[notbanksy]

The recent thread about web trends got me thinking on this, so I thought is was worth a thread of its own.

We are a web design forum, and hence we predominantly talk about design and coding - we spend a lot of time talking about the visual aspects of a design, although since the arrival of Wizely we have all become alert to the importance of copy.

It has struck me that the majority of us are working and thinking in an about face kind of manner. All the discussion of 'how does this look?' and 'how do I do this?' is constantly drawing us away from the key question: Why is my site?

That's not a typo - what is the reason for your site?

The interweb is a text based medium, and is balanced across two key foundations: information and communication. If someone asks you, 'What is the best website?', I bet many of us will have a flood of thoughts about some of the most beautiful and clever sites we've seen. The gorgeous illustrations, the fancy flash work, the clever ajax etc.

But what if I were to ask, 'What sites do you visit every day?' - I bet it will be somthing where you haven't really noticed the 'design' - this forum for example. BBC news? The Guardian (my favourite). Lolcats?

Can we say that web design begins and ends with words? I think so. What kind of internet do we want to see in the future? Of course, we can expect our beloved net to succumb to the pressures of business, marketing and advertising - what meduim doesn't? But I think it's important to question the value of this when we are in the process of making a site. We all want to make sites that attract visitors. But the nature of the net means we are bombarded with every man and his dog's idea about how a website should look, and what its priorities are. My argument is that, as web designers we should always have one eye on the nature of the web - text. In fact, let's have both eyes on it, cos that's the bit everyone's going to be looking at once they've wiped off the dribble from looking at all the pretty graphics.

I can almost feel the tide of commercialism sweeping away the soul of the internet as I type this - do we want the net to follow in the footsteps of television, because I see that this as a real danger. TV is mostly unbearable in its present incarnation - badly written programming fronted by patronising epsilons, all bleating to the tune of dumbing down and commercial interests.

The web offers us a unique opportunity, by virue of having two qualities that TV currently lacks: a lack of reliance on advertising, and user interaction. We do not have to tow the commercial line, or dumb ourselves down because of some beaurocratic deference to 'cultural and social diversity', yet we can build accessibility into our sites and retain our integrity.

I'm not saying every site should be a work of literature here folks, just that (I'm as guilty of neglecting this as the next man) we have an opportunity to make it more interesting, informative, and productive if we design content. By all means put in in a pretty frame once you've written it.

I know this covers much of the same ground we've trodden in Copy Corner, but I'm really interested in adding to this the idea of designing for the medium, and being partly responsible for directing its future. And giving a bump to this lately neglected subforum

[tigerlabs]

Thank you very much for this article notbanksy.

Very good. 5 stars.

[ErisDS]

notbanksy, on Aug 29 2008, 00:48, said:

It has struck me that the majority of us are working and thinking in an about face kind of manner. All the discussion of 'how does this look?' and 'how do I do this?' is constantly drawing us away from the key question: Why is my site?

That's not a typo - what is the reason for your site?

Not to kiss wizely's arse too much (although I'm sure it's a lovely arse). I vote to change "Why is my site?" to "PoFint my site?"!!

"PoFint - what is the F in point?" has become my mantra! It's a clever way to force yourself to think about the point of everything you do.

Paragraph - PoFint?
Sentence - PoFint?
Word - PoFint?

then

Pretty design - PoFint?
Flashy navigation - PoFint?
Clever layout - PoFint?

and even

Me - PoFint?

I have to agree that in most cases the answer to "PoFint?" is to communicate one thing or another. However, I don't think that reasonable design can be slapped on top of fantastic copy. Everything I've learnt tells me to use design to support my message. Integrated strategy people! We should all be applying semiotics and noise theory to our websites.

When the internet began everyone went "I can haz"?!?!?! Companies that "got" the poFint of the internet all jumped on the bandwagon. The theory world was shouting that anyone who didn't get their business online ASAP was going to be left behind. Then the bust happened, and everyone realised that just having a website wasn't enough, they needed a strategy (something that was previously thought almost completely unnecessary in cyberspace). However, just having a website with a strategy still isn't enough.

Online strategy has to support, be in line with, and push forward side by side with offline or overall strategy. The two have to be integrated, aligned, "singing from the same Hymn sheet" as it were. Only then can you reap the benefits of synergies and build a competitive advantage.

Ok, so that's a lot of business theory, but it's all true and it applies again here.

A website in itself needs to have integrated copy and design. They need to both sell the same message, and support each other in that message. Sometimes design will lead, but more often copy should lead.

