More and more sites I visit these days are "bootstrap" style, clearly designed primarily for mobile users and low on content detail.

 

That's fine for sites I view when on the move or sitting in front of the tv. But I spend the vast majority of my time on a lovely hi-res, large desktop monitor and browse for detail not highlights. Even major sites like sections of the BBC and Sky are now so much like large print books I actually can't read them and have to scroll endlessly to get at the "detail" which is often a short paragraph. I always end up feeling like someone's served me canapes and called it a three course meal.

 

How do handle lots of detail in your design and still look cool?

 

Thanks.

 

Paul

 

 

In 2014, for the first time ever, more Googles searches were conducted on mobile devices than they were on desktops. That means more people searched for and visited sites on their mobiles than ever before. Therefore it makes sense to design for mobile first as it's rapidly becoming the format of choice. If brands don't have a mobile-optimised site then that's a potential lost customer.

 

Competition on line is fierce, and people have shorter attention spans than they used to, so you need to say what you need to say as swiftly as possible. Generally I would try to say what needs to be said in the shortest amount of words, both to avoid boring visitors, but also to make my job as a designer easier – working with huge blocks of text in a digital format can be awkward at times.

and people have shorter attention spans than they used to

 

Hahaha yeah, made me smile ... "What do you mean I have to read"!

 

Hahaha yeah, made me smile ... "What do you mean I have to read"!

 

I'm guilty of it myself.

In 2014, for the first time ever, more Googles searches were conducted on mobile devices than they were on desktops. That means more people searched for and visited sites on their mobiles than ever before. Therefore it makes sense to design for mobile first as it's rapidly becoming the format of choice. If brands don't have a mobile-optimised site then that's a potential lost customer.

It's not as simple as that. According to http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php the predominant internet traffic is performed by users with 1366x768 displays or higher.

I think it depends on what type of content you provide. Users on mobile phones will be looking for very specific and concrete info. "When does the next train arrive", "Where can I buy gas", "Who made this song". Users on tablets and PCs will likely be the majority on sites with more "in depth content".

In other words: Users with small displays will not be browsing your portfolio of artwork or reading your scientific article. So it makes sense to optimize sites with such content for larger monitors

Edited November 25, 201411 yr by Nillervision

More and more sites I visit these days are "bootstrap" style, clearly designed primarily for mobile users and low on content detail.

 

That's fine for sites I view when on the move or sitting in front of the tv. But I spend the vast majority of my time on a lovely hi-res, large desktop monitor and browse for detail not highlights. Even major sites like sections of the BBC and Sky are now so much like large print books I actually can't read them and have to scroll endlessly to get at the "detail" which is often a short paragraph. I always end up feeling like someone's served me canapes and called it a three course meal.

 

How do handle lots of detail in your design and still look cool?

 

Thanks.

 

Paul

 

Design is not about 'detail' it's about serving the most important information in the fastest and most concise way. People don't want to spend ages reading loads of text, if they want more detail they would contact the company, less is most definitely more,

 

What about all that white space? Some might ask, when a designer designs stuff, how can they get away with doing so little? Well the truth is that they have not got away with anything, they would have researched and tested and checked the delivery method of the message, web and graphic design is about the delivery of messages in the fastest way, we use colour and form as well as typography to do this.

 

More closely to your question regarding responsive design, when you are surfing on a mobile device, most the time the people there are in a hurry, they don't want loads of text or images or there is some information that can be omitted for the sake of time or clarity, sometimes it's simply a case of remembering to K.I.S.S 'keep it simple stupid'.

^ couldn't agree more.

 

Before RWD came along we had sites stuffed to the brim with text, widgets, stuff, and more decoration than even Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen would add.

 

RWD brought along "focus", eliminating the bloat and concentrating on what information visitors actually need to complete their tasks. That in turn has led to simpler designer to achieve that focus. After all, most people use web sites for the content not the decoration!

Design is not about 'detail' it's about serving the most important information in the fastest and most concise way. People don't want to spend ages reading loads of text, if they want more detail they would contact the company, less is most definitely more,

 

That might be great for sales and marketing but our product is not easily "sumarised" and more importantly our site also serves our existing customers and which needs lots of supporting information about what's possible and how it's done. Virtually none of our customers use mobiles because designing on a mobile, or even a touchscreen desktop.

