On web design
I just had a really good conversation with some of my fellow designers and developers at NEMO Design about designing for the web. Our conversation began from Josh’s frustration with the positioning power of CSS, which evolved the discussion into one about tables vs. CSS vs. Flash. At first we all fell into the traditional roles of, “I belong to this camp.” Once we got past our fan boy differences, I found myself having one of the most rewarding discussions about web design. It was so good, I felt compelled to capture some of the talking points in this post. I wanted to memorialize some of our sentiments to contribute to one of the most exciting conversations in the history of design.
We are in the heart of transitioning from print to electronic design. Computers have completely changed the exchange of information, which has made radical impacts on how we present it. We are in the formative years of the layering of information. Meta data, semantic labeling, tagging, ids, classes, style, and animation are just a few examples of the content and design layers. Then there is the XML layer on top of the TCP/IP foundation. And the layers go on from there.
Our web designs don’t fit into the constraints of an letter sized sheet of paper. They fit into the complex layers of the computer world.
Josh said something to me that really stuck. He said he wasn’t very interested in the differences between tables vs. HTML because they were just different versions of a box model. He didn’t like being stuck with a box model. He liked the organic nature of Flash. I could easily explain the value of copying and pasting text, bookmarking, search engine visibility, and more, but I couldn’t argue the design appeal of Flash. It occured to me for the first time that my love for CSS is about separating content from style, not the specific execution that CSS is. I do like some of the powers that CSS gives me, but Josh and Brandon are right about some of the positioning drawbacks in CSS that can be remedied with tables and the design advantages of Flash. My pure heart for separating content was left thinking about the challenge that faces modern web designers.
It got me thinking. How do we combine CSS, tables, Flash, videos and more into compelling locations on the Intarweb? I think the mark of great web designers today is the ability to use the right mash-up of technologies to clearly present content with attractiveness. People today seem to be drawn to executions that are innovative. Even if your average user didn’t know what AJAX was, they oohed and awwed over Google Maps when it first came out. Web.burza is still one of the top ranked site on Stylegala because of it’s CSS/Flash fusion. Josh made a great point about the site when I pointed to it as an example; it’s still boxes (Our goal is to turn NEMO Design into a shop that pushes the limits of mash up websites—combining HTML content, Flash, AJAX, and more).
We have come a long way in the integration of design into the Internet. The Internet started with engineers and scientists and the creative and marketing communities are only recently representing their interests. If we designers want a tool that doesn’t feel like we’re duct taping designs together from constantly changing tools, then we need to get involved in the development decisions happening at the Internet Society level. We can start by having an open conversation about how what we’d like to see from our tools. To that end, here are a few starting thoughts:
What if we started writing content in XML that could be rendered with CSS or Flash? I think there is merit in having a language that provides page layout structure and embed files, which is currently HTML. I appreciate the ability to use CSS stylized HTML content, Flash files, videos, photos, java applets, or whatever else I want to put on a page. What if HTML didn’t cover written content? What if HTML was reduced to a language that simply organized multiple file types on a page? What if it was Flash that did that? I heard that Flash has been opened to the makers of Firefox in an effort to integrate some of it’s functionality with the browser. Written content could be goverened by a different XML standard that focused more on the semantics of written communication. The written communication and other file types could be called by different content interpreters, such as Flash. A user could look at raw content, stylized content, or a rich media presentation of the content based on how the needed to consume the information. What if people thought about browsing content presentations in the same way they may choose to sort information alphabetically, categorically, and chronologically?
What are some of the things you’d like to see change about web design?
Comments
Here is the link to the mozilla tamarin project.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/
What does this mean? Where will it lead? What does this mean for the many “camps” (for lack of a better term) in terms of finding middle ground? I don’t know, but it could be a another revolution waiting to happen.
1. universal browser solution.
2. broader web standards for the sake of media demands.
3. kill bill.
I always enjoy conversations like this myself. My overall feelings is that there are different tools for different jobs. Not everything needs to be a mashup of all available technologies - but it needs to meet the needs of the goals of the site. To me, design is not about using all available bells and whistles - its about solving problems. Sometimes Flash is the appropriate tool (video, audio), sometimes it’s a much simpler solution. Not everything needs AJAX, not everything needs Flash. It’s about solving problems.
The issue with XML is that it never really caught on (with the majority of developers). There have been many different discussions about how to organize the content, presentation, and behavior layers - and everyone has a different idea opinion. I just think stretching too far from the norm, or radically transforming things at this point would be counter-productive (especially to the people still designing sites as if they were in the 90’s - they simply don’t want to change).
At the core it is a big challenge. So many technologies, how do we bring them together in a clean fashion?
Nate I think you’re right on that our job as web developers is to make strategic decisions about what tool(s) are right for the job. The sign of good design isn’t Frankenmash-ups.
Justin, first let me say nice job on the db clay site, it is one of the prettiest e-com sites I’ve seen.
But on the topic of evolving the web, I want to point out that the web sprung out ot a desire to 1) allow many platforms to share data and 2) speed client-server. Now as it has become so popular, two new goals have been added: 3) high entertainment value and 4) simplify contribution.
My concern is that maximizing all four of these goals is intractable and as a champion of 1 & 2, I don’t want to see the market demand of 3 & 4 push them aside.
A lot of my clients are rural folks with limited bandwitdh and education. It’s always intersting to me when I sit down behind their windows 98 PC on a dial up connection and try to troubleshoot a problem with my web 2.0 solution.
Personally, I liked the idea of creating parallel “nets” but you don’t hear that being bandied about anymore. My point is I don’t keep the kids books on the same shelf as my SQL reference book, so why is myspace showing up on my Google results when I want a script for setting today’s date?
My $0.02 worth.
Hey Justin, I followed you here from 9Rules and came across this older entry.
I think the one problem with web design is how people view it. Instead of seeing it as an electronic form of print, I think it needs to be viewed more like television but that’s just my opinion.
That being said, whether it print, web or television it’s all a box model. In photography/cinematography there is the grid, in print and web design there is the grid. Everything has to do with the grid and until holograms became a common everyday occurence I don’t see design being able to bust outside the grid (which in itself is just a big box).
Anyway, great discussion!
Michael, thanks for the compliment on the dbclay site.
You make a great point about accessibility. I think rich media, like Flash, should be offered as progressive enhancement.
Pop Stalin, I think you are right that we will never lose the grid, especially since the computer screen itself is a box. I would like to see web designers explore more fundamental organizational structures in addition to the grid.
[…] I’ve recently been writing a few posts about the evolution of web design, particularly the impact of rich media, namely Flash, on modern web design. Other web design thinkers, such as Jeff Croft, have also been thinking about the new era of web design and the problems we need to address. […]