I'm not saying that your fundamental principle of building a knowledgeable internet and the importance of the word in a primarily text-based medium is wrong, I'm just saying that slapping a frame around it after is equally "dumbing down" and wrong.

We need to be building websites with strong copy AND strong design.

P.S. Anyone interested in the ideas I mention here should go and read Michael E. Porter's Strategy and the Internet, especially if you are involved with online businesses. http://www.mi-dori.com/ppt/porter.pdf
P.P.S. Anyone interested in semiotic theory should check out Daniel Chandler's Semiotics for Beginners website. http://www.aber.ac.u...B/semiotic.html - Ceci n'est pas une pipe

[Badmotherz]

Agree with the gist of your post. Although I don't think I agree with "The interweb is a text based medium"! A visual, digital medium yes, text based? Not so sure.

I think it also depends on what you want to get out of the web. You mention the BBC, which is a good example, yet not everyone will want that site as their primary place to visit. Take Flickr or YouTube as two very good examples. Both a primarily image and video sites, with a small reliance on text. The main reason to go there is to look at the pictures and the videos, not necessarily to read the trolls and flamers

So I don't think it's as clear cut as "The interweb is a text based medium", however I do agree that it's a vital part of the web. But it should be looked at in the right context.

[Helen]

I definately see where you are going with this thread....

I must admit, I am a person who looks at the pretty pictures before reading the words. But then again I am a designer, and that is what I was trained to do. I look at the words within the picture. What is the image trying to convey to me?
Didn't someone once say a picture is worth a thousand words?

Now I'm not saying copy isn't important, far from it. Before WDF, I didn't give it another thought, but NOW, I have come to realize that as much thought needs to go into the copy as does the design.

But one isn't as important as the other. They should go hand in hand. Heres my example.....

http://www.nowords.org/_/

A website built purely with no words in it. Now you can navigate ok (a home image on each page would have been better), but what is the site about other than pictures? Not only that, but it has taken all accesibility and basically pooed in it.

[MolotovRuss]

I think you're very right about the fact that it's the content people truly come back for after they know that design, and it no longer shocks them, but I think there's a lot more to it, the wa your website communicates that there's new text to be read, that's something big also.

[wizely]

Looking at this I suppose means looking at what web design is.
Here we see a lot of portfolio sites which are of course all about showcasing design.
Highly functional sites (e.g. Google) tend to have minimalistic design so as not to "get in the way" of usability and it's not like there's a lack of budget or ability to produce a stunning design - it's just not the point of the site.
Content-driven sites tend to be the same - design here is all about navigation and "back-end" power.
US Copywriters favour the long online sales letter approach - all in your face copy with purposely amateurish design.

The vast majority of sites out there are a blend of these extremes with web design and copy playing their part. But all successful commercial sites have one thing in common - they are based on a successful business approach in line with their target markets and the website is part of that. Web design, like the copy, is subservient to the business needs - it's no good having stunning words or design if it doesn't earn money. And, despite web design playing an important role in the effectiveness of a website, in the majority of cases it's words that will sell. I've gone down the road in other posts so I won't bore you again!

The point of my usual rambling? There are very well designed sites out there that are struggling to get customers, sometimes despite high visitor numbers. The majority of sales, SEO, marketing, social networking, newsletters, true brand-building, customer support and thousands of things are word based and are vital in making a website effective, especially when you have no control over the design (on 3rd party sites, blogs etc.). Copy can go further than a website's boundaries.

The internet is text based and, as designers, you should maximise it's potential - copy isn't a threat to design, it's an asset that you can use. I'm not into a p**ing contest on which is most important (I only did that in one thread as a tutorial on how controversy is great for blogs!), I haunt WDF to trade skills, ideas and help between our worlds!

[notbanksy]

An excellent debate this is turning out to be so far...

I do think too much emphasis is placed on what we understand to be design, but actually is just style, and I think there's a really important distinction to be made here. For me, the design is how the information is presented, how does the user find the bit of information (s)he is looking for? To do our job as a designer we must make this as seamless an experience as possible. How quickly do you get frustrated when you have to work hard to get the information you need out of a site?

A car is a useful analogy here. The most important aspect of design for a car is functionality and safety. Does the car move efficiently, safely and comfortably? Once the answer to these three questions is yes, we can begin to imagine what the car will look like, and conceive a style for it. The design has largely already been completed.
Same with your site, and this is why I called this thread 'the internet is a text based medium' - if you have nothing to say, you have no site.