 

Surely design is about presenting the required material in an attractive and usable way not limiting the information to make the design look good. Less is easy but not always more IMO.

 

That might be great for sales and marketing but our product is not easily "sumarised" and more importantly our site also serves our existing customers and which needs lots of supporting information about what's possible and how it's done. Virtually none of our customers use mobiles because designing on a mobile, or even a touchscreen desktop.

 

Indeed, where you need to present a lot of information the fewer distractions the better, that's where good use of headings, bullet lists and so on come into play, making it easy for the customer to scan over a page looking for what they want. Not forgetting making key tasks and calls to action highly visible in appropriate places in any document.

 

Presenting things like support information is a bit of an art form in itself, especially if you have a "knowledgebase" type structure, but again it's all about enabling customers to complete a task with the minimum of distraction.

 

 

Surely design is about presenting the required material in an attractive and usable way not limiting the information to make the design look good. Less is easy but not always more IMO.

 

Absolutely, making things attractive is always good, but I'd say that content is always more important than the "design". As usual, there's always a trade off between content and presentation.

That might be great for sales and marketing but our product is not easily "sumarised" and more importantly our site also serves our existing customers and which needs lots of supporting information about what's possible and how it's done. Virtually none of our customers use mobiles because designing on a mobile, or even a touchscreen desktop. Surely design is about presenting the required material in an attractive and usable way not limiting the information to make the design look good. Less is easy but not always more IMO.

 

I am not talking about summarising the whole site, I am talking about the initial catch, this is who we are and this is what we do, you can create pages with further information if needed if it's presented right, you can create pages using just typography as long as it is not blubber, loads of text to scare people off and it's interesting then it can be done.

 

Design is about finding a suitable solution for your needs, even if your target audience do not use mobile devices that often it does not mean it should be excluded as those outside your target audience any be interested.

 

It has nothing to do with attractive, it has everything to do with suitable, we use principles in design that are made to attract so as any good designer would be using these anyway we concentrate on communication, simply so we don't have to concentrate on things looking attractive.

 

There is no trade off between content and presentation, that statement is false, it's all about the content and how it's presented, nothing is more important than the content as long as the content is suitable and relevant, Using skills to present any material in a suitable mannor is the goal and design is able to do that, if it does not do that then it's not good design

 

Believe it or not, a lot of things said in text can be converted into some form of graphic, making long pages of text a thing of the past to add interest and function.

While design frameworks will take a lot of the blame for the majority of new websites looking 'samey', a framework is nothing more than a guide and set of rules that you can either choose to follow or not - there are some fantastic, creative sites out there built with frameworks but unfortunately in a lot of cases there is also a serious lack of creativity too.

 

 

As well as frameworks, the blame can also be put on clients and sometimes even the designers. Clients may love that look that their competitors use, it's up to the designer to persuade them to go another direction because having a site that looks exactly like your competitors isn't going to help their brand or selling points stand out. Designers are guilty of it for the same reason if slightly different that they'll see a nice site and think 'oh thats how its meant to be done' and copy the same layout over and over and over … which is how we end up with over used and sometimes unwarranted trends.

While design frameworks will take a lot of the blame for the majority of new websites looking 'samey', a framework is nothing more than a guide and set of rules that you can either choose to follow or not - there are some fantastic, creative sites out there built with frameworks but unfortunately in a lot of cases there is also a serious lack of creativity too.

 

 

As well as frameworks, the blame can also be put on clients and sometimes even the designers. Clients may love that look that their competitors use, it's up to the designer to persuade them to go another direction because having a site that looks exactly like your competitors isn't going to help their brand or selling points stand out. Designers are guilty of it for the same reason if slightly different that they'll see a nice site and think 'oh thats how its meant to be done' and copy the same layout over and over and over … which is how we end up with over used and sometimes unwarranted trends.

 

The problem I have with these frameworks like Bootstrap and so forth (I prefer to call them products rather than a framework) is that they make to many design decisions for you. A true framework does not make design decisions.

