[wizely]

Web design (hereafter referred to as 'design') hereby stands accused of being less important than copy.
I would ask the jury to consider only the facts of the case and not be swayed by emotion. My client (a Mr. Wizely of no fixed abode) has expressed concerns about the impartiality of a WDF jury but feels his case is strong.

The court does not consider semantic markup to be a part of design or of copy, but merely a technical device for delivering content to a site.

The case for the prosecution is:

• A website can function, without hindrance or impediment, as content-only.
  
• Design without copy is a picture.
  
• Design, in a good many cases, wilfully and with aforethought reduces accessibility - clearly in breach of the principles of the DDA.
  
• Copy is cross-browser compatible.
  
• Semantic markup is derived from copy with no regard to design - in fact design, in many cases, is wilfully non-semantic.
  
• It is copy that sells, not design.
  
• The most effective copy is simply presented in a single column.
  
• In many cases design attempts to hinder the readability of black text on a white background - in extreme cases this has led to the heinous crime of illegibility.
  
• It is copy, directly and indirectly, that is responsible for effective SEO.
  
• Well written copy is quite capable of creating mood, tone, theme, personality and atmosphere without the need for anything further.
  
• It is only a misdemeanour if a visitor does not understand the concept a design is getting across - but it is a cardinal sin in copywriting.

Now, before there's any abusive outpourings - this is only a bit of light-hearted fun!

OK, we all know I'm a copy freak so this little 'test case' shouldn't be too much of a surprise! But, without just disagreeing with me flat-out... am I wrong?

I'm not saying I'm right - but if you can put forward very concise and razor sharp points to refute these outrageous allegations and then defend them... well you've just become a better blogger!

For this exercise I wouldn't recommend you pull in citations and links etc. or write a great long essay on why I'm so very wrong. Just use effective words and descriptions. Try to just write about one point (or more if intertwined in a single argument), make it succinct and fight for the honour of web design!

Bring it on!!!!

[BlueDreamer]

At this juncture I'd like to point out that the use of images and other media that are directly related to the copy should be treated as "copy".

Examples:

A photo, or series of photos, that support, enhance or add extra relevance to a peice of copy
A logo or other mark related or otherwise in the copy where it is relevant
A diagram, presentation, video or audio file that cannot be created using plain text

[rjdejong]

1. Hard to say anything against, but i gues a website of just images could be very intresting
2. One picture can say more then a thousand words
3. If done well however it will improve accesability
4. So is Design if done properly
5.
6. Design does sell. If especially if your in the design branche. Nothing gives more confidence in your capabilities as a designer then a very personal / well designed website.
7. How does this make copy more important then design, you merely discribed the best way to display copy
8. Again the argument that it is done wrong in many cases is a false one. Just because many people do it wrong doesn't mean it per definition is.
9. SEO is an unnessecary evil caused by the great gods of search eninges.
10. Nothing set the mood more then a well chosen colorscheme or an out of the box layout.
11. If your design looks bad, you will most likely lose customers. Proper design emits a feeling of trust and proffesionality.


Case for defence.

1. The whole reason why design works is because it's a universal language. You might vist a chinese website and still admire it's beauty. Design goes beyond text. It can speak to anyone and good design can say more then a thousand words


Truth be told i agree that copy is more important, i just like these discussions

[Rob]

Ooooooo I can't wait to get home and sink my teeth into this!

[Dizi]

A website purely made of copy, with no consideration put into text size and spacing, just simply placed into a html document...hmmm....could this really still be seen as a website or just an online text document?


Copy is very important to a website, I will agree that it is one of the most important aspect of a website. It helps keep interest, it keeps people going back for more, well written articles, blogs and content are what make websites great. However not everyone want to read through pages and pages of black text on a white background, this is where design becomes an important part. Much like a design is no good without great copy and content, copy can be looked upon as uninviting and not appealing to some, based purely on the text layout. Magazines, Newspapers and books all want to do the same thing, provide information and they do this within a formatted design that makes it easy for readers to digest, normally so that the reader doesn't feel overwhelmed by the amount of copy that they have to read. Websites should be the same, well placed text within a nice design can make a user feel more welcome and more comfortable reading the article.