@Badmotherz - I take your point about youtube, flickr etc, but these are exeptions rather than the rule, and I'm deliberately nodding to the roots of the internet. Without the text-based, super accessible format, we may never have had an internet, let alone youtube. The sites are still designed around the content though, and (I can't speak for flickr) but the interface design for youtube is excellent and the most important element in its success IMO (and it's a good concept).

@Eris - PoFint is a whole world of philosophy which deserves its own thread (thanks Wizely!) and I think it's an important question to ask of everything, even if the answer is simply, 'because I want to', or 'because I am'.

I would add to your statement:

Quote

We need to be building websites with strong copy AND strong design.

Or rather replace it with: Copy is design - sure, you may not be responsible for the copy on many of the sites you make, but it's your job as a designer to build from and with it, not just around it.

@Wizely - Copy is vital in making a site effective from a business point of view, but I would like to take a step further and say that it's essential in making a site valuable socially, and in keeping the organic nature of the web in focus. We are here to communicate and share information, and build networks and communities, as well as to do business. This site is a perfect example. I have no idea of its profitability in financial terms, but I know so many members find it absolutely invaluable as a place of learning and social interaction.

The internet is still young, and no doubt will evolve in ways which I can't predict. Personally I'd like to see users get tired of gimmicks, and we can concentrate on being part of something meaningful, and groundbreaking. I'm not out to push entertainment and commerce from the net, simply that it would be a tragedy if this is all we end up with.

@Helen - thank you for that perfect illustration of my point. That site made my head turn 360 degrees *ouch*

[BlueDreamer]

Hasn't the internet spawned a totally new way of thinking about design! There are several types of people here, each has a different perspective on it...

The Graphic Designer will look at a site from a visual perspective
"nice gradients, lovely use of the golden ratio, great typography"

The Programmer will look at a site from a functional perspective
"database driven, AJAX filtering on search results, dynamic content"

The Web Designer will look at a site from a usable perspective
"intuitive navigation, good presentation of content, logical structure"

The copywriter will look at the text content
"informative headings, good use of keywords in the copy, appropriate use of copy related image content"

The marketer will look from a promotional perspective
"good page titles, meta tags, robots.txt, HTML headings"

So many to choose from.

QUESTION: if you could choose just one of them which would you deem as the single most important?

[headcoat]

Are we missing something content can be more than words no? Well yes it can and it often is.

Even newspapers that old haunt of words use photographs.

Photographs, videos, music, images, drawings....and more.

Strong design, strong *content* as Eris says.

Content = copy AND videos, music, photographs etc...sometimes one sometimes another sometimes all of them.

That's why the internet is as much "Multimedia" or "New Media" as anything.

Horses for courses.

Words are meaningless to me if they just seek to brand and sell, but that's a personal stance/opinion.

Like books, TV, records and any other 'media' the internet can be good or bad, selling or informing, ugly or pretty, revolutionary or conservative, designed or not designed and the rest.

Still having said that it's inevitable there's a lot of self justifying stuff out there such as blogs that have no purpose beyond viral marketing, people rehashing other tutorials as their own.

[Rob]

I'm probably not in the best state right now to make a massive reply (blame the cider!), but I have to say one thing…

We're in the information age. Content = King. The web is all about substance, services, and networking. All of this wouldn't be possible without content, and when I say content I mean text, video, photos – it's all the same! Yes, design is an integral part of the web (where do you think the 'design' in web design comes from!), but no website would be successful, attractive, or user friendly with some element of 'design'. The two must complement each other and combine to make the experience of using the web an enjoyable one.

The future of the web is the standardisation and structure of information, resulting in the integration of separate information sources (be it photos, text, videos, whatever!) into a flexible platform of infinite possibility. The future is bright, the future is … wait, that's taken! Er... ROCK ON CONTENT!

*raises cider into the air and proclaims his undying devotion to the information age*


…is is obvious that Wizely has a gun to my head?

[headcoat]

Rob, on Aug 29 2008, 22:13, said:

The future of the web is the standardisation and structure of information, resulting in the integration of separate information sources (be it photos, text, videos, whatever!) into a flexible platform of infinite possibility. The future is bright, the future is … wait, that's taken! Er... ROCK ON CONTENT!

agree with all but no, no, no standardisation of information is not a good thing, is outright dangerous!!!

rpovision and supply and access to info. yes...but standardising it would mean it was all the same!

enjoy the cider.

[Rob]

headcoat, on Aug 29 2008, 22:37, said:

agree with all but no, no, no standardisation of information is not a good thing, is outright dangerous!!!

rpovision and supply and access to info. yes...but standardising it would mean it was all the same!

enjoy the cider.

