We don’t do ‘web design’
This interesting post (and follow-up) by Oliver Reichenstein generated some discussion recently. Through his choice of title, Reichenstein shows himself to be a talented controversialist - and he earns extra brownie points for picking fights with usability gurus… His argument is that the traditional (print) discipline of typography - which in large part concerns what we might call ‘grids’ or ‘layouts’ (not just “which typeface?”) is pretty much the same skill as web design, and that therefore web designers should look to the literature and history of typography for guidance and tuition. So is he right? Personally I think he is - but only within his own definition of web design. In the real world, his claim falls flat. So to continue the controversy, here’s another claim: hardly anyone wants ‘web design’ anymore.
There’s this idea around that web design is an almost abstract skill which, in essence, makes the design disappear so that the content (text) can be read clearly. The content that the design is framing is considered for its form only - size of text blocks, line length, relative type size, positioning etc. The addition of some images and nice little graphical touches is again a purely visual enhancement. A designer’s job - in this world-view - is to ensure that the reader can read, and nothing more. Well all this is good clean living, and without doubt there is plenty that a good designer can and should learn from a study of typography.
But is this really what we’re all doing on the web? For a digital agency, this abstract idea of moving elements of content around the page for optimal visual efficiency barely scratches the surface. Sure it’s a vital skill, but hardly the heart of the matter. ‘Design’ in websites is about a lot more than this - and therefore it’s not 95% about creating efficient easy-to-read grids.
All website design says something - whether it means to or not. In other words it is not only content that conveys meaning. Some years back we coined the phrase ‘communication design’ to describe this aspect of what we do - we occasionally see this phrase around so it’s not just us. The point being that all design in itself communicates messages to the user/reader - and this of course should be used to the best advantage. So even ‘invisible’ web design says something about the designer, or about the content owner, or about the content. Maybe the intention is to say simply “don’t see the design, the content is the thing you’re here for”. Fine, then maybe it’s pure typography. But that’s quite rare these days; even the design of your blog can say (almost) as much about you as the words you write. Often, of course, ‘design’ is in fact an artefact of the creative process - it must support a proposition for instance, or express some facet of a brand, or be a visual representation of an idea - even simply cue instant brand recognition.
This is where the real challenge is, and where a real-world ‘web designer’s skill really lies. To convey meaning and express subtle, complex, difficult, interesting or stimulating messages through design, to challenge the viewer’s preconceptions and generate a response. Grids alone do not do this.
Finally - I’d better admit that I’m not a designer, so clearly I know nothing.
Very nice approach. I read it with great interest, as I thought finally there is someone building a pragmatic case against the 95%. At first.
But then my eyes got so tired with this small font that I felt like your voice is getting thinner and thinner. Is it because of the whispering fontsize or is it the argumentation that get more silent towards the end? : ) Okay, I’ll try to read it again then…
Read it again. Same pain with this microfont. You should join 100E2. At least you use a reasonable leading… Anyway:
I think this is where you shoot yourself in the foot. “Quite rare these days.” That is exactly why I say 95%. Because it’s rare. I didn’t measure anything scientifically. I wanted to wake people up.
Webdesign is all about contents and these contents need to be read. From looking at my design I hope it becomes obvious that I am aware that the surface as such says a lot about the contents. My point though is to develop the surface starting from within, instead of creating a shell and then fill it with “content”. Form follows you know…
I still firmly believe that webdesign can be almost fully explained using the lost treasures of the 20th century typographers. Of course I am aware that there must be other ways. I haven’t found one that is so compelling, pragmatic, obvious though. Read Ruder or Brockmann. It’s amazing.
Well, I’m not a Designer either, simply a humble PR person and Copy Writer, but I agree completely with you on this; clearly you know considerably more than ‘nothing’ of the issues involved here…
This chap does indeed have the wrong end of the stick really to suggest that the Typography of a ‘digital communication’ is THE key focal point.
His attitude reminds me a bit of my old English Language teacher from school, who would tell me off for drawing little doodles in the margins or between the paragraphs of my stories for her: ‘Its not Art!’ she’d apoplectically point out, ‘Thats got nothing to do with your work!!’
She had a point. But then again, she missed mine.
I used to be a designer, but have moved much more to the developer side of things, and as such I’m going to sit somewhat on the fence, though maybe swaying slightly to one side.
The problem is that the discussion is trying to separate content from design, whereas in reality the two live hand in hand. Websites are truly one of the few entities that we do judge by their covers, and rightly so - I refuse to believe anyone would buy from an ecommerce site when it looks like a bad day in Baghdad, at least, anyone with any sense. But can you really argue that you appreciate a site because it is easy to read, or that the design of the site does not incorporate its content?
If it were just the case “Webdesign is all about contents and these contents need to be read”, then what would be the point of background images and graphics in general. The point is that lines, colour, and complex imagery draws your eye and mind to certain areas of content that may be more important than others. For instance, the now depreciated / defunked (and rightly so) blink tag, served the purpose to draw your eye in. In fact, there is no way to avoid reading or focussing on that text even if your eye strays away from that area of the page briefly. But is that a content or a design factor? The answer must surely be the latter given that if we replaced that with a block of colour that strobbed or faded, our eye would again be drawn in. So it’s the effect, and not the content that calls to us, and the same effect can be achieved using interesting imagery.
So, once we have our audience’s attention, the way to keep it is to actually have something interesting to say. Regardless of how I displayed my content, if it was pointless, convoluted (much like my response here) or incomprehensible, then we would immediately lose our readers / users (see lpb’s entry on 4 seconds).
I’m not quite sure where this leaves the debate, but I suppose it shows me swaying a lot more in the direction of design than content… I’m sure this will rage on for some time to come.
Thanks for your response Oliver. Quite honestly I applaud you for waking people up to the richness of the discipline of typography and its relevance to the web. And I totally get that you ’softened’ your original title from “…typography. Period.” to “95%… typography” - I initially found your original post inspiring and revelatory. Initially
But I’m also trying to wake people up. What came across was the view of ‘web design’ as an abstract task, a view that seems common amongst a certain significant slice of the web design community. We see sites offering “a showcase of the best of web design” which comprise a bunch of undeniably attractive and easy-to-read blogs. There’s often lots to learn from these examples - especially in bringing consistent technical (CSS) approaches to common layout issues. But the point is that this is just one aspect of what most commercial designers have to do, and “good web design” cannot exist in an abstract form. Generally designers are working as part of wider teams who are re/creating websites that have to achieve goals through design, content, function, tone etc etc etc. As an example, a recent brief led to the design team starting with a single word: “luxury”. Along with all the many many other things involved in delivering the brief, the first was to communicate - through the design - an intangible quality. Of course typographic knowledge was used along the way. But typography could not answer the brief.
Finally, you comment: ‘I think this is where you shoot yourself in the foot. “Quite rare these days.†That is exactly why I say 95%. Because it’s rare. I didn’t measure anything scientifically. I wanted to wake people up.’
You said “Web Design is 95% Typography”. I said that “…pure typography…” web sites are “quite rare”. That suggests your 95% is more like 5%. As Roi suggested, you have a point. But it’s not the point.