Comments on Beauty is Only Screen Deep

Sarah Horton — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:45 GMT

I have to say that I’m somewhat surprised and disappointed that my article was fodder for yet another discussion about the importance of graphic design and graphic designers, and the divisions between amateurs and professionals. This debate is entirely beside the point.

The point, as Glenn Fleishman explains, is that people who design Web sites (which is the group I refer to as “designers” in my article) need to focus on transformation rather than instantiation. Right on, Glenn!

There are many people who have very good reasons to view all their text as serif, or sans serif, or white on black, or yellow on black, or really, really large, and those reasons have nothing to do with likes or dislikes. They have to do with needs. And when people who design Web sites fix their designs down to the pixel, or use Flash, or display essential content such as navigation as graphics, their pages do not support transformation, which means they may not be accessible to those people.

I’m not saying scrap graphic design. I’m not saying design ugly pages. I’m saying that visual presentation should not get in the way of access. I’m saying design for the medium. Make pages that are beautiful because they look good and are flexible, so that people can do what they need to do with them.

Arthur Murphy — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:45 GMT

“The measure of quality in web design should not be good looks, but graceful transformation: pages that can be accessed under different conditions and keep their integrity.”

It seem to me that part of the challenge is the creation of a design that has an essential user-centric function (can transform as needed) and a preferred aesthetic format that will appear under “normal” conditions for the prime audience.

Early HTML blurred the functions of markup by conflating Structure (H1, H2, ul, etc.) and Format (font selection, point size, graphic text without ALT tag, etc.).

The goal of the user is to access information (or transactional e-commerce) with functional ease and aesthetic comfort. Nothing wrong with beauty. Nothing wrong with style. No absolute requirement for pathological blandness. But “graceful transformation” should be an inherent design specification. Blind users should be able to access information (or transactional e-commerce).

The goal, when practiced, may help us all to separate content, form, and function. Cascading style sheets were intended to enable layers of design: implementers (prime vision) and users (alternate visions). Ideally, the collaborative nature of shared information will unite us in efforts to re-unify content and aesthetics in multiple, creative ways.

Giles Colborne — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

I also think it’s very dangerous to dismiss the importance of grapic design. Graphic design is about improving visual communication. Well-designed pages (screen, paper, cerial box, whatever) enhance communication by providing essential cues and signposts. It’s about improving usability.
I shake my head when I read yet another usability expert posting a message to a forum asking ‘what’s the correct number of columns for this page design?’. Just ask a graphic designer – that’s what they’re trained and experienced in.
Of course, they’re frequently untrained in interaction design. And that’s the point – you need both: a good interaction and a good visual design to be usable.
To be fair, the article does make that point. But I worry about the tone, which implies conflict, not cooperation.

George Olsen — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

To build off Sonyl’s point about web design being creating a product—and in fairness to Sonyl I’m probably interpreting this in a way not originally intended—web design _is_ much more like product design.

In design school, I was taught art is about expression and graphic design is about communciation—so you had to understand your audience to be able to talk to them. But the key difference with interactive design (including the web) is that’s like a _conversation._

That’s to say, my work needs to not only speak to the target audience/user, but it also has to listen and respond. It’s the difference between talking _with_ someone rather than _to_ them. That’s something traditional graphic simply doesn’t teach you much about, in contrast to industrial design, where you’re designing not just the packaging but the product itself (although admittedly a lot of industrial designers I’ve met are focused on surface styling).

Designers certainly _can_ learn to design to enable as well as to communicate (and dare I say it, to express, which can be appropriate in given contexts), it just requires a shift in thinking.

And no the points made in the article aren’t obvious to everyone. (If you’re here, by definition you probably get it.) I’m sad to say I saw a designers’ forum that was busy bashing the article for squashing their creativity.

What they failed to realize was that it’s not about aesthetics vs. usability, it’s about coming up with an appropriate design.

Sometimes it’s a design solution that emphasizes functionality and usability, sometimes it’s content and findability, sometimes it’s presentation and a memorable experience. Most of the time it’s about striking a balance among the three.

Sonyl Nagale — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

Uri has stated what I feel to be one of the most important tenents of design: always re-examine, re-evaluate, and articulate. For example, a friend and I once had a discussion on the format of books. From a usability perspective, they are -not- the most usable; the line length is too long! Ease of reading would dictate different conventions, but the book format has been with us for so long that few people reassess it.

Glenn’s comments about transformations are intriguing and right on the ball. My comments may have seemed to mean that I don’t believe aesthetics and structure can meld, but just to clarify I believe that they are integrated. I advocate the entire creative team, copywriters included, sit down and discuss how everything fits together. That way, the designers have the copy in front of them when they work and thus, to parody, “Form follows content.”