Padding, margins, line space, alignment, font type, text size and colour all of these are things done to make copy easier to read and give the reader a more pleasant experience. Yet all these things aren't copy related they are design related, without these things copy in many forms even books would be terrible, as even the design of the written word in a book is well considered. So my question as I end my rant is, if magazines, newspapers and books all need to use design to be appealing to readers, why can't web designers use design elements to make their copy more appealing on their sites?

[fruit & veg]

A website consisting of 100% text can still be poorly designed and layed out.

I'd say it's like comparing apples to oranges. Copy is what you're saying, design is how you're saying it. Get either one wrong and you're in trouble.

[Sono Juventino]

I kind of agree with you acctually. Good design is to make the text as good as possible. You can create extremly nice designs just playing with fonts, font colors and such. A design dosen't need to be complicated to be good. If your web design fails to give the users a good reading experince, then your design suck.

This is good design:
 design.png (63.6K)
Number of downloads: 24

Edit:

To explain. You can't give the users a good reading experience without a good design. The thing is that design is a very wide subject. Text design is also design and widely known as typografi. If we use those two expressions, then good typografi is the most important thing. The layout, in this setting called design, is just the wrapping paper.

So, by the way you are looking at this, you are right. But from a designers view, you really can't do a good layout without good typografi. Does anyone agree?

[Dizi]

Sono Juventino, on May 30 2008, 16:15, said:

This is good design:
design.png

Even if you take away the blue line this would still be seen as designed rather than not designed. As the structure, layout, line height, font size...ect has all been considered and even though it is all about the copy it is readable and intresting to read because the design and placement has been well thought out.


I like that layout and I think it proves a point that even a site that is purely made up of text needs to be designed for readability



EDIT: I agree as that is my whole argument above

[Sono Juventino]

Look at the edit-part of my post. It's important to understand what the definition of design is. I think we should call it typografi and design. This is good typografi and that is vital to get a good design.

This is one of those never-ending discussions where everybody agrees, but just uses different words on it.

Edit: looks like you agreed. hehe

[Dizi]

The thing with typography is that it falls under design, as it is typographical design. So you could argue that there is a difference but design is about making things stand out and to make people take notice of it and that is what typographical design does

I did graphic design at uni and we covered all basis of design and had huge lectures on typography and its uses in design, how using kerning, line height, size an positioning you turn a bit of type into a design and in itself it is an image and a piece of artwork. So when it comes to web design typography is such a huge part of the design of a site that you shouldn't distinguish two different types of design as both are needed to make a website whole it should be seen as one type of design

[Sono Juventino]

I am no specialist, but it looks like you are.

Thanks for telling me, Dizi.

[notbanksy]

M'lud,
You wouldn't be happy to walk into a newsagent or bookshop and buy a newspaper or book that had not been designed. Just very long lines of text, printed in whatever default settings the computer/ printer happens to have. No margins, no pictures, no indent, no typographical variation, no colour, background or texture.
All of these things are arguably secondary to copy - I would rather use the term content. If you are an artist by trade, then your content is primarily visual. Of course, you will employ some descriptions to enhance the user experience, but copy will be relegated to second place.
Imagine trying to read war and peace without losing interest if it was printed on white wallpaper with lines the whole width of the canvas... I can't imagine anyone getting to the end, regardless of the visionary copy contained.
Design is what motivates the user to read the copy. By giving our copy an intuitive, interesting and elegant structure we can optimise it for the user's best experience. A good design will enhance the copy as well as decorate it.

[tigerlabs]

I don't even know what copy is...

[BlueDreamer]

Dizi, on May 30 2008, 16:07, said:

A website purely made of copy, with no consideration put into text size and spacing, just simply placed into a html document...hmmm....could this really still be seen as a website or just an online text document?

Taking things down to basics all web pages are text documents...

[Dizi]

bluedreamer, on May 30 2008, 17:39, said:

Taking things down to basics all web pages are text documents...

Fair enough

[tigerlabs]

Meshach, on May 30 2008, 10:29, said:

I don't even know what copy is...

[rjdejong]

It's the written content on your website

[MolotovRuss]

I must argue against point 6 ! Surely, if looking for a design-orientated company, the design DOES sell?

