Designer Vs. Designer, eh?
Interface-7.net
I once heard a professional sound designer say, "sound design is often treated like cinematography's poor cousin", and after reading the article "who, then, now" in the June/July 2002 issue of ProDesign I know what he means.
The article in question, written by a "recent design graduate", and they ask, "If designers and design education are managing to keep up with the times. What price the term 'graphic designer' in the face of 'creative strategist'?"
This is all well and good- I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in hearing recent graduates, drop outs and current students of all tertiary institutions around New Zealand complaining about the lack of resources, funding and everything else that goes with being a student. What peaked my attention in this article however, was this statement:
"The increasing popularity of the Internet has brought about the 'good enough' phenomenon; the increasing acceptance of 'low-res' images and poor use of type in the digital world could spill out into the real world with the generation currently online".
As a web designer this statement strikes me as ridiculous, it highlights the author's total lack of understanding of the original and continued aim of the Internet, bandwidth limitations and how typography in browsers has worked in the past, currently and in the future.
When Tim Berners-Lee released the world's first web browser and web server back in 1990, the browser had its own internal "typography rules engines" that applied user defined styles across the web [fonts, size, colour]. To some degree browsers haven't changed that much since then, even with the inclusion and eventual depreciation of the font tag from HTML recommendations, the poor or incorrect implementation of CSS from some browsers makers and the quirks of multiple operating systems, users can still set and over ride a designers defined styles making more "sophisticated" typography on the web at times a hit or miss affair.
With the slow adoption of newer browsers and higher bandwidth access in residential and rural areas [can you say data cap?], the push for getter usability, accessability and web standards from initiatives like the NZ e-government web guidelines and WaSP, we can expect to see "low-res images and poor use of type" for quite sometime.
Now I'd be lying if I said that this whole "rant" is about just one article in ProDesign, its about the skills and knowledge required to do the job of being a web designer. Reading the Che Tamahori interview in the same issue only confirms what I've been hearing about web design being taught in design schools from current design students, its not or if it is, its the 'web orientated' programs like Flash, Dreamweaver, etc.
Clearly this is a problem for New Zealand's design schools to address, as one of the "first generation of web designers, that only know web design", I'm not all that inclined to see a "generation of new designers" that don't have the knowledge, understand the concepts and techinical limitations of the medium thats already been around 12 years or have to scream "web design is not print design" at every new graduate I happen to meet for the next ten years.
Have your say
I'm interested in what others have to say about this, so please step up to the plate, alternatively if your the shy type, you can email your views to me.
What others have said
Matthew Cruickshank Friday, 16 Aug 2002 4:14pm
I don't think 'graphic designer' is doomed in the face of 'creative strategist', but in the face of the web usability consultants. I mean a usability consultant has science on their side, you can't argue with that shit. However graphic designers try to rebrand themselves there's an inertia that they are shallow flashyness and gimicks ("If I were an '80s comedian I'd compare design mockups to a one-night stand... it's not a long-term relationship."). Most designers do more than that but the graphic design industry is becoming pigeonholed.
I did a web design course (to get it on paper) and the teacher exerted so much control that his webpages only ever worked in IE4 (they were doing some bizarre DIV placements that broke in IE5+/NS/O). He placed a box to the right by setting a left offset of 400px. "What if I resize the browser window?" I asked, only to get a frown and an explanation that most people wouldn't and most people were at 800*600. It didn't like the answer but I couldn't put my finger on why. The answer was too conveniant, or coincidental. Something like that. Here was a flaw in expressing what was intended, but it looked OK for most people, so I won't bother with the rest.
Now, I don't really blame the jerky teacher because that attitude was popular in 1997. The first generation of web designers have learnt that first generation of web design, but they don't know it sucks.
Good web-design still involves getting into HTML. Like usability and accessibility, the idea of a science, or a procedure, turns off some designers. It's a shitty cliche... that they're the illogical artsy types, but get past that and the other side is clearly Jakob Nielsen and usability/accessibility with laws and limits and flash 99% bad and overzealous w3c validation weirdos.
The web has gotten bigger than rigid graphical control because people complain more. More complaints are good, but I get the feeling that the idea of having users makes for frustrated artists (another one of those shitty cliches just there).
(I wonder if I get a preview screen for this thing *fingers-crossed*)
margot nicolau Monday, 19 Aug 2002 4:17am
i don't know what this forum is all about but most of the web sites i access are brilliant, the crap i just ignore, like junk mail just grab it all up and throw it in the trash.
Che Tamahori Thursday, 29 Aug 2002 4:12pm
Web Usability Consultants aren't the enemy (though consultants of any stripe should be shunned!). Crap designers are the enemy. And if schools are turning out crap designers, then they need a shake-up.
At design school, we used to have debates about "legibility". We all agreed that 6pt Copperplate looked real cool, as long as you didn't have to read it. Ten years on, usability is the same debate: "man, that is some hot looking shit (as long as you don't have to use it)"
"Usability" does not equal "design". It's not a synonym, a complement, or an apposite. "Usability" is a quality. Like "balance", "style", "intrigue" and "hotty hotness". I think good web design should have all those things (mix to personal taste).
If we're going to talk professionalism though (ie: making a living doing what you do), it is important to note that "usability" probably has a bigger impact on a client's ROI than any of those other qualities. So if your recipe is big on beauty, and short on usability, don't be surprised if clients think you are self indulgent. The safest course: get the user factors right, then shoot for sublime beauty. Or make everything pink -- whatever.
ryan Friday, 30 Aug 2002 9:11pm
Cinematography is all about the pretty pictures, gettitng the lighting right and making the stars/film look good. It's much easier to put a publicity shot into a magazine than a good roll of dialogue and some sweeping mood music. When the music works well with a film you don't notice. It's only when otherthings are really bad will you notice the sound design - will most likely stand out like a sore thumb. Same goes for theatre. if you walk out and the best you can say is "the lighting was really good..." then something was seriously wrong.
<br>
The same thing goes for websites. If you are using the interface and you don't notice it, then whoever designed the website has done their job. However, if you are constantly hunting for the "home" button or links, then the designer should given a stern talking to.
<br>
At the end of the day, good design isn't about pretty pictures, blocky type or how many popups you have on your site. it's about communicating. If the design ges in the way of the communication of ideas, then you need your priorites sorted.