a guideline and if you stay trivially close to it, you’ll be just fine. Web standards are the same way. If you have a page with 3 minor validation errors in it, you are no worse off than if you had none. And before anyone writes back saying “but you can’t serve your pages as application/xml then”, please do a reality check. No site of any consequence will be serving pages this way for quite some time, if ever. Are you tangibly better off with fewer validation errors? Absolutely. Are you tangibly better off with zero instead of one? Nope. Don’t compromise design, user experience, revenue opportunities, or timeliness of site launch for the sake of an error or two. Just write good code and you’ll be fine in both the short and long term.
For the record, I was playing devil’s advocate in asking all those questions. In general, I don’t agree that standards are hurting design or weblogs are ruining the Internet, or that two and three column layout are evil — but I think it’s worth discussing.
As for standards killing design — it reminds me of the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Which is odd, because that’s the second time I’m referenced that old saying on this blog today, but anyhow…
I believe a great designer who has just switched to standards may be forced to “dumb down” his/her design in order to fit it into the CSS that he/she knows and understands. It’s akin to 1994 or so when a bunch of print designers came onto the web and said, “This is so limiting! I can’t do my madd skillz here!” The truth was, they didn’t know how to do their madd skillz here. It’s similar with standards (if, by standards, we mean CSS layout). There’s a learning curve, and until you grasp it fully, your designs may end up being a bit cookie-cutter.
This, however, is not a fault of the technology, but rather the consequence of people using it not being great CSS designers. In time, people will get better with CSS (and/or tools will get better at creating CSS for people).
I definitely agree with Mike that using a two or three column layout is not a copout. I’ve said this many times in the past, both here and elsewhere. The desgin simply works well for blogs, and therefore it’s used quite often. At the same time, I would love to see people being more experiemental once in a while, too.
Oh, and one thing with regards to Mike’s point about minor validation errors:
Has anyone ever noticed that the recognized leaders in CSS/standards design all agree that minor validation errors are no bi deal? I can think of times that I’ve heard or read Shea, Zeldman, Bowman, and many others say exactly what Mike just said (not to be obvious, but Mike fits right in that group, as well). It’s always punks no one has ever heard of posting antagonizing comments on someone’s blog that seems to have a problem with minor validation errors. I think these folks just believe that if Dave Shea’s page has a few unencoded ampersands and theirs doesn’t, they somehow are automatically a better standards-based designer than Dave Shea.
Jeff: True… and my comments were definitely directed towards Heather’s piece (which I share your semi-agreement/semi-disagreement with).
Your point about designers not always knowing how to master CSS is absolutely true… BUT, the fact of the matter is also that the state of CSS is less than ideal for designers. Sure, it’s the best we have, and that’s why we should definitely use it, but those who pretend that CSS is a spectacular design tool without serious shortcomings probably don’t have much training in classical design. It’s the best we’ve got, and that’s to be commended, but it is no panacea.
The most frustrating aspect of all to me is that we have all these great ideas for making CSS and XHTML better (viz. clearing absolutes, dynamic fonts, column-to-column text flow, etc.) and yet, even if everyone were to agree on what should be done, it would take years until these new improvements were available to designers. I love Flash for a lot of reasons, but the great thing that no one ever seems to talk about is its ability to quickly permeate the world’s computer population with new versions. The average new version of Flash takes 14 months to permeate 90% of the world’s computers.
14 months.
That’s amazing. So when Flash 7 came out, we could already start planning new products to make use of Flash 7 specific features, knowing that if we launch in about a year, our audience will already be properly equipped with the new plug-in. And on top of that, if they aren’t, the update process is transparent, quick, and seamless.
I would kill for this sort of fast, reliable upgrade cycle in the browser/html/css world.
Too bad Heather couldn’t be bothered to come up with something other than a two-column (and in places a three-column) layout herself. Oh, sure, she tried to hide it by not framing it in with borders and graphics, but it’s there nonetheless. Designer heal thyself!
:-) <–Obligatory Smilie
Hehe, you guys pretty much answered to Heather’s statements. I agree.