[Rob]

I hereby put forth the case from Rob Hawkes regarding the alleged accusation that web design (hereafter referred to as 'design') is less important than copy (hereafter referred to as 'The Wizely Artform').

Quote

1. A website can function, without hindrance or impediment, as text-only.

A website can only be considered "text-only" if there is absolutely no use of typography. Typography is a form of design which deals solely with text and fonts. Elements of typography include: fonts, line heights, kerning, text size, letter spacing, and the layout of the text (eg. grids and columns).

A true text-only website would simply be illegible and any good work done by the copy-writer would be lost in the frustration/boredom of the reader.

Quote

2. Design without copy is a picture.

Copy without design (read above on typography) is just text. Without design, copy is hard to read and loses all any any impact implied by said content. The two elements must work in synergy with each other as both will fail at being a website if used alone.

Quote

3. Design, in a good many cases, wilfully and with aforethought reduces accessibility - clearly in breach of the principles of the DDA.

Design itself doesn't reduce accessibility. Anyone with a lack of knowledge or disregard for the subject can reduce accessibility, whether they are designer or copy-writer.

An example of copy reducing accessibility would be an anonymous link. For example, "click here"

Quote

4. Copy is cross-browser compatible

Only text-only, unstyled copy is truly cross-browser compatible. As soon as you use any typographic styling the copy will suffer from the same shortcomings as design in regards to browser compatibility.

A well designed website would be cross-browser compatible out of the box, without the need for any hacks/bypasses.

Quote

5. Semantic markup is derived from copy with no regard to design - in fact design, in many cases, is wilfully non-semantic.

Semantic markup is vital for the structure of a website, good design uses this structure as it's building blocks, without a good design (including typography) your copy would fail.

I need to work on this one, but I don't believe that design is non-semantic.

Quote

6. It is copy that sells, not design.

It depends what you're selling. If you are selling something visual like web design or a film then the product itself could sell itself. If you want to guarantee that you sell something then you will need to combine the visual design with excellent copy. If they compliment each other then you will not fail to sell.

Quote

7. The most effective copy is simply presented in a single column.

Deliberately laying out your copy in a column is a type of typography, which is a form of design. This is a perfect reason why design is needed to make copy effective.

Quote

8. In many cases design attempts to hinder the readability of black text on a white background - in extreme cases this has led to the heinous crime of illegibility.

This is only true when an inexperienced designer is put behind the wheels. In fact it's been proven that design can actually improve legibility but using slightly softer colours than black on white. For example, yellow or cyan text on a black background is easier on the eyes.

Quote

9. It is copy, directly and indirectly, that is responsible for effective SEO.

I totally agree. However, without a well designed website to back up the SEO it would prove useless. Again I must stress that design includes typography.

Quote

10. Well written copy is quite capable of creating mood, tone, theme, personality and atmosphere without the need for anything further.

So long as it is read, which takes time and effort. I'm not saying that people are lazy, it's just a lot quicker to evoke the above with design, especially with colour. If used together with well written copy then your visitor's emotions will be truly at your disposal.

Quote

11. It is only a misdemeanour if a visitor does not understand the concept a design is getting across - but it is a cardinal sin in copywriting.

This doesn't make copy writing any more important than design, it just means that you must take more care while crafting it.



Overall I think we can agree that I don't believe that copy or design is more important. They are both as important as each other and used in synergy they would bear an offspring that neither could manage alone.

[Sono Juventino]

Great answeer, Rob.

And I just want to comment on the language used in this text. As I'm a person that don't speak fluently english, there are so many words I've never seen before. hehe

[Rob]

Sono Juventino, on May 30 2008, 23:02, said:

Great answeer, Rob.

And I just want to comment on the language used in this text. As I'm a person that don't speak fluently english, there are so many words I've never seen before. hehe

Thank you Sono!

Post any words you haven't seen before and I'll explain them for you

[wizely]

The defence has raised some very valid points and the posts have been very effectively written.

Bluedreamer has appeared as a 'surprise witness' for the prosecution and pointed-out that graphical content cannot be considered as web design. I would agree - content is what would go in a web design.