Additionally, it’s not that I believe specifics such as serif vs sans should be overlooked because users can’t articulate them, it’s that I place those issues in the hands of the designers. The designer should know what typography is best for the application; if they don’t, shame on then. However, putting serif type on something because that’s what the client likes, I can’t endorse. Viewing everything as serif because that’s what you like, I can’t endorse. Part of design is understanding systems of communication, and that’s what we should work towards.

Luke’s list of his tenets for good site design are also excellent. “When a visitor comes to a Web site they have only the visual presentation (the interface) to “tell” them what the site has to offer, and how they can make use of it.” This is right on the money. This is why we fixate on “the expensive logo” – it is an all-in-one means to communicate to the user/viewer/client what this company or group stands for and how it relates. Even small things like a logotype sans any visuals can communicate. What does using Helvetica versus Gill Sans tell us? To a non-designer, perhaps little. But the Gill Sans will be fresher, more friendly, somehow more human. And this is in keeping with his work. Typography based on the human form, yet that could bring life to stone.

In the past few days as I’ve mulled over this topic and read each of your responses, I think I’ve realized one point with underscores my frustration with most web design. It is this: graphic design is a process, not a product. When you tie the word “web” with “design,” you inherently create a profession geared towards creating a product. I believe designers should be embracing the web as a new (and exciting) medium that fully works with the design process.

Adam – Interesting that you viewed my signature that way. I intended it the other way around, as a way of enforcing the fact that I was willing to stand by my words. The anonymity of a discussion board sometimes prevents that. In response to your comment on the “kvell of the masses,” I have one comment: I am an idealist. Something may work. It may even work well. But does it work the best? In other words, they may be popular, but could they be better? They work, but could they exhibit exemplary aestheics and work just as well, or even better? A website functions somewhat differently than other types of brand application in that for most cases, the user initiates the dialogue. In the physical world, as we walk down the street, systems call to us. Often times, we are already familiar with the company or at least analogous companies. Websites, on the other hand, are often another beast entirely.

What to do? I’m not sure, but in discussing it we’re on the right track.

Uri Ar — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

To Glenn Fleishman:

I regret writing that ‘duh’ Ð This article doesn’t deserve a reaction at all. It is not what I would expect from a professional forum. This article was only screen deep.

To your point, that it is not obvious, I know. It should beÐto a designer. People should not call themselves designers if they think their job is about ‘looking good’.

Actually, I think the writer still does not understand what design is all about.

As to Sonyl’s comments (which, in my opinion, were much more interesting than the article itself) Ð The Bauhaus’ ‘form follows function’ and Jakob Nielsen seem to have the same advantages and flaws Ð they are very logical, but just like the young Jan Tschichold did Ð they assume things (i.e. the serifs are not neccesary for anything, simpler is more legible, a tagline is there for decoration purposes,etc.). Jan Tschichold had the courage and sense to re-examine and re-evaluate his early fanatic views. That is what makes him so great. I guess by now you know what I think about Nielsen….

But ,on the bright side, these extreme opinions benefit the field of design in the long term Ð they force us to think and they force us to articulate, if only to ourselves, why we do the things we do.

Adam Greenfield — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

Well, yes. But look at two of the most successful sites I can think of, Google and Yahoo!.

Neither is precisely a paragon of elegant design; matter of fact, I’ve always been flat-out embarrassed by Google – look, brand, and name.

But I use it routinely, turn its name into a verb, even evangelize for it in a lukewarm way, because it *works*. Why on earth, were I an officer of Google, recommend spending even one dime on effacing the cheesy fake 3D and drop shadows in favor of a clean, contemporary identity? Where, precisely, is the ROI on this?

Sure, design for your audience. Absolutely, reject the false dichotomy between beauty and utility. But above all, be honest, and give people what they need.

dkr — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

I’ll make a quick and simple point and then shut up.
I agree with what Sarah is saying, but I would point out that all of this is dependent on your audience. I think we all understand this. If your audience is for instance 15 year old boys who are into comics, you might find out that graphic text and an all Flash interface are just the ticket to getting your message across on the Web. You might want a pixel perfect layout as well, say if you are an artist of some sort trying to express a creative vision. For most sites and Web applications – Sarah’s points are totally true. As well, with anything, you should make sure it is usable by your readers/users – and do your best to capture the message/theme/function of your site. I guess it’s just that the Web is many things to many people and this article seems to address one (rather large) of those things – there are others out there.

Adam Greenfield — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

Sonyl -

Frankly, I’d take your comments more seriously if you hadn’t felt the need to append your credentials.

