Loads of replies to the original rant, here's a few:

Although not someone involved with internet design, I do use the web frequently enough to appreciate the points made here. Here are a couple of things that occurred to me whilst reading the various 'rants' and responses.
Commercially speaking, companies will not be able to realize the full benefits of the internet if they insist on merely paying lip service to design - eventually they will suffer for that kind of attitude, so in all probability the situation will not remain the same for ever - people will in effect be forced to improve web design.
There was also a great deal of comment on 'eye candy' - mainly negative. I'm not going to play devil's advocate, I pretty much agree as far as concerns those designers who insist on dressing up what is simply a page of text in unnecessary and often crap graphics. However, the internet cannot be directly compared to print media, as it offers so much more in terms of the manner in which content can be delivered. Unfortunately the limitations of current technology means that this potential cannot currently be realized in an effective manner; but web design should always seek to take things further than simply being an electronic textbook. Part of the problem is probably that it is a new medium and quite unlike anything that has gone before - but it is exactly for this reason that designers should experiment as much as possible, push boundaries and test the limits of this fascinating new arena of human expression. Going back to the issue of current technology, a further point is that many of the problems people comment on are basically to do with the limitations of contemporary computer technology. Hopefully the development of computers in the future will be such that concerns like download times and bandwidth are no longer an issue. (But maybe I'm being too optimistic?).

I've just read your 'Design Rant'. It's an intersting question you're raising, whether or not it is a positive thing that all those 'un-skilled masses' can publish their un-skillfully designed pages on the web. I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of someone who's just discovered how easy it is to have your own homepage - it's a perfect ego-trip and not many people can resist the temptation. Originality in either design or content can be set aside when you have a chance to show a cool picture of yourself to the whole world. That is probably why personal homepages are the worst in terms of web design cliches (with some exceptions, of course). And I suppose that all those bored teenagers can be forgiven. But as for poorly designed commercial sites, I've given up long ago on trying to find excuses for their creators, because there aren't any. The problem is that it seems most people don't really mind having 99% of trash on the web, they just accept it.

In the commercial world you seem to be operating in, graphics are probably almost as important as they are in television or any other form of visual advertising. For the moment, the net is mostly an advertising medium. But all this is going to change, because the net will become a transaction medium. We'll buy things through it, and we'll go to work through it. For transactions, graphics won't matter. Speed and security will be more important.

Furthermore, for personal pages, graphics don't matter to everyone. They certainly don't matter to me. I once had an argument with the most brilliant programmer I've ever met, who claimed that he wasn't interested in screwing around with graphics because they took too much time. He wanted results. Years later, I've come to agree with him. Graphics are a complete waste of time to me. They don't interest me in the least.

So where you stand on this issue depends, as with everything else, on where you sit. I want information, not pictures. It's like the difference between a Mozart opera and an MTV video- the difference between really saying something useful, or producing entertaining eye candy. This is not mean to criticize what you do for a living; we're stuck with a society that seems obsessed with appearances, and we have to make the best of it. It's tough to sell stuff in this country unless you wrap it up in a pretty package. But design isn't what's essential about the net. The net may be the next step in human communication - similar to the change from monks slowly turning out beautifully crafted handwritten copies of books, to mass-produced books that, though less lovely, sparked a series of revolutions in human thought and technology.

Whether something looks pretty is less important than whether it sparks an idea, or brings together two people who can discover or make something new. The United States has such a visual culture that many people don't even want to admit this is a valid distinction.

- Marc Robinson

I get headaches, sore wrists and lose sanity cells by the millions trying to sort them out...got any great ideas for making them better?

Losing faith rapidly!

Cheers for daring to state the ...... obvious, most web designers are a pack of kindy goers with less creativity than a kid with a pot of paint.

good on ya!

What do I think.......mmmmmmmmmm'the fact is as you stated, the tools are easily found, and learnt. But the difference is where you distinguish those who use the tools well, compared to those who think that all text should be embossed!

The sooner we reduce the amount of flashing html text the better, and the sooner companies who have a techie'designing stop using him for design and realise that there is more then technical skills involved in the 'DESIGN' of a web site the better also!

Look at TV in the in it's first decade, and film as well. Printing technology has been around for how many hundreds of years. I sure if you could put yourself back in time to the beginning of each of these media mediums you would find a few individules doing exceptional work and the majority doing trash. This is not an excuse rather a perspective give it time (at an excellerated rate) and you will see the web mature as a design medium as well as the work being done on it. If you have been around it for the last 3 years you have already seen great steps being taken (your work for instance). Good Web design in the future will reach heights of viewer/user experience that will eclipse all other mediums.

Keep up all the good work and enjoy this moment in time where your work is some of the best that their is in this new arena of design.

You're right it's crap!

< back

I respect your opinions on web page design but for me content is all important. Content should always come first. OK it's got to be readable and good layout is very important but to be perfectly honest I don't really care for flashy graphics especially if they take too long to download. I will praise effective design that can be done using mimimal bandwidth but I really don't want to spend a couple of minutes waiting for everything to load up when something with equal content can pop up in a couple of seconds, especially as I'm paying for my calls. How many web sites containing nothing but state of the art graphics do you visit on a regular basis? I bet you it's the simple, clean, content rich sites that get the repeat visits. After one or two visits the graphics just get in the way. Too many graphic web designers forget that the majority of visitors are using 14,000 and 28,000 modems and their pages just take too long to download. Please don't think for one minute that I want 12pt black courier text on a white background for all my web pages. I like individuality and innovation. It's just that too many people abuse it badly.

Graphics should the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

I think that you are right :-)

A genius can do more with a toothbrush than a monkey with a fine sable.

I don't entirely agree with you on the state of web-design. Sure, there's a lot of dross out there (also quite a bit of over-design - I'll admit to being associated with a guilty party) - no-one could deny this. But how many parish newsletters have you perused recently?

You say "Is it just me, or does the average design of a web site fall way below an average design in any other media?" but your question and exposition implies mainstream media (you mention Film, TV, corporate graphics). How many university students/grannies/school kids do you know doing Film, TV & Corporate Graphics, etc. The web is more than just a corporate medium - it is a bit of everything, and it shows!

Neville Brody and David Siegel, among others, have commented on the 'desktop publishing' effect - the fact that when a technology like this becomes easily useable by a huge demographic, a majority of what is produced lacks a professional look. However, I think that if you look at the major corporates, who your comparisons imply you are targetting, most have now got the message that design on the web is just as important as in other fields. OK there are still those (Tango/HHCL?) who do marvellous things in other media, but fall flat on their face when it comes to the web, and those who are unwilling to make the money available to do justice to their web presence (I know, I've workied with several!), but they are, I think, in a diminishing minority (and there are still those who make the same mistakes in other media). Let's not forget that we are working in a medium less than 5 years old, which really only found its commercial feet in the last couple of years - we're doing pretty well, considering! There are hordes of inspired people working on ways of filtering out the dross, and changes happen at a rate never ever even approached in other media (DTP etc. may have had a major impact on print designers, but can you imagine if they'd had to learn a new way of working every month or two?) Factors of rapid change and uncertainty help to push up the cost of good design which will remain good (functional) design for more than 6 months or so, and this certainly hasn't helped matters design-wise (though it's been great fun for technology-freaks such as myself!)

· top

< back