A super hot (but shallow) woman is only worth the initial excitement, and once you realise she has the intellect of a hamster, the novelty wears off.

I’d much rather read an ugly website with interesting content than look at a pretty design filled with jibberish. Strange to say for a designer? Maybe.

(Report abuse)

the same is true for a website. It’s all in the design. Design does not need to mean flashy graphics or crazy colours, good design can be so subtle that you don’t even notice it.

(Report abuse)

I understand your point, sure. I read Jakob’s stuff and agree with some of his points, and disagree with others. He might under-emphasize aesthetics a bit. So on that I agree with you.

About underdesigning locally and abroad, I don’t know if I fully understand what you mean?

I am a fan of minimalism and simplicity, but designing for dial up modems is fast becoming a thing of the past. I will always design and optimise images and code for fast downloads, but with the speeds of internet connections abroad, I’d say that the limitations are fast being eradicated.

See http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/hancock/ for an example of the bar being raised.

On thing I’ll maintain is that the SA web dev industry is still allowing the dregs to continue trading and the market (on a large scale) is not discerning enough to spurn them like rabid dogs. They can’t justify the expense of a qualified and experienced design firm when their nephew’s neighbour’s dog’s breeder’s baby sister can do it on her new mac mini in NVU.

It’s all about education, and perhaps Rowan’s approach is what is needed to some degree in SA?

(Report abuse)

I think what Rowan is trying to say is that websites shouldn’t be over-decorated. And to a large extent I agree. But there’s a big difference between decoration and design. Too many sites (here and abroad) are, in my opinion, under-designed. Badly thought out, in terms of the stuff I mentioned above as well as in terms of content. There’s no point in a Flash extravaganza if it’s not navigable (take note all those who do the silly follow the cursor thing), but equally I personally wouldn’t return to a site with no decoration whatsoever (take note Jakob Nielson). So my theory is that decoration be in the service of a. the design and b. the brand - in that order.

There was nothing wrong with Rowan’s point. I just found his tone preachy and I don’t think the article raised the bar any.

Sorry, don’t have a url. I’ve been in the web design game since Netscape 2.

(Report abuse)

@Steve,
I think you’ve possibly over-expected from a blog post. Rowan made a pretty decent point, and although he didn’t define different kinds of content and design, you even pointed out the tech savvy nature of this site’s readers. Perhaps he didn’t feel the need to?

SA sites do sorely lack the ___abilities that you mention. You got that straight, so perhaps some SA web designers and publishers DO need to be patronised?

Why don’t you post a URL so we can see who you are and what justifies your harsh criticism?

(Report abuse)

1. “Now comes the critical question: does it matter how well your site is ‘designed’ or for that matter how many ‘features’ and how much ‘functionality’ it has. Qualitative research has shown me that it doesn’t”

Not sure where or how you did this reasearch Rowan, but as coda rightly points out, you don’t define ‘design’ or ‘content’ for that matter. Good design not only includes the look and feel of the site, but (sadly lacking on SA websites) also useability, readability, accessibility and navigation. A site may be packed with great content, but Debra won’t find that content unless design isn’t cleverly used to lead her there.

Case in point, MyVideo. I arrive at the site. Where should I click first? Where’s the hook to draw me in? There’s a long list of images and titles with descriptions. They all appear equal on the importance scale. Which should I choose first? Shit, I have to scroll through the entire list. Are all the videos categorised according to genre maybe? Nope, can’t see any indication of that. Oh, hold on, they’re in a fly-out under channels. But I’m not interested in Mens Health. Ah..I get it now…I actually have to go to the ‘Watch videos’ page to find categories; somewhere down the left side of the page in tiny type. Hmmm, maybe try a search. Where’s the search field? At the top of the page on the right. Wonder why they put it there against a white backgound? Surely on a site like this, that relies on searching, they’d put it slap-bang in the centre within the content area. Against a blue background. Maybe they should have employed a designer.

Good design also gives an indication of trustworthiness. Back to MyVideo. I arrive at the site. What indication do I have, from the design, that it isn’t going to be filled with porn? Doesn’t look like a major brand to me. Something about using the standard internet blue colour of the links that makes me think that possibly someone just threw the whole thing together as cheaply and quickly as possible. Who are these people? There’s no introduction or even a strapline to reassure me.

2. “The focus is on the content (remember sometimes images, videos, etc are content in themselves) not on the design or functionality of the site.”

If this was always the case then Google wouldn’t be the world’s biggest online brand - by putting the focus on the functionality.

Sorry Rowan, but you have to admit the article is very preachy; using words like ‘you should’ and ‘remember’. It doesn’t ask questions. It doesn’t offer alternatives. It doesn’t encourage debate precisely because it is presented as a static ‘you should do a, b and c’. Also, for the target audience, who are probably very tech-literate, telling us that Debra ‘types in this need in a search engine’ is just the tiniest bit patronising. Fine for a class of 10 year olds maybe, but not on TechLeader.

I’d have preferred to see you, say, take a stand against Flash sites or maybe ‘Ten reasons why I don’t like over-designed websites’ or something personal/entertaining like that. But this smacked of the SEO experts (well, they might think they are) on Bizcommunity and who only blog in the hope that they might get a few clients out of it.

(Report abuse)

Very valid points. I agree with your point that often design is content. And that is, in a sense, the essence of my article - that the design of a site must be the content. That form follows the function.

@steve:

Best to point to specific points of my article rather than ranting and generalizing. I’m not lecturing here, just spurring open debate. Which is a good thing, and you are more than free to criticize - in fact I expect it. No one on the web can make the claim to be an ‘expert’, and I certainly do not, and I doubt you’ll find evidence of this in the article or in others.

(Report abuse)

Coda, I think you should write the next blog. Rowan, you’re fired.

(Report abuse)

You’re comparing the value of well-designed content, with content that has become cluttered with distracting bells and whistles. The interface design, for example, is inconsequential to all of this, and carries as much weight as any other process in the site’s development - in some instances, more weight. And in other instances, the design is the content.

Flash animations might matter to Debra if the content required her interaction. The IM widgets might matter if Bob required client-based support to better understand the content. It all depends on circumstance.

I thought that needed to be clarified, and the same can be said for discounting functionality.

You hit the nail on the head with your last line!

(Report abuse)