This may seem perverse, but if you have the courage of your convictions then your arguments will stand (or fall) on their own merits.

Not only that, but the IAs (etc.) I’ve met have, collectively, one of the strongest anti-puffery streaks of any discrete population I’ve ever met. The only thing that compares is folks in special ops.

Back on-topic, I agree with a lot of what Sarah is saying, though it’s occasionally hard for me to let go of the aesthetic in pursuit of the effective. I can show you fifteen dog-ugly Japanese websites that appear to have been developed in the absence of any aesthetic sense whatsoever, but which are screamingly popular because they provide a way to do something

Would I prefer that such sites be “well-formed” in every sense (semantically, visually, aesthetically, at the code level)? You betcha. But it’s hard to argue with the kvell of the masses.

Function precedes form not because it’s a pithy manifesto that buys you Bauhaus brownie points, but because it’s hard to convince a client to lay out capital to polish something for the sake of High Beauty when it’s already accomplishing the mission.

No. The dragon that I want to slay is ugly sites that don’t even work properly.

James Spahr — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

What is being said is that design for design’s sake is bad. Wait. That’s true for print too (and motion graphics, and industrial design, and … ). All good designers know that. hmmm. I know:

"Please stop forcing the web to be something isn't ready to be... yet."

How’s that? :)

Luke Wroblewski — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

What gets me about this article is the assumtion that the visual presentation of an interface is about making things “pretty”. This is simply not the case.

In order for a Web site to be “usable”, it must be understandable. It needs to communicate, and communicate effectively. When a visitor comes to a Web site they have only the visual presentation (the interface) to “tell” them what the site has to offer, and how they can make use of it. As a result, we must rely on visual communication principles to tell our audience: about the behavior, structure, and purpose of our Web sites. The better at communicating we are, the easier it is for our audience to understand our messages and intentions, and the easier it is for them to use and appreciate our Web sites.

A good Web experience consists of useful and usable content framed by the principles of visual communication to create meaning and understanding for an audience. Improving the overall experience for Web site visitors involves not only proper solutions to ‘technical’ concerns (such as download time and accessibility), but also presentation, emotion, approachability, and more.

When designing a Web site, we need to consider three basic factors: presentation, organization, and interaction. Presentation is how your site appears to your audience, organization is the structure of your site, and interaction is how your site behaves in response to user actions. Because all interactions between your audience and your structure occur through the site’s presentation, it must be understandable and engaging. If the presentation is not clear, your audience might not be able to make it to your content. If the presentation is not engaging, your audience might not be motivated to try.

Among other things, an effective Web site presentation can help:

Provide situational awareness

Provide clarity

Provide emotional impact

Engage and invite users

Explain organization

Guide users through content and sequences

Maintain consistency

Educate users

Establish relationships between content

Create emphasis and focus within Web pages and sites

Send the right message to an audience

Give sites unique personalities and distinction

Establish a sense of place

I have recently written a book on exactly this topic: Site-Seeing: A Visual Approach to Web Design. I encourage those of you that view visual presentation as “icing on the cake” to take the time to understand why visual communication is vital to both usability and user experience.

Glenn Fleishman — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

The three previous comments, even the single word “duh,” all seem to stem from deciding that either everyone understands this already (if they did, then the Web would appear fundamentally different in commercial, nonprofit, governmental, and personal sites than it does today), or, with Sonyl Nagale’s more in-depth remarks, that aesthetics and structure can’t overlay one another in rich ways.

The criticism of Nagale repeats a common trope about graphic design in general: that because viewers can’t articulate the details (does someone get frustrated about serif vs. sans serif type?) those specifics should be overlooked.

The Web is a different beast: on the Web (even if not to that granularity), readers can tell the difference, because type can be illegible in ways that would never be allowed in print because designers can’t control all iterations of a page’s appearance.

In fact, there’s a deep separation that must take place that I believe fulfills both Sarah Horton’s desire for underlying meaning to supplant semantic-defying designs and tools, and Nagale’s vision of a sort of transcendental evolution of thinking of the Web into a new medium that’s embraced: the structural elements of the Web must be separated from the semantic or textual elements.

The visual and semanatic representations encompassed in a Web page can be separated without destroying the flexibility of design. We are about to emerge into the latest generation of Web standards—or perhaps are already emerging into it—in which a designer creates transformations that are tunable by users and repurposable for new devices. Web page are structured into content that a design transforms into a design without losing flexibility. But the same content that creates the Web page goes through a different transformation to reach a visually impaired reader, or a Palm handheld organizer, or a cell phone, or other devices yet to come.

It also retains its pure content nature without any transformation when indexed by search engines and by an internal, on-site search system; when summarized by software that can extract meaning; when transferred from one publishing system to another.