I do not see anything wrong with two-columns or three-columns layouts. They work. We are not all created equal, so sorry if some of us cannot see past that the columns. I’d have trouble reading a rainbow-shaped web-site, where the text curves. Hehe.
If she wanted to rally some designers to push limits, I do not think she should have used such a tone. We probably understand her rationale, but the way it came out is not motivating. Citing what she likes from the zen garden can help too. I think she’s generalizing too much also.
She has a point where something-something-logs are concerned. They may be what stiffles design, because if newcomers want to fit into a pre-define category, they may be tempted in following the recipe to get there. If you play RTS games, you may be familiar with “build orders”. Haha. And the lack of creativity Heather refers to also exists in RTS games that support “replays”; where anyone can view a pro play and imitate. Are two-columns layout akin to “cheese” strategies in RTS?
Standards do not kill design, for they are building blocks to greater things. Designers still have to think to be creative, eh? If they perceive standards as chains, of course, they are not looking far enough. There was an article on Wired about CCTV’s new building (can’t find the article). The shape is very different
It also seems personal publishing tools’ templates are what provoked her in the first place. But wasn’t some of Blogger’s templates designed by your friends?
Blogs let designers say what they want to say and get information out as easily as possible.
Take away the 2-3 column layout and in a few years I bet we’d come back full circle to 2-3 columns layouts. Blogs were designed to rapidly convey information and this sort of layout serves that purpose well. Newspapers and magazines have always followed similar visual guidelines.
While I do suffer from migraines seeing designers use default templates and popular ones like Kubrick, using a 2-3 column layout has little in common with lack of creativity.
Heather Powazek should look around more. There are lots of good looking blogs out there.
I should preface this by saying that I am NOT a guru of CSS or Standards, but am educated in design, and also art history.
I think what Heather could be getting at is that people aren’t pushing the 2 or 3 column layout to its limits. I definitely think that there is a lot of variation but, one of the things that hold me back is that I’d like to bring some variation if/when I ever start mine up.
I look at it like this: 99% of newspaper design you see (at least in the U.S.) is exactly the same layout (and content, more or less) as every other newspaper. Even all the stupid daily rags that tend to go on and on about how “different” they are nevertheless tend to be pretty standard. I have a book, though… called “The Best of Newspaper Design” which shows that you can take that standard layout, and make it NOTSEEM standard. This is mainly through interesting use of illustration juxtaposed with the copy layout. It’s very subtle, and at a glance… seems easy. But, judging from what I read every morning, it’s apparently not.
Or, take fine art, if you will. Think what was done Braques and Picasso regarding cubism: They forever altered the way you could perceive a portrait or a landscape simply by altering the WAY they painted a portrait or a landscape. Both of them were very capable of painting in the Realist style, they just decided they didn’t want to and broke some rules. That’s pretty much what all of the different art movements were… how can we do differently what’s already been done before (over and over and over again). (And the crisis NOW, in my opinion is that artists need to find a way of doing things differently that doesn’t involve just doing something “differently.” A lot of current fine artists tend to lack the theory.)
If the current state of standards is in any way holding back an idea you have, then damn it all, leave standards behind momentarily to do what you need to do. If there is any element of “creative” design in us, then we have to utilize what we have to be creative. I don’t think “creative” and “functional” are mutually exclusive. I just think (and apparently a couple of you agree) that rules will have to be broken in order to make the two meet. The ends will justify the means.
What I’d like to see (and what I intend to do when I get something up) is to provide content in a way that isn’t typical. I really want to do a blog that is centered around a daily(ish) comic strip. Think Jim’s Journal… but with a design focus.
I’ve long since given up worrying too much about this kind of thing. The cycle at the moment is leaning towards 2/3 columns. It’ll veer back to single column or multi column again at some point. Hell, if someone comes up with a workable alternative to frames expect that to be the next big thing (you heard it here first! LOL).
