I started a thread in a forum about six months ago asking "What good design was?" which was based on a curiousity on my part initialy to see what kind of web sites people associated with 'good design'. I got varying answers ranging from things like good content, to any thing that made a site work well. Not one, said that web design involved making a site look good. Why is this?
Web sites serve a purpose, and today with everyone seemingly obsessed with Search Engine Placement, web traffic, keyword density, conversions etc. the thing that most people really want a web site to do is simply to be successful, whether it is getting subscribed readers on a blog to selling items on an e-commerce site.
When I started web design some years ago it was towards the end of the 'flash' generation of sites where everyone had to have a flash site to show off their design. This proved a huge turn off and the internet bubble collapse can, I think, be laid in some part at designers who viewed creating sites as an extension of a portfolio of ones ego. This in turn has lead to a shift in perception in designing for the internet away from aesthetics but more towards usability and effeciency. What people don't realise is that the two are integral. Why don't people think web design is about making a site look good. Because they don't notice. The art of designing for the internet is making a design of the site that complements usability, effeciency and every other SEO technique that you are going to implement BUT also makes a site look nice without detracting from the main purpose of the site.
Ask yourself this question, can you remember the music for the last Oscar awarded film score? I can't, usually because film music is meant to be so subtle you don't notice it. Watch the same film without the music and the same effect isn't achieved. The same is said for a web sites design? If you like a site, then chances are they have spent a great deal of time thinking of designing it to achieve this effect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ps. Yes, I know that the design of this blog actually contradicts what I said but this is my personal blog and I quite like to show a little rebellion once in a while.
To a user the issue of design is no where near as important as that of trying to be successful at the task they are trying to achieve.
We all have favourite websites that we visit day in day out: these kind of websites are immune to the notion of design. We have already been won over by one aspect or another and even if the design were to change and we didn't like it, we would probably live with it all the same. This is an example of loyalty.
On the flip side of the coin there are the websites we visit as a result of a search being carried out. At this point design plays a slightly greater role but all the same lesser than that of the user trying to be successful at finding what they are looking for. If the design is awful the user may initially be put off but the design does not have to be amazing; the content is the important element here.
The internet has become so vast that it is pretty much impossible to 'window shop'; the user cannot go from site to site, be won over by amazing design and as a result buy something etc.
Design has become more closely associated with ergonomics and psychology, in that adverts, banners etc are spaced in prominent positions, in the user eye-line so as to catch their attention. Websites are like our high street shops, neatly laid out, certains items spaced in certain spaces so as to trigger certain emotions so as achieve a certain task.