RANT: The myth of Web design
Jorn Barger
(business letter, journal-article, etc) that reduce the typist's
responsibility for page-design to exactly zero.
The significant exception, though, are brochures-etc from public
relations departments, which are often designed from scratch,
or using a set of in-house templates...
Web-design has clearly opted for this second, PR model. There
can hardly be said to _exist_ yet any generic website-templates,
although w3.org or aspects of useit.com or photo.net are a
step in that direction.
I suspect if a company hired a web-designer, and requested
"Nothing fancy, just something generic" most hirees would be
unwilling or unable to comply-- I don't think they want to
perceive themselves as 'Web typists' ...but at this point
Web-typists are exactly what the Web most desperately needs.
Unfortunately, the current design-theory community has been
distracted by the juggernaut-boondoggle of XML and style-
sheets, thus betraying at a very deep level the simple ideal
of 'web typists' using basic HTML like <p>, <br>, <i>, <b>,
<blockquote>, etc. (I think of these as the classic
WordPerfect 4.2 tags.)
Beyond this basic level, there are some simple rules that
should have been better hashed out by now, about navigation
links, anchor text, page-length, etc.
Michael Piotrowski
> For most communications on paper, there are generic 'templates'
> (business letter, journal-article, etc) that reduce the typist's
> responsibility for page-design to exactly zero.
Not exactly zero, but close.
> The significant exception, though, are brochures-etc from public
> relations departments, which are often designed from scratch,
> or using a set of in-house templates...
There are many documents that are conciously designed, not just
marketing material, but I agree that for this kind of documents the
"look" is especially important.
> Web-design has clearly opted for this second, PR model.
Many Web sites *are* just electronic brochures
> There can hardly be said to _exist_ yet any generic
> website-templates, although w3.org or aspects of useit.com or
> photo.net are a step in that direction.
I'd say that a Web site is just the medium, like paper, and you can
render many types of documents on this medium. You would need several
templates. But you're right that conventions are only evolving slowly.
> I suspect if a company hired a web-designer, and requested
> "Nothing fancy, just something generic" most hirees would be
> unwilling or unable to comply-- I don't think they want to
> perceive themselves as 'Web typists' ...but at this point
> Web-typists are exactly what the Web most desperately needs.
Hmm, I wouldn't put it this way. I'd agree the Web could certainly
use more content and less "fanciness," but I'm not sure it's entirely
the Web designers' fault. But it just might be the problem that Web
designers often don't have anything to do with the content; a more
integrated approach (good content plus appropriate form) might lead to
better results, but this is of course *completely* academic.
> Unfortunately, the current design-theory community has been
> distracted by the juggernaut-boondoggle of XML and style-
> sheets, thus betraying at a very deep level the simple ideal
> of 'web typists' using basic HTML like <p>, <br>, <i>, <b>,
> <blockquote>, etc. (I think of these as the classic
> WordPerfect 4.2 tags.)
I don't agree. The problems are elsewhere, IMHO.
> Beyond this basic level, there are some simple rules that
> should have been better hashed out by now, about navigation
> links, anchor text, page-length, etc.
True.
--
Michael Piotrowski, M.A. <m...@dynalabs.de>
Jeff Collins
Michael Piotrowski <m...@dynalabs.de> wrote:
> > There can hardly be said to _exist_ yet any generic
> > website-templates, although w3.org or aspects of useit.com or
> > photo.net are a step in that direction.
>
> I'd say that a Web site is just the medium, like paper, and you can
> render many types of documents on this medium. You would need several
> templates. But you're right that conventions are only evolving slowly.
As do all communication genres. It took a loooong time for the American
business letter format to evolve to the way it is (both visually and
verbally) and the genre is still (and always will be) changing. Genres
draw communicative power from writers following *and* breaking the
generic conventions (which eventually cause them to evolve to new
conventions). To blame the users of a genre for this (as the original
poster attempted to do) is to misunderstand the very nature of human
discourse.
Of course s/he probably knows this, because I think this 'RANT' thread
was just a sly way to slip some SPAM for her/his website into the
newsgroup. Hmm, speaking of the subversion of genre conventions... :-)
cheers,
Jeff
--
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals.
I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables.
Jeff
experience.
First Style sheets allow for maximum control over design and text
layout.
And we still use <p> and <i> and <b> - but never <blockquote>.
And second, XML has No Graphic layer - meaning it cannot support
design tags etc. It is simply a language for computers to speak to
each other - It does not get parsed into a browser for Humans to see.
jo...@enteract.com (Jorn Barger) wrote in message news:<16e613ec.02091...@posting.google.com>...
Jorn Barger
> [...] It took a loooong time for the American
> verbally) and the genre is still (and always will be) changing.
But these variations are quite minor compared to the current range
of webpage-styles. The desirability of a generic style that
avoids TABLEs, for example, is barely on anyone's radar.
> Genres
> draw communicative power from writers following *and* breaking the
> generic conventions (which eventually cause them to evolve to new
> conventions).
You can't start breaking them until they've been formulated.
> To blame the users of a genre for this (as the original
> poster attempted to do) is to misunderstand the very nature of human
> discourse.
<sticks pin in windbag, waits for deflation>
Actually, I blamed "the current design-theory community". It's
the _theory_ that's lagging. The academic hypertext community,
in particular, has been guilty of ghettoizing web-design as
beneath their notice-- they've been saying in effect, "Any random
page of web-design tips is as good as any other."
Peter Kumaschow
"web-typists" can type whatever they like into it. Isn't this the way
things are going anyway? I typically set up sites this way so that the end
user can change page content without having to come back to me. They can
use simple HTML if they like.