As for standards - I wish people would refer to them as guidelines or references. A standard isn’t ‘standard’ until it’s adopted by everyone, and I’m afraid the browser creators have a way to go yet. When THEY get their collective acts together maybe I’LL start worrying a little more about it. For now, a ‘˜close enough’ attitude is suiting me fine thankyouverymuch.
Question - if I redesign my blog to be ‘˜different’ will people know how to navigate? where to find the info? No they’ll have to learn MY way. What kind of designer does that?
A LOT of designers do that. What separates Fine Art from Creative Design is really a set of rules and regulations. A good designer knows these rules and therefore knows how far they can be bent to set him/herself apart yet retain the functionality. Fine art has a set of rules too, but… the point is definitely to challenge your audience and as often as not to just make up new rules.
What KIND of designer does it? That depends on the outcome. If I go to a site, and am bowled over by the interface and content because I haven’t seen it done quite the same way or as effectively before, then a GREAT designer has done it. If I visit a site that burns my eyes and sacrifices function in order to be cutting edge… a BAD designer has done it. There are examples of both all over the place. What I think the original article is lamenting is that most people are sticking pretty close to the middle with what they are producing. The envelope isn’t being pushed very much.
I think Jeff mentioned this… but what is most likely going to happen (and makes the most sense) is pushing the 2/3 column layout further. There isn’t a need to rewrite the book, but perhaps a little (a lot?) of fine tuning is a good thing.
Totally agree Brian. I think your phrase of ‘bending the rules’ is apt. Surely though, this implies that there are limits to what can be achieved within those rules - that’s what I was trying to get at.
One thing that also needs to be brought into this discussion, and I’m hugely surprised that it hasn’t been yet is something called the ‘audience’.
When I click a link that leads to a weblog, I expect certain things.
When I click a link to a design agency site I expect certain things. Those things are different.
What it the “issue” isn’t the designers but the audience? Are we, as users, just not demanding enough ourselves and hence have a lot of trouble translating usage into ‘envelope pushing’ design?
001 // Dale Cruse // 10.22.2004 // 3:35 PM
Feh.
People commonly use two or three column design in their weblogs for a reason - it WORKS! It makes sense for the type of information presented most commonly. If it doesn’t work for what you want to display, then come up with something else. No one is stopping you.
Different is cool, but different for the sake of different isn’t.
Nice of her to start a rant but not invite discussion via comments.
002 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 3:43 PM
I think what Heather has to say has merit. It tiresome to see the same templates over and over again. And yes, I know I’m as guilty as everyone else. The important question here, though, is this:
Should lack of design skills prevent your from enjoying the self-publishing boom?
I really don’t think so. Not everyone is a designer. Some of the folks that ren’t designers, though, are brilliant writers, and have wonderful things to say. I’ll take their content in a dreary, boring design over no content at all any day of the week.
But, look in the “design blog community.” Are we as designers pushing the envelope enough? Can we move away from the typical two or three column layout? Can the typical two or three column layout be evolved further? Who are the designers who are leading the way as far as innovation is concerned? Are those designers who are not especially innovative on their blogs doing so because the two or three column layout works well for this type of publication, or are they doing so because it’s easy and proven and they are too lazy to innovate?
Interesting discussions to be had here. Wish Heather would have opened her page for comments, but I certainly understand why she didn’t. She would have been too overwhelmed by flames from the overzealous segment of the standards community to moderate a healthy discussion about design.
003 // Keith // 10.22.2004 // 4 PM
I tend to agree with her in the main. Somewhere in all the functionality, usability and standards-ness of the Web we’ve lost a bit of that pioneer spirit, that ennui that used to make the Web fun and unique.
Still, it’s all about what you make it. People use, design and build for the Web for different reasons and there’s room for everyone here. Maybe it’s just that as a society we’re (meaning Web people) are in a practical phase.
Nothing wrong with it, but yeah, I’d like to see a bit more art, experimentation, etc. myself. If only I had the time and brainpower to take it further.
Ah and Dale, no kidding on the rant sans comments — what the heck is that about? Guess we’ll have to do it here…
004 // Chris Vincent // 10.22.2004 // 4:18 PM
I was going to write what Keith just wrote, but then I realized that he had already written it.