I would now like to begin my cross-examination on some of the common themes raised...


This hypothetical argument is that copy is more important than 'design', not that design isn't important at all.

With consumer goods the packaging is important in creating a brand for the product - but if the actual product is rubbish no amount of amazing packaging will help. So the actual product is more important than the packaging. Design is, to all intents and purposes, packaging; and copy is the actual product.

Typography is of course extremely important in making copy legible and easy to read. But it's no good beautifying ineffective or plainly wrong copy so which is more important - copy or typography. Imagine if browsers rendered text in perfect typography as standard. All those defaults you reset in your CSS - what if they were optimised for perfect readability in the first place?

You'll never get sued if you misalign a floating element - but even inadvertent liable can cost you millions.

There has been made mention by the defence that design enhances copy and I of course agree. But, copy can function without enhancement by design whereas design can't function without text.

On your portfolio sites design is obviously important to you but (taking out screenshots as being content) - it isn't in the end what will sell. Imagine the best designed portfolio site ever that never actually used any kind of text to explain that what the visitor was looking at was a web design studio that charged money for design. Even on your own sites you need to persuade a visitor to become a customer. Most things are bought because of a perceived need - and it's copy that will persuade a visitor to buy because you meet their needs.

Semantic markup and browser defaults do give web copy a structure, formatting and the basic typography - so a copy-only website would function perfectly (especially if the browser defaults were better).

I suppose my main point is that when you can easily remove 'design' (disable CSS as I do a fair amount) and it still functions and functions well - which is more important - design or copy?

[Rob]

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

I suppose my main point is that when you can easily remove 'design' (disable CSS as I do a fair amount) and it still functions and functions well - which is more important - design or copy?

We really need to define "design" here – if you are just talking about CSS then yes, copy is more important if your website isn't out to impress anyone visually. However there is so much more to design than snazzy images and wow-factor – even the default "non-CSS" styling of a website still uses some basic typographic design.

Your copy would be entirely illegible if you removed typography and had no visual distinction between headings, paragraphs, lines, etc.

I don't think it matters which one is more important as they are both required at some level for an effective and successful website.

[ElanMan]

*ElanMan enters the witness box*
The point in question that I raise an objection to is :

Quote

A website can function, without hindrance or impediment, as text-only.

A website can function as text only, certainly.
Without hindrance or impediment? ..mmmmm
I sell sex-widgets at £10 a go.
My site's audience is predominantly a.(teenagers all sexed up) and b.(husbands desperate for a quick pressie).
My audience wants to see a beautiful model possibly demonstrating the aforementioned sex widget(video, photo, doesn't matter).
The copy can certainly enhance the experience but relying on copy alone to entice me to buy a 15" ramadamadingdong without a piccy is not going to work.
My teenagers and husbands need to feel they're in the right place to buy the aforementioned items.
With nothing but text, they are going to click away.

[wizely]

@ElanMan: Kinky! Bluedreamer appeared for the defence to say that graphical 'content' should not be considered design and I agree - so you can have your naughty piccies! You are right though and the prosecution will amend 'text-only' to be 'content-only'.

@Rob: If the defaults were perfectly good - would you consider it 'design' to simply upload text and let the browser render it? Also bearing in mind semantic markup is only a product of copy. Another example is the prosecution doesn't consider italics to be an element of design - they are part of copy and the English language even though it's a formatting thing.


The defence would also like to point-out that we are using words to debate this - not images (and I don't mean screenshots to back a point up). Why is that? It's because to communicate effectively we need words. If pictures can paint a 1000 words why does some jumped-up snobby fop always have to explain what a piece of art means (in words I may add!).

[Sono Juventino]

Rob said: Post any words you haven't seen before and I'll explain them for you
1. Inadvertent liable? - No clue really...
2. Persuade = to talk someone into something? In this matter buying your design?
3. impartiality = To think subjective, leaving the emotions out?
4. impediment?
5. Heinous = adjective? No clue besides that
6. Refute?
7. Succinct?

And while we are such into english. What's the difference on while and whilst?
- He read while relaxing in his chair?
- They scream whilst running?

Am I right?