I only mean standardisation in the sense of how the information is coded/tagged, etc. There is no point having hundreds of different sources of content if each one uses it's own method of storing and outputting it's data.

[BlueDreamer]

headcoat, on Aug 29 2008, 22:37, said:

agree with all but no, no, no standardisation of information is not a good thing, is outright dangerous!!!

rpovision and supply and access to info. yes...but standardising it would mean it was all the same!

enjoy the cider.

Not necessarily - it depends how you define "standardisation".

Some web browsers don't adhere to the standard way of displaying HTML and CSS
There are standard ways of writing HTML and coding languages
There are standard ways of presention a web page layout, ie 2 column, 3 column, fluid, fixed
There are standard ways of content formatting, ie headings, paragraphs, lists
There are standard methods of data handling, ie RSS, databases, AJAX(?)

[headcoat]

yep sorry rob - if you referring to standards as in w3c etc then your right.

i misread you.

[headcoat]

bluedreamer, on Aug 29 2008, 22:50, said:

Not necessarily - it depends how you define "standardisation".

Some web browsers don't adhere to the standard way of displaying HTML and CSS
There are standard ways of writing HTML and coding languages
There are standard ways of presention a web page layout, ie 2 column, 3 column, fluid, fixed
There are standard ways of content formatting, ie headings, paragraphs, lists
There are standard methods of data handling, ie RSS, databases, AJAX(?)

indeed your right bluedreamer though i'd strongly question the need for standardisation on this one;

>>>There are standard ways of presention a web page layout, ie 2 column, 3 column, fluid, fixed

nowt wrong with any of them but striving for originality is also a good thing. they'd have been no hawkwind without rejection of standards and originality ;-) life with no silver machine !

[Rob]

headcoat, on Aug 29 2008, 22:54, said:

yep sorry rob - if you referring to standards as in w3c etc then your right.

i misread you.

I did think you might've misunderstood me. I do agree with you, though that the standardisation has to have a limit. Going past just standardising data output and structure will just act in a negative way and restrict the potential of the internet.

[BlueDreamer]

headcoat, on Aug 29 2008, 22:56, said:

indeed your right bluedreamer though i'd strongly question the need for standardisation on this one;

>>>There are standard ways of presention a web page layout, ie 2 column, 3 column, fluid, fixed

nowt wrong with any of them but striving for originality is also a good thing. they'd have been no hawkwind without rejection of standards and originality ;-) life with no silver machine !

hmmm, maybe "common design patterns" might be better ...lol!

Taking the Hawkwind analogy - the instruments are standard (well mostly!!!), it's just how they write songs and play them that makes then original.

Or the other one I quote for non-savvy customers - "a web site is like a box of Lego, you have lots of different bits you can put together in limitless ways"

[wizely]

I just want to pick-up on Bluedreamer's post and lead-on from my earlier one because I think web design has gotten to be like SEO - it means different things to different people and seems to encompass everything!
Here's, in simple steps, how a theoretical "normal" site could be built for a brand new business:

1. The business - sets objectives, identifies target audience, defines the brand*... what the website must achieve.
2. The content - creates the content, its structure and architecture to meet the above.
3. The "behind the scenes" stuff - creates the mechanics required for both of the above .
4. The visuals - how the site will look.
5. The promotion - SEO, marketing, advertising and the rest.

For me, web design/ development sits at steps 3 and 4 - with 'development' being mostly step 3 and 'design' being mostly step 4. Graphic design being just step 4. Both types of design are again needed at step 5.
Copywriting comes in at step 2 and again at step 5 but should be an important asset for steps 3 and 4. But then it's blurred... a modern copywriter for the web should be able to markup the semantic part of XHTML (the base structure), after all it's entirely dependent on the content.
For success though these shouldn't be separate steps - they should all be iterative and designers, copywriters, marketeers, business owner, product heads etc. etc. should be involved at every step to ensure a unified and strong site.

If I look at the longer-term trends of the net I see easier and more powerful ways for non-designers to get their content online. All those scripting libraries, CMS, silverlight and, as the standards/ browsers improve, WYSIWYG editors will become more powerful and produce good results. Why are these things happening? Because people want to control their own content. The internet is text-based and the majority of people out there just want the easiest/quickest/cheapest way to get their 'voice' heard online.
Am I talking about the end of design? No, of course not! There will always be a demand for customised sites. But what I am saying is these trends are here and are driven by what people want. It's how social networking exploded - no-one cares too much about the design (as long as it works) - people were just desperate to get their words out there.