An example for backend: WordPress, Expression engines are products using php. Zend and Symfony are frameworks.

 

A true css framework does not make design decisions, check out inuit.css that is a true css framework. I spent a whole evening discussing this with Harry Roberts at a developer conference last month and this was the conclusion we came to.

 

Bootsrap type products are very useful for rapid prototyping, or for those who build systems and just need a UI package that just works. Or for those who don't want to write any css.

For building custom website from scratch they become a hinderance, you end up with very bloated, poorly organised css and spend a lot of your time undoing styles, which means you lose the benefit of the cascade. It took a few months of persuasion to move my agency away from Bootstrap, but now our css is far more manaageable, with a large 60+% reduction in filesize.

 

I don't personally buy into the whole mobile first philosophy, it's useful to those who are new to responsive design but I prefer to make sure every device gets the best possible experience, when viewed on a mobile or tablet it should feel like a native app. on desktop it should also feel like a fully fledged desktop site, not a larger version of the mobile site. A lot of these mobile first websites are guilty of having poor desktop experience. I'm not saying mobile first is wrong as there are plenty of examples that prove that it can be great, but the problem is the majority put all the emphasis on the mobile experience.

Edited November 27, 201411 yr by rbrtsmith

Good points, Fuzzy Logic, but in reality few sites do this. Too many seem to take the shortest development route as long as it looks good - actually no, as long as it looks up to date. The priority is the look and feel and not the content. And in that I'm afraid I agree with Bobby Anderson - templates make it easy so it's cheaper and that means more sites get designed that way and so it becomes a self-fulfilling, but unwarranted, trend. The current trend is not just mobile-first, it's mobile-only and IMO that's as bad as no-mobile at all.

 

And I'm talking about major corporate sites with a lot of information to present. I can forgive a B2C site but if a B2B site is solely and obviously a mobile-specific design and a desktop visitor can't even take it in the front page properly then that's bad design.

 

Is it really so difficult to have both desktop or mobile versions? We bemoan sites that are not mobile-friendly but not those which then simply ignore their desktop visitors.

 

Personally I think section headings with expanding DIV with the detail in, is probably the answer for us but I've yet to play around with the idea and unless someone can persuade me otherwise we will be doing a separate mobile site with a lots less content.

You are right, too many do take 'the shortest route' and they do put priority on looks and not content, but those who do that are not designers, they are self taught hacks that believe design is simply pretty stuff.

 

In reality there are few and far between actual designers, ones who understand what design is, it's abilities and its true intentions.

 

An example of this would be those who make templates to sell on mass to places like themeforest, they make very pretty sites that look as if they could fulfil the quota for any small business looking to have a website online for cheap but the reality is that these templates may be completely unsuitable in fact, even using the word 'maybe' is false, they are completely unsuitable because it would never tie in with the companies image or ethos, it would never satisfy the clients needs because when it was made it was just random garbage picked together to look nice, sure it does look nice but that does not make it web or graphic design, it makes it closer to art, art is a form of expression from yourself, graphic design is a form of expression interpreted from a brief, researched for suitability and planned to satisfy an end goal.

 

Just to add, when developing its just as fast to create a responsive site as it is a non responsive site so there really is no reason not to do the responsive site, you build them both together at the same time, it's simply a slightly different coding method and a few extra CSS (media) quieries, better to have a responsive site with a few bits of missing information than not to have a responsive site and lose potential business over something so silly not to mention looking un-professional, those who design mobile sites but don't design desktop sites are fools imo.

An example of this would be those who make templates to sell on mass to places like themeforest, they make very pretty sites that look as if they could fulfil the quota for any small business looking to have a website online for cheap but the reality is that these templates may be completely unsuitable in fact, even using the word 'maybe' is false, they are completely unsuitable because it would never tie in with the companies image or ethos, it would never satisfy the clients needs because when it was made it was just random garbage picked together to look nice, sure it does look nice but that does not make it web or graphic design, it makes it closer to art, art is a form of expression from yourself, graphic design is a form of expression interpreted from a brief, researched for suitability and planned to satisfy an end goal.

 

Templates fill a need though. In an ideal world we'd all be working with clients who have unlimited budgets, but the truth is not all clients can afford (or sadly want) to pay a designer. Templates and such-like fill that gap in the market.

