Not signed in (Sign In)
A podcast and forum for those who design, develop and run websites.
Boagworld is not just a web design podcast, it is also a thriving online community. Whether you build, design or run websites there are always people here to help. Whatever your question there is sure to be somebody with the answer.
- subscribe via itunes
- subscribe via rss
- or get blog posts by email
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
It seems to me that there is less focus on the art factor of web design than there should be. Web design is art, and like all design, and most art, its purpose is to convey an idea visually.
I think most designers would agree that design is not a job, it is a way of life. Most of us are perfectionists, we make sure the corners are smooth... the fonts are readable... the pictures are vivid etc. But most websites fit into a template. There is a header of sorts, a menu, a body area, maybe a footer, always different variations of the same old thing.
We should pay more attention to the concept of creation, real creation. There is nothing more amazing than the creation of something new. I think the web would be a much better place if we would forget all the rules, fire the web design teachers, and start over with an artist's point of view.
Am I wrong? -
Ugh... My university teacher had a similar opinion and I always thought his was fundamentally flawed. Once I started working it quickly became clear to me as to why:
1. Art is selfish and without purpose (so says the curator of the Tate Modern). Design must, in order to be successful, be selfless and with purpose.
2. He also believed that nothing should ever be done simply because it looked good and that there should always be a deeper concept behind your work. Sometimes this isn't necessary. Why do I need a deep concept that my clients and users aren't going to get? They aren't there for an epiphany, they're there for information. If you try too hard to conceptualize you could dilute or obscure that information.
3. As I alluded to in the previous point, design isn't there to convey a visual concept. Design is there to facilitate a function. A well-designed chair is there to facilitate your need to sit comfortably. In the same way, a well-designed website facilitates the need for information or entertainment. In all cases visual aesthetics are known to help improve something's ability to facilitate it's purpose but that does not mean it's the driving force.
Take the work of Joshua Davis, for example. He's famous for creating designs that are beautiful and highly conceptual but horrible for usability. He constantly pushes the boundaries, and that's good, but many times what he's creating isn't design; it's art. At least, that's how I see it. -
Well, I would never suggest that visual appeal should replace functionality. Art can be selfish, but only when it is intended to be. Real art serves a purpose, the concept of art as nothing more than self-expression is misguided. Art is not about the artist, or visual appeal, it is about that which the artist is trying to convey. A website's design is exactly this; your goal as a web designer is to convey your message in the most effective way. Which ever way works. No rules.
"Art is selfish and without purpose" – I fundamentally disagree. -
[...]it is about that which the artist is trying to convey.
Their message in their work. That is the definition of selfish.[...]your goal as a web designer is to convey your message in the most effective way.
I disagree. Your goal as a web designer is to convey the message of your client. But that is secondary to facilitate the needs of your users. In the hierarchy of importance your needs come last: Selfless. -
"Your goal as a web designer is to convey the message of your client."
The message of your client IS your message as a web designer. And your client's message is that which facilitates the needs of the client.
If done properly, these are all one and the same – Your goal for the website. -
But your definition leaves out the user and the user is our entire reason for being. If the user doesn't matter then you might as well build a brochure website. The message the client wants is there, even if it's not very useful to users.
-
If the client's content is not actually for the user, I agree with you. But ideally your client's content is exactly what the user needs. Practically, there is a divide between the designer, the client, and the user. But there isn't supposed to be a divide at all, the designer is meant to convey the client's message which also happens to be exactly what the user needs to hear. (or see...) All three factors are accounted for.
-
This is something I always make clear to my clients: You want the website to make sales and the best way to do that is to give the user what they want, not what you want to give them. Happy users interact more, they're more forgiving when things aren't perfect and they buy more.
By putting the emphasis on what the client wants you run the risk—a very real and likely risk—that you will provide the user with something they don't care about as much as their primary focus. By focusing on the users you can give them exactly what they want and them supplement that with nudges and hints at what the client wants them to move towards. Depending on how well the client's desires mesh with those of the user the nudges can be anything from a gentle bump to a full-fledge shove. -
I couldn't agree more.
-
While i agree there is aparent trends which designers tend to follow making all designs have the same feel. And obviously Rich Media designers are able to push that art direction much more.
The problem lies in you aren't designing for yourself. Couple that with deadlines its much harder to show that artistic flair. Thats why personal sites almost always push the boundaries more so than client work.
Another thing I have just thought about it those adverts you see. Which win loads of awards its a great visual advert but you cant remember the product its actually trying to sell. Where as a pretty basic advert can hit all the marks and you remember the product. Its a fine line. -
That's why I have mixed feelings about design awards. And you're right, it is a horribly thin line but those designers who walk it are the best in the industry.
Our job is a juggling act. We have the juggle the priorities of the client and the user and figure out a way to make it all fit together while making something that's visually interesting. That's why more and more I'm looking for ways to put little extra flourishes and hidden gems in my designs. Do they really add something to the site? Debatable. Do they make me feel better about the work? Definitely. -
Im guessing all your future sites will have atleast one Easter Egg each then? :D
-
When I can manage it. Some sites don't lend themselves to it either because of the design or the subject matter.
-
Design isn't art.
That's why they came up with a different word for it. -
Design isn't art.
That's why they came up with a different word for it.
So say we all. -
-
CommentAuthorMartin Bean
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2009 edited
At the end of the day, websites are to serve a purpose, not to stand as artistic masterpieces. -
-
- CommentAuthorezekielbruni
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2009
I wrote a piece on the difference between design and art for non-designers. Here it is, for anyone who's interested:
The Difference between Design and Art
Far too many people confuse design with art. Design is NOT art, nor is art design. The two may overlap in the sense that art may be incorporated into a design, but the relationship pretty much stops there.
Here's the difference: Art is subjective. Its primary purpose is to fulfill the expressive and creative needs of an individual. What is art to one person may be absolute rubbish to another.
Art is used to capture beauty, whether existing or imagined, or to express a concept, or perhaps to showcase the artist's emotional state. Thus, art varies greatly, and is subject to very few rules.
Oh, certain types of art, such as music, literature, certain painting techniques, those have their own rules. But the definition of what is artistic varies from person to person, and culture to culture.
Design, by contrast, is largely objective and universal. Culture and personality may influence design to some degree, but the basic rules don't change. The purpose of design is not to draw attention to itself, but to be invisible, drawing the viewers’ attention to the concept, idea, dream, or product being sold.
That's right, design is meant to sell, pure and simple. The aesthetics of a design may vary, depending on the product being sold, and the audience for which this product is intended. But all good design is based on the same basic rules.
The rules are numerous, and it would take me much more time than I have to list them all here, but here’s something you should remember:
The rules of design do not change based on personal opinion. A particular design may be exactly what you need, despite the fact that you don't like the way it looks. Or another design you like, may not be right for your product or intended audience. -
I would debate much of that, Ezekielbruni. Much of what you say about design can be applied to art and the same in the reverse. In the end, the difference can be summed up by this: Art is selfish and without purpose while design is selfless and with purpose.
Often the only real difference between design and art is art will stop at merely inciting an emotional response of any kind. Design takes it to the next step and focuses that specifically cultivated emotion towards an end result. An artist will use red to make you mad. A designer will use red to make you mad so you can do something about it, specifically something they want you to do.
1 to 18 of 18