005 // Mike D. // 10.22.2004 // 4:22 PM
Okay, coupla things:
Let’s please get off the idea that somehow a two or three column layout is evil for blogging purposes. It’s not a copout. It just works. Why do you think a magazine is always layed out tabloid style? It’s easy to fit in your hands, easy to flip through the pages, and easy to read. It’s proven. It works. The content of most blogs is 99% text and that creates the necessity of the layout. If you want to add your own twists to it, go ahead, but don’t do the opposite just for the sake of breaking the mold.
With regards to “standards killing design”, anyone who has read any of my nonsense knows how I feel about this issue: Not knowing when to compromise standards may be killing design. Standards themselves aren’t killing it. I look at standards much as I look at speed limits. They are there to encourage safe living and ostensibly make everyone’s lives easier. If always taken literally though, they tend to slow things down. How much collective time would be wasted in the world if everyone drove 55 mph or less on freeways? The government puts the 55 number in your head as a guideline and if you stay trivially close to it, you’ll be just fine. Web standards are the same way. If you have a page with 3 minor validation errors in it, you are no worse off than if you had none. And before anyone writes back saying “but you can’t serve your pages as application/xml then”, please do a reality check. No site of any consequence will be serving pages this way for quite some time, if ever. Are you tangibly better off with fewer validation errors? Absolutely. Are you tangibly better off with zero instead of one? Nope. Don’t compromise design, user experience, revenue opportunities, or timeliness of site launch for the sake of an error or two. Just write good code and you’ll be fine in both the short and long term.
006 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 4:30 PM
Very well said, Mike and Keith.
For the record, I was playing devil’s advocate in asking all those questions. In general, I don’t agree that standards are hurting design or weblogs are ruining the Internet, or that two and three column layout are evil — but I think it’s worth discussing.
As for standards killing design — it reminds me of the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Which is odd, because that’s the second time I’m referenced that old saying on this blog today, but anyhow…
I believe a great designer who has just switched to standards may be forced to “dumb down” his/her design in order to fit it into the CSS that he/she knows and understands. It’s akin to 1994 or so when a bunch of print designers came onto the web and said, “This is so limiting! I can’t do my madd skillz here!” The truth was, they didn’t know how to do their madd skillz here. It’s similar with standards (if, by standards, we mean CSS layout). There’s a learning curve, and until you grasp it fully, your designs may end up being a bit cookie-cutter.
This, however, is not a fault of the technology, but rather the consequence of people using it not being great CSS designers. In time, people will get better with CSS (and/or tools will get better at creating CSS for people).
I definitely agree with Mike that using a two or three column layout is not a copout. I’ve said this many times in the past, both here and elsewhere. The desgin simply works well for blogs, and therefore it’s used quite often. At the same time, I would love to see people being more experiemental once in a while, too.
007 // Jeff Croft // 10.22.2004 // 4:35 PM
Oh, and one thing with regards to Mike’s point about minor validation errors:
Has anyone ever noticed that the recognized leaders in CSS/standards design all agree that minor validation errors are no bi deal? I can think of times that I’ve heard or read Shea, Zeldman, Bowman, and many others say exactly what Mike just said (not to be obvious, but Mike fits right in that group, as well). It’s always punks no one has ever heard of posting antagonizing comments on someone’s blog that seems to have a problem with minor validation errors. I think these folks just believe that if Dave Shea’s page has a few unencoded ampersands and theirs doesn’t, they somehow are automatically a better standards-based designer than Dave Shea.
That shit cracks me up.
008 // Keith // 10.22.2004 // 4:48 PM
(a bit off-topic)
You know what cracks me up?
When people talk about design and standands with terms like “evil”, “killing”…
Damn, you, they’re some bad ass mo’ fos. Don’t mess with standards, he’ll put a cap in yo ass!
009 // Keith // 10.22.2004 // 4:50 PM
(off topic again)
That wasn’t supposed to be “damn you.” Whoops! ;)
Damn, YO! I need a beer, stat.
