From Clear ~ Topics: web design
Information Design on the Web
Certain design tasks have been called "wicked design problems". Be they forms (elections, social security), time tables, maps, signage systems, catalogues or complex web sites, the approach to solving them is best described by Marshal McLuhan's dictum: "any situation you go into deeply enough reverses".
In other words: look at the structure of the message, analyse the language - its syntax, grammar and vocabulary - and find a visual equivalent for the inherent structure. And if you cannot find a structure, the message itself may not be defined clearly enough. What are we trying to say, who are we speaking to, how do we want to appear and what are the production constraints? This is usually divided into looking at the semantics (the meaning, the content, the concept), the semiotics (the look, the style, the visual vocabulary) and the pragmatics (how will it be implemented?)
There have always been designers who have not mainly been interested in making beautiful images, but solving problems following a more analytical approach. Often, however, the analytically derived solutions have lacked in finesse -- they simply weren't attractive. This schism still exists when it comes to web design: business consultants may define the problem well, but don't care what the visual solution looks like. Engineers as well as programmers tend to use the constraints of the backend implementation to deny designers the freedom to explore more exciting graphics, interesting interfaces or surprising visuals. Who, then, is equipped to formulate good information design for the web?
First of all, designers who have not been afraid of those wicked design problems in the classic media (which have never attracted high fees or awards) are probably more qualified to design websites than a lot of the new, self-proclaimed web-specialists. True, time and motion are elements that the "classic" designers are not familiar with, but they can be incorporated by working with specialists. Designing functional, yet beautiful websites is more a question of attitude than one of style. That is why I am predicting that now, after the first bonfires have burnt out, experienced information designers will turn to the web and apply their skills to the screen. After all, bad colour, bad resolution, not enough space, unknown readership -- those issues have always been part of the brief for us information designers, and that is why, for me, the screen is just another bad paper.
NOTE: This article reprinted with permission of author.
-
If those experienced information designers wait for the bonfires to burn out, they will find that they have been left behind by the complexity and unique design challenges of the web. True, lo-res, bad color, bad resolution are old problems, but thinking of the screen as "just another bad paper" is not responsible design. If you're working on sites with 10, or even 100 pages of information, it's probably adequate to think of the job as similar in some ways to a brochure or short book. Working on sites with a thousand pages, or 10,000, or where that information changes constantly, is updated by twenty people at four geographic locations, running eight different operating system/browser combinations, makes these kinds of sites real challenges that simply cannot be addressed by thinking of the screen as "bad paper" or changing one's "attitude" towards the project.
-
Why cling to analogies between print design and interactive design? Websites are as much an information design problem as they are experience design, but combining print metaphors (brochures, contents, introduction or "pages") with backend programming constraints will further limit design's role in the World Wide Web. Attitude is important in challenging such limitations. It must push website design beyond the comfort zone of print and into a more challenging environment.
When we reach that point, is the screen still at fault for being bad paper? I'd point my finger at those individuals implying poor design decisions; we could point a lot of fingers at each and every solo html programmer who shells out a 100 to 100,000 tier website using Microsoft's Front Page and clip art library. Don't get me wrong, the programmer is a valuable asset to any web design team. We need to collaborate with them and visionaries possessing other skill sets: graphic design, user experience, typography, psychology, computer engineering, information architecture, copy writing and narration.
If attitude has proven anything it could tell us that designers might stick to their guns and continue to battle the infamous bad paper all by themselves. Call me romantic. Call me crazy. Call me a dreamer... but I'd prefer if we combined our talents with others who can help us produce stronger solutions. -
Chanpory makes astute comments, and does point to one of the problems---we need to look outside of the box. But where exactly is that? Looking to the future is one thing, but visualizing it is another. Try this on for size: explore new methodologies, build alternative teams with disparate skill sets, use design for process building and problem solving as well as form giving, and consider how we can use technology to our advantage. Pointing out problems we face as designers is easy. Instead, let's devise solutions with measurable outcomes.
-
I think that Mr Spiekermann touches a good point, we need to go back and see the work of the classic media designers, the Web goes too fast and changes faster than we can learn. We need a new aproach to Web design, and I think that going back its the correct way.
The Web its not a bad paper, its an misunderstood one, how many of us know the difference between php 4 or 5, between CSS 3 and 2, who knows why its hard to put an m dash in a UTF-8 codified page?, its Ruby on Rails better than php?
This is a complex medium that needs lot of specialist to make it work, so I think that all that specialists needs a common focal point, and going to the basic its a way to reunite.
Simple lists of objectives will do a great job to reunite experts, just declare "we need to publish news to a world wide audience" and a programmer will start to know what classes and IDs are needed, the designer will ask for a mood and tone and will start to fill the mythical white canvas, the information architect will know how to guide the readers.
Taxonomy, semiotics, clear goals and time to think will do miracles for this new medium. -
Mr. Tavizon is absolutely right and there is no compromise in good design and bad code. In the client alone, just one are of a three tier architecture, you will have many different decisions to make such as to go tabless, support one browser knowing it will have problems in another, making exceptions and browser detection to identify work arounds, 508 compliance, sustainable code and information, Content Management Systems, QOS, and client training. There is no analogy that applies. There is a tremendous amount of bad design on the internet at this time, but a designer has no business calling themselves a web developer without careful consideration and understanding of the true constraints.
-
From my personal experience working at small, medium, and large design firms a lot of the problems arise because the designers do not know what message they a fully trying to convey.
The have initial talks about the project and have a general idea of the message, but its not until later that you really hear what the higher ups were really wanting.
If you have all the pieces to the puzzle before you start it makes the project a lot easier to accomplish
© 2008 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments