I read an interesting post from OK/Cancel about CSS and it’s culture. Near the end of the article Tom Chi mentions an old debate regarding designers who want pixel accurate design versus those who proport the web is putting content in the reader’s control. In true purist fashion, the very first comment takes the later stance and can be found here
Problem is, accurate layout should be a client side technology… Pixel-accurate control may be important, but is not responsability of the content provider…So if you want to achieve perfect usability, forget attaching presentation&layout to content…then you can have perfect control layout&behavior (on the client side)
This comment is what compelled me to post about this idea. In short ‘Turing’ is wholly wrong…in a sense. While he is correct that you can’t control the user environment online, he is wrong that it is not the responsibility of the content provider. Essentially this erases all value from the concept of emotional experience and absorbing information.
Welcome To Disneybland
Let’s put it in the real world. What ‘Turing’ is suggesting is similar to Disneyland waking up and realizing they were wasting a hell of a lot of money on the surrounding experience of the ride than on the ride itself. So being the wise business people they are, they rip out all the useless frills from the park. Then they line up each ride side-by-side efficiently at the park entrance and charge close to $100 for people to ride each attraction in succession. When they have ridden each ride once, they can leave the park. No useless Matterhorn Mountain, no expensive animatronics while waiting in line, no silly characters walking about, nothing.
Think about that for a second. How much of Disneylands appeal is based on the quality and experience attained solely from the ride itself? How many people would like to go to this new modern approach to Disneyland? Disneyland would tank faster than you can say ‘It’s the experience dummy’.
More Than Just Pretty Pictures
The issue with this viewpoint is it doesn’t understand what the real value of visual design is. Instead it likes to portray designers as some elitist, whiney bunch that demands that no one mess with their finger paints and crayons. These are the same people that refer to desing as ‘Making it pretty’.
This is ignorant. It’s ignorant because good design is about helping the reader have a better experience. On the rational side, it helps the reader to read and understand the content. A well designed piece will be quick to skim for the major points (especially on the screen or online) and contain proper spacing, well chosen typefaces for legibility, and in terms in interaction design, well designed screens that help the reader know what choices they have.
On the experiential side, a well design piece will communicate an emotional connection to the reader before they read the piece. It adds to the message of the text by giving a subtle context, or framework, long before it’s read. For instance a piece about war can be designed to communicate horror, seriousness, or brevity to the viewer long before they read a word. Remove all those things and you remove a part of the effectiveness of the text. Do you think people will want to read their information in this way? Will they opt to strip out everything visual about a piece except the text the second technology affords them the chance?
Why do you think major corporations spend countless dollars on well designed collateral and marketing pieces? Think about that in terms of the long, long history of the written word. Design has always been there. You would think that by now if the ‘Turing’ ideology was correct that our reading material would all look the same. Does this change because we consume information on an LCD screen instead of papyrus?
In The End
In the end I think Tom is on the money in his conclusion. We will do both. In many ways we will offer alternate version of some content that is data only, and the consumer can use a variety of applications to aggregate, store, or reference the information. For each device such as a PC, PDA, refrigerator, or cell phone, consumers will continue to do what they’ve always done. They will show a measurable preference to pieces that offer the best experience, are designed with design sensibilities, and show favor to the subtle visual cues that aid in understanding the information. They will generally prefer to view the information within the context of the providers brand, and those brands will continue to increase in quality in the online medium as they have in print. Sure the PDA will have a much more minimalist presentation than the PC, and the cell phone even less than the PDA. But I hardly doubt we will all spend hours creating our own custom stylesheets so we can read about the latest A’s game in comic sans.
Published on July 31, 2005
Resides in Web Technologies, Design
Comments feed | TrackBack URI
One Response to “What the Purists Miss About Design”
1
Jack on February 1st, 2006
Thanks, I’ve been thinking about this crypto-anti-design fetish as well; I think you describe it pretty well. I’ve been wondering how many people are clamoring to strip away thoughtful presentation in favor of “essence” or the supposedly precious ability to force content to adhere to personalized settings. Not to mention where folks are getting the time to set up such personalization. Maximizing accessibility is a good thing, I have no doubt; there’s no reason to couple such worthy efforts with boorishness.