And back to the topic, even if this is kind of on topic, at least in the copy category.

wizely, on May 31 2008, 01:01, said:

I suppose my main point is that when you can easily remove 'design' (disable CSS as I do a fair amount) and it still functions and functions well - which is more important - design or copy?

I think I would agree with wizely on this. The text is the most important. With no text at all, your visitior don't know what you are doing, if you are selling stuff, what it will cost, and such. Think of a store selling products without text on them. It would be like a thousand of pandora's boxes. A design may create an image of you as profesional and such, but a great business will always look elsewhere if the text isen't propperly done.

[wizely]

Sono Juventino, on May 31 2008, 00:36, said:

Rob said: Post any words you haven't seen before and I'll explain them for you
1. Inadvertent liable? - No clue really...
2. Persuade = to talk someone into something? In this matter buying your design?
3. impartiality = To think subjective, leaving the emotions out?
4. impediment?
5. Heinous = adjective? No clue besides that
6. Refute?
7. Succinct?

And while we are such into english. What's the difference on while and whilst?
- He read while relaxing in his chair?
- They scream whilst running?

Am I right?

I'll PM you to help!


Oh and another surprise witness for the defence!!!!

[Rob]

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

With consumer goods the packaging is important in creating a brand for the product - but if the actual product is rubbish no amount of amazing packaging will help. So the actual product is more important than the packaging. Design is, to all intents and purposes, packaging; and copy is the actual product.

I'm not sure that slimily works, the packaging serves a dual puspose: to promote and protect the product. The packaging is actually more important in that case because your product is useless if broken.

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

Typography is of course extremely important in making copy legible and easy to read. But it's no good beautifying ineffective or plainly wrong copy so which is more important - copy or typography. Imagine if browsers rendered text in perfect typography as standard. All those defaults you reset in your CSS - what if they were optimised for perfect readability in the first place?

Neither is more important. You can't be successful without using both. Your copy would be useless without typography, and you can't have typography without content – they have to exist together. All your saying is that effective copy is more important over ineffective copy.

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

You'll never get sued if you misalign a floating element - but even inadvertent liable can cost you millions.

You could be sued millions for copyright infringement regarding design elements or user interaction – yes, even types of navigation are copyrighted (like the iPod menu system).

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

There has been made mention by the defence that design enhances copy and I of course agree. But, copy can function without enhancement by design whereas design can't function without text.

Design can function without copy. You must've seen adverts before without a single shred of text on them? They are usually prominent and extremely successful. What about product design, paintings, modern art – no text on those designs either.

But back to websites. Yes, raw copy could function without any "design" (including typography), but that doesn't make it a successful website, it just makes it a text document that someone has to piece together in their head (remember there is no visual distinction between elements without typography). Being more important involves a lot more than just being functional on it's own.

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

On your portfolio sites design is obviously important to you but (taking out screenshots as being content) - it isn't in the end what will sell. Imagine the best designed portfolio site ever that never actually used any kind of text to explain that what the visitor was looking at was a web design studio that charged money for design. Even on your own sites you need to persuade a visitor to become a customer. Most things are bought because of a perceived need - and it's copy that will persuade a visitor to buy because you meet their needs.

And it's the design that provides the proof that you can do what you say you do. Copy is a great selling tool, but people can lie and manipulate content a lot easier than they can with visual evidence.

This is especially evident in radio advertisement. You have to use the hard sell on the radio because there is absolutely no visual incentive to provide hard proof that these products exist and do what they say they can. This is why television advertisements can be so lacking with content. For example, the iPod adverts.

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

Semantic markup and browser defaults do give web copy a structure, formatting and the basic typography - so a copy-only website would function perfectly (especially if the browser defaults were better).

But the browser defaults are design, at least in the most basic form. Remove those browser defaults (eg. css reset) and you are left with no visual distinction between headings and paragraphs – your text is raw. Now if you visit that "website" and don't already know what the content is about, then seeing this mass of text is going to instantly turn you away. Hardly functional.


A big issue here is that all the designers are going to defend design to the death, and the copy-writers are going to defend copy. Otherwise you're doing a pretty crap job! The trick is to realise when to use effective copy and when to use design, whether to enhance the copy or perform alone without any text.