 

I agree with your thinking, but I'm not against templates – they're a way for designers to make some money from their skills when the client doesn't want or have the means for a bespoke service. The other option is the client attempting to do it themselves with a WYSIWYG editor or using something like Wix, which cuts out the need for a designer completely.

Templates don't fill a need, they fill a want, if people want a website for their clients to view their products then they can use a template but their needs would never be filled. The difference between a need and a want is the belief that it will do their busienss some good, a want is 'I want to get my information out there' a need is 'how can I get that information out there to attract my audience'.

 

The biggest issues is that people think that templates are a viable business solution and therefore believe quite wrongly that anyone can design or that anyone can simply throw anything up and get a response from the audience. If someone chooses a template knowing that then I have no problem, just don't expect results but what is wrong with it is that misled belief that design is something everyone can do as long as they know how to use some software.

 

There are also those that believe so much that they know how to design they offer it as a service, then clients use that service believing they will get results but finding out they don't get the results they should get, what happens then is a stigma against actual designers that designers are simply there to make things look pretty and the clients may as well do it themselves by purchasing templates which of course are offered by people who tend to practice art, not graphic design and don't even realise it.

Templates don't fill a need, they fill a want, if people want a website for their clients to view their products then they can use a template but their needs would never be filled. The difference between a need and a want is the belief that it will do their busienss some good, a want is 'I want to get my information out there' a need is 'how can I get that information out there to attract my audience'.

 

I think you're splitting hairs a little with that definition. The need they fill is for a low-budget web-presence. If a client needs a website to display their products and they use a template to do that, then that has need has been satisfied. It may not benefit their business as much as a bespoke design, but to assume it won't provide them with results is ridiculous.

 

If these 'people' you mention really think that pre-made templates are viable business solutions, then they're clearly not the target market for the majority of professional designers and studios. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that believe design is easy and about lining things up, but these people are not my target market. They have low-budgets and high-expectations, and therefore will not affect my business. They would do a runner at the mere mention of our studio rate, so it's no skin off our nose. We work with clients who understand what we do and are prepared to pay for a bespoke, professional, B2B service and don't concern ourselves with those that don't.

 

The point I was making was not everyone is in a position to hire a designer, even the cheapest, so they have to find other solutions, and templates are that solution. It's the same with cheap logos. It's easy to assume that they lower the market's opinion of professional design, but they serve a particular need. It really doesn't affect the industry because that market is not the professionals' market.

No, I'm certainly not 'splitting hairs' there is a definite difference in definition between wants and needs.

 

If for example your pipes burst in your house, would you simply go 'I can't afford a plumber so I will use some plastic tubing to fix it myself for now' no, you wouldn't because you know that firstly it would not do the job to fill the need to stop the burst pipe, you would pay out for a qualified plumber to do it and secondly even if it stopped it temporarily it will more than likely not hold out very long.

 

A want, in plumbing for example is, 'I want to have a new shower put in', business needs are something that's a requirement, not an option, it is not a requirement to have a website for most businesses, but if they do have one, it should be targeted towards their audience and their goals, then it's a need

 

If a client cannot afford a designer then for the sake of their businesses reputation, branding and status they should not have a website, there are other forms of great temporary marketing mediums out there, like social media (there is your low budget web presence, one that won't help destroy the company reputation), it's their business reputation in the line when it is not suitable and sends the complete wrong impression.

 

Of course, private websites don't fit into that bracket but they should still not expect the same results as if they had a properly designed site.

 

It does effect all designers markets, if a small business loses faith in designers because of a bad 'designer' then that business might never hire a designer again, effecting not only the designers but that business too, they will also pass their experiences with other business owners and the cycle continues

In short I do think that templates fill a need:

 

A custom site will always be a better solution, but the initial investment is far higher.

But a template based site is still better than no website at all. If there is no budget for a custom website then that's where a template based website can come in. Of course if the company grows then they should look to invest in a custom website that will get better conversion rates. If there was no market for template based sites then companies like Wix would cease to exist, but they do exist and they are thriving.

