Article Idea:
Form Equals Function - The evolution of the web has come full circle
suggested by Mitch Hazam on 2007/04/09
As we all embrace the idea of “Web 2.0,” and the enhanced capabilities of CSS, detailed styling seems to have been cast aside in exchange for utilitarian functionality. Due to its rickety lack of structure and the inability to truly control your presentation, the web once was a place where design professionals dreaded to pass. Then the mastery of creating detailed grids through the use of complex single tables allowed for the realization of more intricate and comprehensive designs to take shape.
The enhancements of CSS have turned the web into the ultimate playground for designers and developers alike. So why does it feel that the web has reverted to a series of boxes in a meticulously defined grid? What has happened to the age old theory of Form Follows Function?
“No matter what things you study, you will find that those which are good and useful are also graced with beauty.” Baldassare Castiglione, Cortegiano, 1528
I would like to explore the evolution of design and how it is changing the appearance of the web. It seems as though the most designed portions of web sites in this “Web 2.0” era are becoming the third-party ads. Does this minimalism in design mean we have no ideas?
Want to see this idea turned into a story?
13 people said yes. | 0 people said no.
Jamie Dandrea
0 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/10 @ 08:04AM with
I would love to hear more about this. So many sites these days are white and boxy – just a slightly prettier wireframe…
wayman Luy
1 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/10 @ 10:46AM with
From foxy to boxy. I would argue however that there a very clear distinction between utilitarian sites (IRS, or Boxes & Arrows) versus Graphically rich sites (movie promotion, band websites, design portfolios). Utilitarian sites have made huge strides in looking clean and elegant but not boring or even clunky as the use to. Likewise, promotional and graphically rich heights have reached amazing levels of artistic achievement. Web 2.0 sites are for the most part content driven and utilitarian. I hope you explore that dynamic and pull out some good examples of content sites pushing design such as virb.com
June Sumiyoshi
-1 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/10 @ 11:57AM with
What’s wrong with Mondrian style? :)
How about some curves, poke out of the box a little…
Where’s the trend going?
Joe Smiley
1 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/10 @ 18:47PM with
Einstein once said that “Imagination is more important that knowledge”... and I’m pretty sure if he was alive and kicking today as a blogger, he would agree with Mitch here. Many companies today are moving quickly to update their sites to the new “Web 2.0” standards, and in the process are throwing out the beauty with the 1.0 bathwater. These “boxy” sites are a step forward for Web 2.0, but are two steps back for design. The good news is that it’s still early in the game for Web 2.0, so I’d urge Web 2.0 users and abusers to tap their knowledge (i.e. developers) AND imaginations (i.e. designers) to explore the possibilities of CSS, AJAX, XHTML, etc. and put their ugly Web 2.0 babies to bed soon (i.e. now!).
Allison Bucchere
1 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/11 @ 07:39AM with
Looking forward to reading more.
Russell Medeiros
0 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/16 @ 08:56AM with
Yes, please untie my hands from this imaginary rope!
Andrew Hinton
76 Reputation points
Posted 2007/04/20 @ 10:45AM with
I think looking at design evolution is a great idea, but I’d like to see a discussion of what the aesthetic choices actually mean in terms of usefulness. For example, rounded corners are all the rage—but what do they accomplish in a UI that a square corner may not? (It could be something very utilitarian like “makes a panel feel more a part of the surrounding page, so users don’t mistakenly overlook it as separate” or something like “users tend to respond more favorably to a softer visual feel in some contexts based on research from X…”) Also, I think ‘minimalism’ is a somewhat subjective concept: Google Maps may look minimalistic to the aesthete, but to a UI designer it’s an incredibly rich, densely textured design.
To some degree, this speaks to the rift between “Comm Arts design” and “UX design”—interactive experiences are things to be used, where every color, every line has potential interactive meaning for the user. There’s no such thing as a purely aesthetic choice in an interactive design… Anyway, didn’t mean to overcomment here, I just think those issues would be of the most interest to a B&A audience. (at least, I can hope? :-) )