010 // Mike D. // 10.22.2004 // 5 PM
Jeff: True… and my comments were definitely directed towards Heather’s piece (which I share your semi-agreement/semi-disagreement with).
Your point about designers not always knowing how to master CSS is absolutely true… BUT, the fact of the matter is also that the state of CSS is less than ideal for designers. Sure, it’s the best we have, and that’s why we should definitely use it, but those who pretend that CSS is a spectacular design tool without serious shortcomings probably don’t have much training in classical design. It’s the best we’ve got, and that’s to be commended, but it is no panacea.
The most frustrating aspect of all to me is that we have all these great ideas for making CSS and XHTML better (viz. clearing absolutes, dynamic fonts, column-to-column text flow, etc.) and yet, even if everyone were to agree on what should be done, it would take years until these new improvements were available to designers. I love Flash for a lot of reasons, but the great thing that no one ever seems to talk about is its ability to quickly permeate the world’s computer population with new versions. The average new version of Flash takes 14 months to permeate 90% of the world’s computers.
14 months.
That’s amazing. So when Flash 7 came out, we could already start planning new products to make use of Flash 7 specific features, knowing that if we launch in about a year, our audience will already be properly equipped with the new plug-in. And on top of that, if they aren’t, the update process is transparent, quick, and seamless.
I would kill for this sort of fast, reliable upgrade cycle in the browser/html/css world.
011 // John // 10.22.2004 // 5:45 PM
Too bad Heather couldn’t be bothered to come up with something other than a two-column (and in places a three-column) layout herself. Oh, sure, she tried to hide it by not framing it in with borders and graphics, but it’s there nonetheless. Designer heal thyself! :-) <–Obligatory Smilie
012 // Zelnox // 10.22.2004 // 9:56 PM
Hehe, you guys pretty much answered to Heather’s statements. I agree.
I do not see anything wrong with two-columns or three-columns layouts. They work. We are not all created equal, so sorry if some of us cannot see past that the columns. I’d have trouble reading a rainbow-shaped web-site, where the text curves. Hehe.
If she wanted to rally some designers to push limits, I do not think she should have used such a tone. We probably understand her rationale, but the way it came out is not motivating. Citing what she likes from the zen garden can help too. I think she’s generalizing too much also.
She has a point where something-something-logs are concerned. They may be what stiffles design, because if newcomers want to fit into a pre-define category, they may be tempted in following the recipe to get there. If you play RTS games, you may be familiar with “build orders”. Haha. And the lack of creativity Heather refers to also exists in RTS games that support “replays”; where anyone can view a pro play and imitate. Are two-columns layout akin to “cheese” strategies in RTS?
Standards do not kill design, for they are building blocks to greater things. Designers still have to think to be creative, eh? If they perceive standards as chains, of course, they are not looking far enough. There was an article on Wired about CCTV’s new building (can’t find the article). The shape is very different
It also seems personal publishing tools’ templates are what provoked her in the first place. But wasn’t some of Blogger’s templates designed by your friends?
013 // Kris Khaira // 10.24.2004 // 2:28 AM
Blogs let designers say what they want to say and get information out as easily as possible.
Take away the 2-3 column layout and in a few years I bet we’d come back full circle to 2-3 columns layouts. Blogs were designed to rapidly convey information and this sort of layout serves that purpose well. Newspapers and magazines have always followed similar visual guidelines.
While I do suffer from migraines seeing designers use default templates and popular ones like Kubrick, using a 2-3 column layout has little in common with lack of creativity.
Heather Powazek should look around more. There are lots of good looking blogs out there.
014 // Brian Ford // 10.24.2004 // 9:44 AM
I should preface this by saying that I am NOT a guru of CSS or Standards, but am educated in design, and also art history.
I think what Heather could be getting at is that people aren’t pushing the 2 or 3 column layout to its limits. I definitely think that there is a lot of variation but, one of the things that hold me back is that I’d like to bring some variation if/when I ever start mine up.