 

There are also big companies around that started off with template based websites, Their image was not tarnished, not all template based websites look terrible.

 

The worst thing a new company can do is blow all of it's available cash on a custom website. In business cash is everything, if you run out of it it's game over. Doesn't matter how good your website, idea or product is. run out of money and you're done. So that is why a template based website could be a good idea for a business with a tight budget.

Edited November 30, 201411 yr by rbrtsmith

In short I do think that templates fill a need:

 

A custom site will always be a better solution, but the initial investment is far higher.

But a template based site is still better than no website at all. If there is no budget for a custom website then that's where a template based website can come in. Of course if the company grows then they should look to invest in a custom website that will get better conversion rates. If there was no market for template based sites then companies like Wix would cease to exist, but they do exist and they are thriving.

 

There are also big companies around that started off with template based websites, Their image was not tarnished, not all template based websites look terrible.

 

The worst thing a new company can do is blow all of it's available cash on a custom website. In business cash is everything, if you run out of it it's game over. Doesn't matter how good your website, idea or product is. run out of money and you're done. So that is why a template based website could be a good idea for a business with a tight budget.

I think the discussion is a little mis understood as to my meaning, let me clarity a little more

 

The biggest issue with templates is that the people buying them actually believe it's a suitable solution to solving their needs, that is what is wrong, as they don't know the difference between a need and a want, a need is something that will improve the business, it will fill a gap that they are currently not filling, whilst a pre made template cannot do that because the creator does not know what the busiensses needs are and therefore cannot target them, they just know that they want content online, but content online does not fill a need, it fills a want on the pure basis that the need is unknown.

 

Business owners who never went to business school (as in business school they do learn that design is communication) do not know what design is, they don't realise that it's communication and therefore would not have the first idea on how to choose a design that fills their needs even if they saw it, even if they knew what design is they would not have the skills nessersary to understand the principles that would fulfil their needs.

 

This might help you understand where I am coming from

 

As a designer Ive been always a firm believer that there is no good design which is not based on a deep understanding of the people who will be using the thing I am designing. Understanding them and their context enables me as a designer to create something which is meaningful and relevant to my audience.

 

The confusion | Now there seems to always be confusion between what people want and what people need. Asking a person or a group of people (e.g. with a questionnaire) what they want, or what they think about something you have confronted them with will sure give you some valuable insights you should always take on board in your design project. But this will not tell you anything about their actual needs.

 

Ice cream at 8:30 am | Last summer I was on holiday with my son in Italy. When on holiday I tend to be, as most parents are, a bit more relaxed about what he eats (candy, ice cream etc) as thats what holidays are for, right? So one morning after getting out of bed and making breakfast I ask my son what he would like to eat. His response was ice-cream! Mind you this was 8:30 am!!! Now as a responsible parent I did not give him ice cream, but prepared him some cereals with milk. He complained, of course, but I know I did the right thing.

 

Now back to the topic

 

My son is not yet aware of what he NEEDS to grow up in a healthy way. What nutrients he needs that will give him enough fuel for the day. I have to have a deeper understanding about what is good for him in order to look beyond what he says he wants and actually provide him with what he needs to grow up a healthy child.

 

This is no different when designing anything for people. People often do not know exactly what it is they need.

 

So how do we surface these needs?

 

Now that we have cleared up this confusion, what remains is looking into where to start to uncover the needs that people have. Researching cultural, people, societal, economic and technological trends is where to start. Making future projections of what the drivers and motivations will be of people in the future will enable us to see things that people themselves do not yet see.

 

Use these drivers to inspire your ideas and design and let the creativity flow. Once the ideas materialize, this is when you want to confront people from your audience with your design to understand if what youve created resonates with them and to be able to gather the right insights to further tweak and finalize your design

Please excuse the quote, the website url kept looking dead whenever I posted it.

 

By the way, sites like wix survive because of exactly the reasons I have stated above, businesses don't realise the damage they can cause to their own businesses and simply look for a cheap option, they also don't understand the difference between a want and a need, this is why I stated that there are very few actual designers out there because if you can't even understand a basic principle like wants and needs you can't be a designer.