[Rob]

"@Rob: If the defaults were perfectly good - would you consider it 'design' to simply upload text and let the browser render it? Also bearing in mind semantic markup is only a product of copy. Another example is the prosecution doesn't consider italics to be an element of design - they are part of copy and the English language even though it's a formatting thing.
The defence would also like to point-out that we are using words to debate this - not images (and I don't mean screenshots to back a point up). Why is that? It's because to communicate effectively we need words. If pictures can paint a 1000 words why does some jumped-up snobby fop always have to explain what a piece of art means (in words I may add!). "




Omg, big chunk of text! It shows how important formatting/design is to make copy legible/functional though.

Quote

@Rob: If the defaults were perfectly good - would you consider it 'design' to simply upload text and let the browser render it?

No I wouldn't consider it design on your part, because all the design work has been done for you by the browser manufacturers.

Quote

The defence would also like to point-out that we are using words to debate this - not images (and I don't mean screenshots to back a point up). Why is that? It's because to communicate effectively we need words. If pictures can paint a 1000 words why does some jumped-up snobby fop always have to explain what a piece of art means (in words I may add!).

This thread wouldn't even have any replies if it wasn't for the layout and design of the forum. People would've given up after trying to decipher the first post in the thread and work out where the next reply began and what went where.

Yes we use words to communicate effectively, but people are here for the sole purpose to read replies. I'm sure we'd communicate a lot more effectively in person with visual cues and eye contact…

[wizely]

Ah but you're forgetting how Copy Corner works!

This was never about proving copy was more important than design!

I just helped you with your blog writing!

This 'polemic' strategy is one you can use to great effect. Look at how many posts that are longer than the average that have gone up and a the few new faces to Copy Corner! Basically you put a contentious issue up with an antagonistic heading and then put forward a case to refute some way of thinking. It evokes passion, interest and debate and will quickly fill your blog!

It also helps you to write succinctly and with controlled passion and really think about what you're writing - you don't want to lose an argument because you couldn't get your point across.

Oh, and you've just written yourself plenty of material for your blog because you've had to put your thoughts on design into words!

I'd still argue with plenty of your and the others' point but the prosecution rests - job done.

Consider this Copy Corner Part 8a - but I couldn't set it up as an article or it wouldn't have worked!

[headcoat]

It's late I'm tired but thought I'd contribute a little.

My opinion equally important.

Though in some instances copy is more important e.g. an text based blog.

And other times images (graphics, photos, movies, cartoons..) are more important e.g. a photographers site, an artists site, even a bands site.

On the whole though you have to get 'em both right.

[Tristan Perry]

Just a quick post from me (although I'd read some of this thread, and it's some interesting stuff)

I think that great copy can help recover a poor (or merely "decent") design, however the reverse isn't true - a great design with poor copy just doesn't seem to work. Hence, as a very basic argument, I feel this can go some way in justifying wizely's original suggestion.

This concept (i.e. poor design can be excused if you have great quality products/copy) is shown by:

http://nomorequo.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-...ck-so-much.html

Lol!

[Rob]

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:53, said:

Ah but you're forgetting how Copy Corner works!

This was never about proving copy was more important than design!

I just helped you with your blog writing!

This 'polemic' strategy is one you can use to great effect. Look at how many posts that are longer than the average that have gone up and a the few new faces to Copy Corner! Basically you put a contentious issue up with an antagonistic heading and then put forward a case to refute some way of thinking. It evokes passion, interest and debate and will quickly fill your blog!

It also helps you to write succinctly and with controlled passion and really think about what you're writing - you don't want to lose an argument because you couldn't get your point across.

Oh, and you've just written yourself plenty of material for your blog because you've had to put your thoughts on design into words!

I'd still argue with plenty of your and the others' point but the prosecution rests - job done.

Consider this Copy Corner Part 8a - but I couldn't set it up as an article or it wouldn't have worked!

Oh Wizely you &$%&*!

I totally see your point though, what a great way to introduce the next topic!

Oh, and I'd be ready and willing to argue back

Looking forward to Copy Corner Part 8b!