I personally think the internet will head toward a more semantic, content-driven 'cloud' with content-provision/sharing becoming the thing. This will be closer to what the internet was supposed to be from the beginning before geeks and greed created the fragmented botch we have today (I think this is what notbanksy meant?). It was built to share information and, with the written word being our primary means of communication, I see the same inevitable forces 'correcting' the market.

So in the future I would see designers as architects, as enablers, as content crafters - focussed on the content not the container.

[headcoat]

Good points Wize. I do wonder though if social networking is a bubble that will burst at some point. I joined Facebook the other day, no face yet and there will never be lol, was 'cos I was so excited about Football Manager Live and joined my gameworlds Facebook thingie. Most of the posts are text speak - well some, nothing on a concrete level that a forum doesn't provide.

Perhaps I'm an old fogie/fogey/fogy(sp?) but to me it's 'gizmos and flashing buttons' everywhere. Functionality that we don't need, perfect example in the real world that photocopier in the corner of the office that 99% of folk just want to take a photocopy on and 1% want to use staples or colour - no one can use it for all the extra 'gizmos'.

For me social networking is like CB radio, but it's taken off, mainly due to very, very clever marketing and peoples desire for technology.

All I'm saying is it may not last.

The nets like the real world 99% s***e and 1% quality. National s****e day. Primark FM.

Extras sell things to 'consumers'...more often than not things they don't need and will throw away in a year.

[wizely]

headcoat, on Aug 30 2008, 10:48, said:

For me social networking is like CB radio, but it's taken off, mainly due to very, very clever marketing and peoples desire for technology.
All I'm saying is it may not last.

But why was CB popular? Why the telephone? Why moveable print? Most 'technology' comes from a sociological need which stems from human behaviour. "Social networking" is why the internet has grown so much - a basic human need to communicate (with the added bonus of feeling safe) - it just got called "social networking" and turned into the latest commercial wonder-pill a few years back by the aforementioned marketing people. The next wonder-pill will come along, but our basic need to communicate will continue to drive the tinternet!
It's like mobile phones are filled with all sorts of crap to sell them, but the basic desire to communicate (especially in this fragmented society) is why the market is huge.
Boundaries will blur between desktop and browser ("browsers" may even disappear), between websites, between machine and human information, and technology will continue to develop to make it easier for people to publish their content. And words will still remain the heart of it because that's how we communicate.

[headcoat]

Wise did you know some recent research showed that humans communciated via music and singing (in other words tones) before words!!! Can't quote the research as Lady Headcoat mentioned it the other day...bit worried 'bout her she bought 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' the other day and has been getting into yoga seriously

Thing was I didn't think CB actually ever took off...but take your point re. communication.

Did you get my PM the other day btw?

[wizely]

headcoat, on Aug 30 2008, 12:01, said:

Wise did you know some recent research showed that humans communciated via music and singing (in other words tones) before words!!! Can't quote the research as Lady Headcoat mentioned it the other day...bit worried 'bout her she bought 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' the other day and has been getting into yoga seriously

Thing was I didn't think CB actually ever took off...but take your point re. communication.

Did you get my PM the other day btw?

Oh writing wasn't invented until thousands of years after rudimentary language and I can see why singing would be good - at my age it's so annoying when you can remember hundreds of song lyrics but other stuff has fallen out of your head. Putting that in the context of this thread - there is plenty of research (and common sense) showing how hitting all the senses is the most effective form of communication. Everyone knows about smell being closely related to memory and taste to emotion - it's why vivid description (article plug!) hits the senses.

As for CB? You never seen the film "Convoy"? Big ten four rubber duck! Or "Smokey and the Bandit" or "The Cannonball Run"? The 80's were a dark and mulleted time!

Feel the pain on the yoga front - Mrs. Wizely gets all bendy of a Monday down the village hall! Um, no PM I can see.

[notbanksy]

wizely, on Aug 29 2008, 23:37, said:

I personally think the internet will head toward a more semantic, content-driven 'cloud' with content-provision/sharing becoming the thing. This will be closer to what the internet was supposed to be from the beginning before geeks and greed created the fragmented botch we have today (I think this is what notbanksy meant?). It was built to share information and, with the written word being our primary means of communication, I see the same inevitable forces 'correcting' the market.

So in the future I would see designers as architects, as enablers, as content crafters - focussed on the content not the container.

Thank you Wizely, this is exactly what I was getting at.

[headcoat]

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 01:19, said:

As for CB? You never seen the film "Convoy"? Big ten four rubber duck! Or "Smokey and the Bandit" or "The Cannonball Run"? The 80's were a dark and mulleted time!