So if customers need an in-depth desktop website but want a trendy-looking bootstrap one you think you'd win the business charging extra for something you simply tell them they should have? And do you think you'd be right and they'd be wrong?

 

Because my point is that design is often a trend-based thing and customers will want whatever looks on trend and rarely accept what they need and certainly don't want to spend extra for it.

 

And the problem arises when their want is so far from what they need as in mobile vs desktop web design. What has surprised me is the level which quite major companies appear to have got it so wrong. A site which completely ignores it's desktop users is as bad as one which ignores mobile users (unless you know the volume of one or other visitor type is so low that it does not warrant the cost). Some companies seem to think that just because a mobile website will also display on a desktop that a mobile-focus solves the problem.

 

So if customers need an in-depth desktop website but want a trendy-looking bootstrap one you think you'd win the business charging extra for something you simply tell them they should have? And do you think you'd be right and they'd be wrong?

 

Because my point is that design is often a trend-based thing and customers will want whatever looks on trend and rarely accept what they need and certainly don't want to spend extra for it.

 

And the problem arises when their want is so far from what they need as in mobile vs desktop web design. What has surprised me is the level which quite major companies appear to have got it so wrong. A site which completely ignores it's desktop users is as bad as one which ignores mobile users (unless you know the volume of one or other visitor type is so low that it does not warrant the cost). Some companies seem to think that just because a mobile website will also display on a desktop that a mobile-focus solves the problem.

 

I am sorry but your ideas about design could not be further from the truth

 

When it comes to trend, a designer has to look at not just what is on trend now but also what could be in the future, an example of a very short lived trend would be long shadows under a logo, stuck around for about five minutes and then was gone. If I had built a website and used their suggestion that they wanted a long shadow for example, I would have warned about this fact but not nessersary told them 'you can't have it' I would have looked into it further, analysed whether it fits their brand and considered what it would look like if they have long shadows and long shadows come off trend. A website could look out of date very quickly if you simply followed what is on trend at the time, it's ok for large popular websites or web designers as they can afford to change their logo every week if they wanted, but for the normal busienss, it's simply not an option.

 

It's not about charging more. It's about creating something suitable on budget, there could obviously be suggestions on whether something might work better but might cost a little more, design is about working within limits like money (within fair reason - you would not expect to buy a 10 bedroom house for £500 would you), but again, that does not have to restrict a need.

 

Quite frankly any site that ignores either desktop or mobile users are fools as since responsive web design they are created at the same time, it's all one and the same, a reactive website is not one and the same, but responsive is.

 

By the way, bootstrap is not a trend, it's a framework / grid, and there are loads of them out there that do exactly the same job, in fact the majority don't have such heavy features either, they are streamlined to simply help you, using a grid, something design has been doing for years, all design.

Mobile-first is to prioritise content and focus on usability across all platforms, not to actually put all of your efforts into a single version and hope it scales up.

 

I think that makes complete sense, if something isn't needed on the mobile view, why include it on the desktop? Or, why would we choose to make the desktop experience more involved than the mobile? What benefit does that have to anyone?

 

Personally I think section headings with expanding DIV with the detail in, is probably the answer for us but I've yet to play around with the idea and unless someone can persuade me otherwise we will be doing a separate mobile site with a lots less content.

Why reduce the content on a mobile only site, and provide the desktop users with more content to sift through? It's the same information we're looking for, we all want the quickest way to get to it, despite what device we're using.

 

This is taken from mobile first:

 

Mobile devices require software development teams to focus on only the most important data and actions in an application. There simply isn't room in a 320 by 480 pixel screen for extraneous, unnecessary elements. You have to prioritize.

 

So when a team designs mobile first, the end result is an experience focused on the key tasks users want to accomplish without the extraneous detours and general interface debris that litter today's desktop-accessed Web sites. That's good user experience and good for business.

 

 

You do need to ensure that the desktop experience isn't sub-par, but that isn't to do with responsive, bootstrap or mobile first. That's a design issue, and a lack of user testing. There are so many sites that get it right, some don't, but that has always been the case, even way before responsive design.

