Re: FN-FORUM: wellvetted.com

date posted 10th January 2006 19:16

On 10 Jan 2006 17:53:16 -0000, Richard Quick
[EMAIL REMOVED] wrote

> Design and development are two separate things

and that's where we fail to agree.

semanically my understanding of "design" is different to yours.

I'm thinking design as in "fit for purpose" - creating something that
does a job in the best way it can.

design as expressed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design
"As a noun, "design" is used both for the final plan or proposal (a
drawing, model, or other description), or the result of implementing
that plan or proposal (the object produced).

Designing normally requires considering aesthetic, functional, and
many other aspects of an object, which usually requires considerable
research, thought, modelling, iterative adjustment, and re-design."

you're singling the visual elements of design out from that.

I'm sure you'll agree that "design" in it's broadest sense includes
development and if you don't then we'll never be able to have this
recurring discussion in a meaningful way.

I should also note that it wasn't me that did the validation of a
flash site, however it is perfectly possible to get flash embedded in
a web standards valid way. [1]

My point was that a web site with fundamental validation errors isn't
good "design". It's broken, no matter how pretty it is.

now good "visual design" is a different kettle of fish, and there may
well be some great examples of excellent visual design on
wellvetted.com, but it would be easier all round if we sorted out the
terminology in this business.

;o)



[1] see hyperion interactive: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/



--
http://wiki.workalone.co.uk - stuff you need to know.
http://xebit.net