Aiiiii...but they were all films about yorkie bar truckers in the States!!!

And there still sporting mullets in those parts today.

Will resend the PM.

notbanksy - hope i haven't hijacked too much. good thread old boy, pwoper tasty fred in fact.

[BlueDreamer]

headcoat, on Aug 29 2008, 23:48, said:

Perhaps I'm an old fogie/fogey/fogy(sp?) but to me it's 'gizmos and flashing buttons' everywhere. Functionality that we don't need, perfect example in the real world that photocopier in the corner of the office that 99% of folk just want to take a photocopy on and 1% want to use staples or colour - no one can use it for all the extra 'gizmos'.

Totally agree about gizmos - not about being an old fogey though as I'm not that far behind you:)

I think what we have to remember is that web technolgy is still in it's infancy, even though it has come a long way in 10 years. New applications and ideas are being developed all the time, and what we're seeing is people seeing what they can do with it. These things have to be played with so we all learn how good or bad they actually turn out to be!

headcoat, on Aug 29 2008, 23:48, said:

For me social networking is like CB radio, but it's taken off, mainly due to very, very clever marketing and peoples desire for technology.

All I'm saying is it may not last.

Agree again, though I think the whole idea of social networking will stay but it will evolve into something else - you could argue that CB was always going to die when mobile phones became widely available (even they were a minority thing at the time).

[BlueDreamer]

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 01:19, said:

Oh writing wasn't invented until thousands of years after rudimentary language and I can see why singing would be good...

Isn't writing (aka alphabetical/numerical characters) just lots of little pictures that we decipher? Egptian heiroglyphs?

[bumfluff]

notbanksy, on Aug 29 2008, 13:35, said:

I do think too much emphasis is placed on what we understand to be design, but actually is just style, and I think there's a really important distinction to be made here.

wizely, on Aug 29 2008, 12:01, said:

Highly functional sites (e.g. Google) tend to have minimalistic design so as not to "get in the way" of usability and it's not like there's a lack of budget or ability to produce a stunning design - it's just not the point of the site.

I don't think 'simple' automatically means it can't be stunning design (though I'm not saying Google's is). Good design is appropriate design. Appropriate could mean simple or intricate, beautiful or even ugly - depending on the aims of the project.

[wizely]

bluedreamer, on Aug 30 2008, 13:03, said:

Isn't writing (aka alphabetical/numerical characters) just lots of little pictures that we decipher? Egptian heiroglyphs?

Chinese characters too - very pictorial. But there is a vast difference between a language and images. Anyway, aren't pictures just a collection of blobs that we decipher as images?!
Many aboriginal peoples (I don't just mean in Oz) had no written language and communicated verbally and through images - coincidentally these haven't been the dominant civilisations throughout history!
Everything we are doing here is a vast collection of "on's" and "off" but there's no way I'd have a conversation with you in binary! An alphabet is only a tool of a language, not the language. Writing allows words to be spread further, last longer and keep the message from being confused. Words are also far more powerful at expressing abstract concepts - sure you could draw a "house" (but not as quickly as I could write "house"), but you'd struggle to draw "home" and have the same emotional resonance that the word evokes.

[BlueDreamer]

bumfluff, on Aug 30 2008, 03:04, said:

Good design is appropriate design.

I like that one!

[bumfluff]

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 03:11, said:

Everything we are doing here is a vast collection of "on's" and "off" but there's no way I'd have a conversation with you in binary!

01110111011010000111100100100000011011100110111101110100001111110010000001101100
01100101011101000010011101110011001000000110111001101111011101000010000001101000
0
11000010111011001100101001000000110000101101110011110010010000001100010011010010
1
10111001100001011100100111100101101001011100110110110100100000011011110110111000
1
00000011101000110100001101001011100110010000001100110011011110111001001110101011
0
1101001011100010111000101110

[BlueDreamer]

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 03:11, said:

Chinese characters too - very pictorial. But there is a vast difference between a language and images. Anyway, aren't pictures just a collection of blobs that we decipher as images?!

Hmm, maybe you could interpet an image as a message. Take cave paintings for example, there's a message of expression in them?

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 03:11, said:

Everything we are doing here is a vast collection of "on's" and "off" but there's no way I'd have a conversation with you in binary!

01010011 01010000 01001111 01001001 01001100 01010011 01010000 01001111 01010010 01010100

[you asked for that ]

[wizely]

I knew someone would get all "10101010111100"!

