RE: FN-FORUM Bad Webdesign
date posted 1st February 2002 19:07
>so shite design should be called art?
I never said that.
>This conversation is about "webdesign" not development
I'm making the point that *design* is about making things that work AND look
nice.
Designing something, in my mind, means to create, "fit for a purpose".
Art, on the other hand is not as much purposeful, as entertaining.
You don't *use* a piece of art. (shades of grey people, please....)
Some of the sites put forward as stunning examples of *design* are in fact,
stunning art pieces.
No less value, but not, in my mind, good design.
The level I aspire to is to create a visually stunning web site, overflowing
with content and excellent navigation that is accessible to all.
>Have you never looked at a site that is so visually stunning you think
>F**K -
Yeah, but I'd probably consider it *art* unless I could see it's purpose and
find my way around it easily.
>but don't look down your nose at
>what does not fit into your idea of what makes a good site.
Never, ever, said or did that either.
It's all about semantics, as usual, and email is no medium for discussing
the finer points of anything.
I think that we should be more careful in the future to describe stuff more
accurately.
There is elegant design in simple sites that work well.
What a lot of web designers refer to as great *design* is usually more
artistic than functional. Leading edge Flash experimentation sites are fun
to look at, but usually non-functional.
The more pragmatic contributors on this list and others would praise good
design in a site that works, looks good, and meets the needs of the user,
it's target audience, and the client.
I'm pleased with what I do, it's getting better (IMHO) with every new site I
attempt, but I'm never going to be a leading edge designer, because I don't
have the artistic talent.
I know my place, but it doesn't mean I can't express an opinion.
Feel free to attack my opinion, but please don't attack me.
Thanks for reading
Tony