Redesigning a site also becomes a snap when transformation is the focus rather than instantiation (a static content structure that can transform into an instance of a design rather than a static instantiation, even when that static version uses a template).

I hope this adds to the discussion.

To Mr. Duh, Uri Ar, if this were obvious, then the Web would already be universally accessible and legible. It ain’t, and thus we should proceed to challenge the assumptions. Look at Wired News’s recent redesign, and you’ll see how it all collides into new forms.

Sonyl Nagale — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

I disagree with the basic premise of what this author has stated. What I’ve gathered from reading about what usability experts, web designers, and clients have had to say about the experience of producing a web site has led me to an inescapable conclusion: either the “web designers” being discussed have not actually studied design (and no, Photoshop tutorials don’t count) or they are qualified graphic designers who have forgotten the basics: the solution must be appropriate for the audience, purpose, and medium.

"They do not notice the well-thought-out tag line or the expensive logo —they’re just window dressing, just frosting on the cake. In fact, all the fussing we designers do to draw attention to our work often winds up just getting in the way. "

This statement only reiterates my point – a designer should never try to draw attention to his/her work. Aggrandizement of a designer’s ego is never part of the client’s needs nor wants.

The desktop publishing revolution created many good things for the world; for example, it’s now easy for anyone to afford to produce their own materials. The evil it has also unleashed upon the world is a plethora of horrendous design. Kept in the amateur realm, I have no problems (lest ye accuse me of being overly elitist.) The problem arises when those same amateurs attempt to enter the realm of professional design. I don’t mean to bash the author for I don’t know her credentials, but her viewpoint reflects a short-sightedness about the nature of the web and, in my opinion, a disparaging view of the user.

Granted, it does occur that an overzealous graphic designer sometimes produces work that is overly styled for the given purpose. But what we are taught, if the designer keeps their Pantone swatches on straight, is that the solution must always be appropriate. In the words of Rick Valicenti, we are not necessarily there to produce a masterpiece. We are there to be someone else’s visual voice.

Statements such as “beauty is only screen-deep” will do more harm than good in the end. The war between usability experts and graphic designers is ongoing – and unnecessary. (An interesting summary of the war and each side’s camps can be found at http://www.alistapart.com/stories/marsvenus/ .) The largest hole in the usability expert’s rubric is the fact that aesthetics is inherently part of usability. For example, how many of you would enter your credit card number into a website filled with broken links, a vomit-inducing color scheme, and typos? If this site was your only option for the product you’re looking for, you may not have a choice. But this is rarely the case with the web.

I wholly concede that looks are not everything. I don’t believe that graphic designers are going to save the world or prevent the next world war (though they could definitely ensure that even Florida wouldn’t prevent us from having an election with legal, Constitutional results… </rant>) I do believe, however, that the web needs to be treated as a full-fledged medium coming of age. Many designers have been frightened of it, thus the war between usability and aesthetics. They’ve also been afraid to speak against the “anti-democratic” view that the web is no longer what it was originally envisioned to be – a place “that people can mold to fit their preferences and accommodate their needs.” Instead, this is part of the problem that the designer needs to accomodate. How many people get frustrated because that brochure you got in the mail is serif instead of sans-serif? is too large? is too small? doesn’t let me see what else is on my desk? has other fold-in collateral? has certain colors? Why is the web expected to do that, then? – just because you view it on your own computer? What needs to happen is an integration: just as major firms will have print designers, web designers, IAs, copywriters, and programmers; there must be real interaction between disciplines in order for the web to come into its own and be more than a toy.

The statement “I can now see that the beauty of the web lies in its function, not its form…” is part of a debate that started long ago, before the web was even a concept, with the Bauhaus. The maxims “Form follows function” and “Less is more” have been challenged, amended, rejected, embraced, and spawned even more movements. “Form follows function” worked for one design movement and, though it has influenced most that came after, it remains to be the Prima Facie Rule of design – and it shouldn’t be! Design history is full of examples to the contrary that have been exquisite while serving their purpose, and it has been these examples that have been the most innovative.

The strongest, most valuable comment that Ms. Horton has to make is this: “A real web designer embraces the medium.” The web is new – so very new! – and even print technology has expanded and changed over the years. We must allow the same for the web. The medium must be embraced, expanded, understood, and above all – USED.

I welcome a dialogue.

Sonyl Nagale <snaggle@iastate.edu>

American Institute of Graphic Arts,
Iowa State University Chapter
Vice President.

Brian Thornton — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

Almost all of this is covered by common sense. I think you should really focus on develop that feeling you have of the web and not worry how it would be implemented.

Uri Ar — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

Duh.