An image of course expresses more than an exact visual representation but it cannot match the written word's ability to communicate - it's why we're typing now and not sketching. There's some propaganda going around that "a picture is worth a thousand words" - it's a misquote, but more importantly it's also one side of a story. If you're trying to describe the visual aspects of an object pictures win hands down. But draw me a picture of how it smells or tastes or what it sounds like. Draw me a picture of "Our hosting offer 99% uptime on dedicated servers for a cost-effective and reliable service that's hard to beat"!

Back to the thread a bit and bringing Bumfluff's excellent point in about appropriate design. What is appropriate design? It's appropriate to the business functions of the site, to the target market, to the content (which is overwhelmingly text) and current technology. A designer has no real control over the business functions, the target market or the technology constraints - surely the biggest element influencing design is the content, and therefore text?

Then there's the lack of semantics that comes from "good design". I find it laughable that a website can meet standards compliance even when it's littered with semantically meaningless divs that are there only for visual display - that's not separation of formatting - it's a con! XHTML coding should only be used to markup the content according to it's semantics - a paragraph, a header, an image etc. Throw in a load of divs and you've taken a big step-away from semantics, even if it does "validate" (which tables do of course).

That's not a pop at anyone or anything - just an interesting discussion. I find it crazy that "div soup" can be considered OK if it's used to create a beautiful design - I know it's what you have to do until the standards sort themselves out, but it's a whole layer on top of the textual heart of the internet - which is the topic of this thread!

(God that took a lot of steering to keep that on track!)

[bumfluff]

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 05:52, said:

What is appropriate design? It's appropriate to the business functions of the site, to the target market, to the content (which is overwhelmingly text) and current technology. A designer has no real control over the business functions, the target market or the technology constraints - surely the biggest element influencing design is the content, and therefore text?

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, or am I reading that wrong? If you're designing appropriately to the business functions, target market etc, then they're all going to influence the design, despite you not having control over them. Target market, for example, is usually one of the most important factors to consider... a distressed grunge look site probably wouldn't be appropriate to a target market of retired bankers and civil servants, and if the target market were people with people with dyslexia then you might rely more on icons and imagery rather than lots of text.

For me, design is primarily communication. You use the most effective way to communicate with your identified audience, whether that's text, graphics, sound, video or more likely a mix of some of them.

I think the emphasis on text on the internet may be partly tradition. It all started using textual content. Now we've moved on to using graphics and multimedia stuff, but it's still retained that emphasis on text. I'd imagine that in the future, along with flying cars, we'll have ways to mark up graphics, sound, video etc in the same way we currently mark up text (but IE will still ******** them up anyway). I don't think the net HAS to be primarily text-based, but that's the stage we're at now.

[wizely]

bumfluff, on Aug 31 2008, 02:00, said:

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, or am I reading that wrong? If you're designing appropriately to the business functions, target market etc, then they're all going to influence the design, despite you not having control over them.

Quite right - I didn't explain that too clearly did ! (yes it happens in informal forums!). What I meant was the content is something you can change, control, divide-up, move around etc. Strong messages in the copy can give you design cues and need to be supported by the design. The content is derived from all of the influences above and is what visitors will read and see - that's what your design must work with. Designing to the influences and not the content itself means doubling-up on researching those influences and leads to a content - design mismatch.

I see plenty of sites where the style, tone etc. of the copy doesn't fit with the design and plenty where the content is structured poorly and the site architecture is therefore off. I also see plenty of designs that don't maximise the selling potential of the copy by interrupting its flow, concentrating on menus not contextual linking, emphasising the wrong elements, imbalanced sectioning etc.

Another thing I see a lot of is the old "Lorem Ipsum" and the question "Please review my website" - how can you judge if a design works with the vital piece missing? This along with the "I'm waiting for the copy" is a clear symptom that many designers aren't taking the content seriously.

bumfluff, on Aug 31 2008, 02:00, said:

I don't think the net HAS to be primarily text-based, but that's the stage we're at now.

I think it always will be because words are our primary means of communication - yes the amount of multimedia and interactive elements will increase with bandwidth, but the word is here to stay!

Good points Bumfluff, not disagreeing with any of them (except maybe the last one) - I just always wonder why most designers ignore the copy when it can help them and is a vital piece of most sites?

Right, I think I've stuck my oar in too much already so I'll let notbanksy take back control of this thread!

[Bobbi-lee]

Helen, on Aug 29 2008, 16:45, said:

I definately see where you are going with this thread....

I must admit, I am a person who looks at the pretty pictures before reading the words. But then again I am a designer, and that is what I was trained to do. I look at the words within the picture. What is the image trying to convey to me?
Didn't someone once say a picture is worth a thousand words?