I look at it like this: 99% of newspaper design you see (at least in the U.S.) is exactly the same layout (and content, more or less) as every other newspaper. Even all the stupid daily rags that tend to go on and on about how “different” they are nevertheless tend to be pretty standard. I have a book, though… called “The Best of Newspaper Design” which shows that you can take that standard layout, and make it NOT SEEM standard. This is mainly through interesting use of illustration juxtaposed with the copy layout. It’s very subtle, and at a glance… seems easy. But, judging from what I read every morning, it’s apparently not.
Or, take fine art, if you will. Think what was done Braques and Picasso regarding cubism: They forever altered the way you could perceive a portrait or a landscape simply by altering the WAY they painted a portrait or a landscape. Both of them were very capable of painting in the Realist style, they just decided they didn’t want to and broke some rules. That’s pretty much what all of the different art movements were… how can we do differently what’s already been done before (over and over and over again). (And the crisis NOW, in my opinion is that artists need to find a way of doing things differently that doesn’t involve just doing something “differently.” A lot of current fine artists tend to lack the theory.)
If the current state of standards is in any way holding back an idea you have, then damn it all, leave standards behind momentarily to do what you need to do. If there is any element of “creative” design in us, then we have to utilize what we have to be creative. I don’t think “creative” and “functional” are mutually exclusive. I just think (and apparently a couple of you agree) that rules will have to be broken in order to make the two meet. The ends will justify the means.
What I’d like to see (and what I intend to do when I get something up) is to provide content in a way that isn’t typical. I really want to do a blog that is centered around a daily(ish) comic strip. Think Jim’s Journal… but with a design focus.
015 // Gordon // 10.25.2004 // 9:46 AM
I’ve long since given up worrying too much about this kind of thing. The cycle at the moment is leaning towards 2/3 columns. It’ll veer back to single column or multi column again at some point. Hell, if someone comes up with a workable alternative to frames expect that to be the next big thing (you heard it here first! LOL).
As for standards - I wish people would refer to them as guidelines or references. A standard isn’t ‘standard’ until it’s adopted by everyone, and I’m afraid the browser creators have a way to go yet. When THEY get their collective acts together maybe I’LL start worrying a little more about it. For now, a ‘˜close enough’ attitude is suiting me fine thankyouverymuch.
Question - if I redesign my blog to be ‘˜different’ will people know how to navigate? where to find the info? No they’ll have to learn MY way. What kind of designer does that?
(Note: I ain’t a designer!)
016 // Brian Ford // 10.25.2004 // 10:26 AM
A LOT of designers do that. What separates Fine Art from Creative Design is really a set of rules and regulations. A good designer knows these rules and therefore knows how far they can be bent to set him/herself apart yet retain the functionality. Fine art has a set of rules too, but… the point is definitely to challenge your audience and as often as not to just make up new rules.
What KIND of designer does it? That depends on the outcome. If I go to a site, and am bowled over by the interface and content because I haven’t seen it done quite the same way or as effectively before, then a GREAT designer has done it. If I visit a site that burns my eyes and sacrifices function in order to be cutting edge… a BAD designer has done it. There are examples of both all over the place. What I think the original article is lamenting is that most people are sticking pretty close to the middle with what they are producing. The envelope isn’t being pushed very much.
I think Jeff mentioned this… but what is most likely going to happen (and makes the most sense) is pushing the 2/3 column layout further. There isn’t a need to rewrite the book, but perhaps a little (a lot?) of fine tuning is a good thing.
017 // Gordon // 10.26.2004 // 2:03 AM
Totally agree Brian. I think your phrase of ‘bending the rules’ is apt. Surely though, this implies that there are limits to what can be achieved within those rules - that’s what I was trying to get at.
One thing that also needs to be brought into this discussion, and I’m hugely surprised that it hasn’t been yet is something called the ‘audience’.
When I click a link that leads to a weblog, I expect certain things. When I click a link to a design agency site I expect certain things. Those things are different.
What it the “issue” isn’t the designers but the audience? Are we, as users, just not demanding enough ourselves and hence have a lot of trouble translating usage into ‘envelope pushing’ design?