[BlueDreamer]

This is a great thread - whatever your point of view it's really making everyone think about how you see things

[BlueDreamer]

Bluedreamer throws some evidence into the ring....

First visit http://www.buymystupidebook.com/ - granted this is a parody site but I'm sure you've all come across sites like these that sell get rich quick schemes and the like, one page, lots of copy telling you why you can't do without the product an smattered with a few images, and a bargain price.

My point is that these types of pages are known to work, ok so the products are usually a load of old rubbish, but with good marketing they can turn a lot of bucks.

These sort of sites don't have any sort of "design" or do they?

[tigerlabs]

I need a complete idiots guide to copy... Because before this point, I haven't even ever heard of copy.

[notbanksy]

wizely, on May 31 2008, 00:01, said:

With consumer goods the packaging is important in creating a brand for the product - but if the actual product is rubbish no amount of amazing packaging will help. So the actual product is more important than the packaging. Design is, to all intents and purposes, packaging; and copy is the actual product.

If only this were true. In modern western capitalist markets, brand is king. You can have the biggest pile of cr@p dressed up in the most beautiful/ appealing packaging, and under the right conditions, you will sell your rubbish by the truckload.
For example:
MacDonalds - Everyone knows this is possibly the most nutritionally vacuous food known to man, yet folks stuff it down like someone is going to take it away from them. The wrapper looks pretty...
Coke (the drink) - Same as above. If you happen to have a tooth fall out, you can plop it into a glass of coke, and in time, it will dissolve... Terrible product, unbelievably successful packaging.
Evian - it's water for god's sake. You can get it for free!

So my point is (in case you've missed it) is that it's a sad fact that modern western man has become conditioned to judge the quality of a product by its branding/ visual presentation. I do believe this translates into the world of web design.

How many threads are there on this forum where the poster has wanted to bring to our attention a stunningly beautiful/ clever design? I'll bet 9 times out of 10 nobody looked twice at the copy.

People don't have time for copy. All they want is to look at something, and make a snap decision: yes or no. Shall I hire this person? Shall I buy this product? They don't want to hear about how fantastic it is in great detail, they just want it to look pretty and successful, and for there to be a couple of correctly spelled words they can glance at in case they're not sure.

How many people read the ingredients/ menu when they buy from MacDonalds? How often do you read about the products you buy? Copy is there to add credibility to the brand, just in case someone decides to actually read it.

I wish it wasn't true I actually like copy...

[ErisDS]

Copy is not more important than design

It depends upon what your website is for.


I also agree with all the comments above which basically say that you cannot truly separate the two.

[wizely]

This thread has certainly got you folks thinking and has certainly done it's job for me. With just a few paragraphs of copy, a heading and a sub-heading put in the right place for the right target audience I have drawn lots of new people into Copy Corner and the first 'non-Wizely' thread is taking-off. I might even have helped some of you write better blogs if you noticed the lesson that was behind this thread! And none of this was achieved with design.

I'm interested in how 'design' has been interpretted as anything graphical and most of the evidence for the 'defence' seems to have wandered into the world of advertising and away from web design. TV advertising and packaging is an entirely different world to websites - no-one is going to read much copy in a 30 seconds ad or browsing the supermarket shelves.

Also, I think there is an understandable bias here toward 'cool design' and design-orientated sites - where design does indeed do the selling. But for commercial sites copy really is vital.

Just taking Amazon as a quick example... Is it design that sells the products? Descriptions of the products (and yes with photos of the product), ratings, reviews, comments... They are after as much User Generated Content as possible. They do this to overcome the 'trust' barrier that prevents many people from buying online - after all buying online is nearly always cheaper but many people prefer buying on the highstreet because they have more trust when they can see the product and talk to someone.

Would an online store with he most fantastic design but just a 'click here to buy' under a photo of a product do as well?

[Rob]

wizely, on Jun 1 2008, 00:22, said:

Would an online store with he most fantastic design but just a 'click here to buy' under a photo of a product do as well?

Yes, I believe it could. Take Threadless for example. There is a severe lack of copy, there is usually absolutely no copy relating to their products apart from the title – yet they are the most popular t-shirt website online.

It really depends on your market and what you're selling.