Now I'm not saying copy isn't important, far from it. Before WDF, I didn't give it another thought, but NOW, I have come to realize that as much thought needs to go into the copy as does the design.

I agree with you Helen, I always look at design and images before words, and the sites I visit every day are often about the pictures and not the story. In my feed reader I usually just scroll through it looking at the pictures first then reading something if the design catches my eye.
But I also do agree that words/copy does go hand in hand with design and that those sites like news sites or even facebook are all about the copy and I don;t pay any attention to it's design.

[Rob]

wizely, on Aug 30 2008, 22:47, said:

I just always wonder why most designers ignore the copy when it can help them and is a vital piece of most sites?

Although I do agree that some designers have this aversion to copy, I don't think all the blame can be put on us. I've noticed it more and more with clients lately that just simply don't care enough about copy to pay a copy-writer to come in and do it for them. I've mentioned to clients before to get copy done properly, but sometimes they just don't want to do it.

We need to come up with a foolproof method of getting clients to agree to get their copy done properly. Simple, "It will make you're site better/you earn more money", doesn't seem to work. Maybe a slap round the face? To be honest I've noticed this more with smaller projects, and with clients that can't necessarily justify the money/time to wait for designer and copy-writer to be available at the same time to work on a project. I think the main issue is not that web designers don't agree that copy isn't important, it's just they are so used to being a one-stop-web-design-shop that they are either afraid to admit they can't do it, or would need to go out the find a copy-writer who is available to work at exactly the same time (How many copy-writers can you name off the top of your head? Wizely not included ). We need a service that somehow removes this problem and makes the lives of all three parties (client, designer, copy-writer) easier – like Programmer Meet Designer maybe?

I might've babbled slightly towards the end there, but I think there is some substance that can be gleamed from that mass of words above. (I'm slightly copied out after writing a 1,300 word Rawkes Weekly just now )

[wizely]

Here's my oar again - I'm liking this debate and it's getting to interesting places (sorry notbanksy if it's not where you intended!) and it's one part of the forum I can be useful!
Totally agree that small businesses aren't really aware of the importance of copywriting, I wasn't trying to blame designers. I wasn't really meaning everything should be written professionally, more that copy as a design tool and an integral part of design isn't used to best advantage when it's stuffed in at the end!

As for the "one-stop shop" approach... forgive this blatant plug but it's relevant and useful to consider. My next site (after my blog) is to be a "copywriting reseller" site for web designers. I already work with a few designers providing their copywriting and, for them not just me, it works well - they can offer their clients more (the one-stop shop) and they take a good cut of my quote which I can give because I'm not spending on marketing to find those customers. Some people want it Vivid Copy branded like a partnership to show a professional is handling the copywriting, others prefer unbranded under their own name where I am invisible. It's not just the financial gain, it's another differentiation from other designers and there's an opportunity for the dreaded "synergy" word, where the copy becomes a design tool where designer and copywriter work together for a unified concept.
Like I say, apologies for the plug - it's not usually my style, but it is food for thought in this discussion and raises a hypothetical question - if you could offer copywriting for no cost and make a profit on it, would you?

I had another thought on this whole topic... it's no secret that a successful site needs constant, hight quality fresh content - for traffic, for SEO, for getting backlinks etc. How often does content get added compared to the design changed? Not picking on you Rob, but you're a respected designer, your site (which is gorgeous) hasn't changed radically since launch, but Rawkes Weekly is a great read and you can see the sweat and tears that goes into it! Considering how much copy you have (ever expanding) and that you're a designer who's site excellently showcases your design skills - why all the copy?

That's not a question at you Rob, because you know why! It's more a rhetorical question to the other designers. I'm not planning on changing the design of my site every week but blogs, newsletters, marketing, social networking, SEO etc. all need constant streams of copy (and other forms of content of course). These need to be designed, yes, but mostly it's not every time once a template's been produced.
So, back to the title of the thread... the internet is a text-based medium (I'm trying notbanksy)! There is more text, that's refreshed far more often than anything else on the internet.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying web design isn't important, I'm just trying to show how copy is important and is part of design, despite being overlooked. The Copy Corner articles are written to help you designers as you've helped me with my designs - both disciplines benefit from eachother.

[notbanksy]

Thanks for your input Wizely - and don't hold back with your contributions. Just because I started the thread doesn't mean I should lead it - that's the beauty of a forum. I wanted to get people talking about all the things we're talking about, and it's great!

This thread has been far livelier than I expected! Keep it coming...

[1christopher]

http://nickciske.com/tools/binary.php