Mobile-first is to prioritise content and focus on usability across all platforms, not to actually put all of your efforts into a single version and hope it scales up. I think that makes complete sense, if something isn't needed on the mobile view, why include it on the desktop? Or, why would we choose to make the desktop experience more involved than the mobile? What benefit does that have to anyone? Why reduce the content on a mobile only site, and provide the desktop users with more content to sift through? It's the same information we're looking for, we all want the quickest way to get to it, despite what device we're using. This is taken from mobile first: You do need to ensure that the desktop experience isn't sub-par, but that isn't to do with responsive, bootstrap or mobile first. That's a design issue, and a lack of user testing. There are so many sites that get it right, some don't, but that has always been the case, even way before responsive design.

Perfectly said

Of course there are some websites where detail is counter-productive - that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that by designing mobile-only some sites are providing a desktop experience which is sub-par - too much space, too much scrolling because a desktop screen doesn't have swipe and images too big to take in fully when viewed on a big monitor. Further I think that this is motivated by a desire to look "on trend".

 

I think the attitude that responsive web design magically makes the site OK for both mobile and desktop users is misguided and is probably the reason some sites are becoming painful to visit. Good responsive web design works well for both perhaps but really good design provides a different experience. As an example, the main BBC site works well for me (not just headlines, but keynote paragraphs for me to decide if that's what I want to read) but it delivers a different style of site for desktop and for mobile. But take a look at the iWonder section and this is definitely mobile-only. For this to be a comfortable read on a desktop I have to resize my browser and I have to scroll to get to the extra information when a click-carousel would be easier.

. Good responsive web design works well for both perhaps but really good design provides a different experience.

Sorry but you are wrong again, people want to be able to swap between one device and another in a seamless experience, they don't want to learn how to use the same website on two or more platforms, why do you think Apple supply ios as an example across both iPad and iPhone, obviously when it comes to versions of desktop and mobile in computer development it sometimes requires a seperate solution, although Microsoft don't think so.

 

Web is different in respects that without reducing accessibility, useability and UX we can create one website that does it all, I mean seriously, how annoyed would you get if you went from let's say Ms word to Ms excel and the menus or design were so different that in order to use it you had to learn everything again?

 

It's about branding, continuity, fast access to information, familiarity, comfort and most impotantly delivering the information in the fastest possible way, this all packaged as a small part of user experience.

Mobile-first is to prioritise content and focus on usability across all platforms, not to actually put all of your efforts into a single version and hope it scales up.

 

I think that makes complete sense, if something isn't needed on the mobile view, why include it on the desktop? Or, why would we choose to make the desktop experience more involved than the mobile? What benefit does that have to anyone?

 

 

Why reduce the content on a mobile only site, and provide the desktop users with more content to sift through? It's the same information we're looking for, we all want the quickest way to get to it, despite what device we're using.

 

This is taken from mobile first:

 

 

 

 

You do need to ensure that the desktop experience isn't sub-par, but that isn't to do with responsive, bootstrap or mobile first. That's a design issue, and a lack of user testing. There are so many sites that get it right, some don't, but that has always been the case, even way before responsive design.

 

 

Really good example there. I will add, sometimes it is useful to hide certain things on mobile because we don't want super tall pages. Things like advertisements or aside information I tend to hide, or make it that you can toggle that section. It all depends on the application but I usually go with the ability to toggle sections on a mobile. Things like modules that display article exerpts I tend to just show an image and the title on mobile, and add a short exerpt of the article on larger screens.

 

I think it's all a bit of a gray area. what's important is that we provide a great user experience on all devices, the way we do this will differ from project to project.

Of course there are some websites where detail is counter-productive - that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that by designing mobile-only some sites are providing a desktop experience which is sub-par - too much space, too much scrolling because a desktop screen doesn't have swipe and images too big to take in fully when viewed on a big monitor. Further I think that this is motivated by a desire to look "on trend".

 

I think the attitude that responsive web design magically makes the site OK for both mobile and desktop users is misguided and is probably the reason some sites are becoming painful to visit. Good responsive web design works well for both perhaps but really good design provides a different experience. As an example, the main BBC site works well for me (not just headlines, but keynote paragraphs for me to decide if that's what I want to read) but it delivers a different style of site for desktop and for mobile. But take a look at the iWonder section and this is definitely mobile-only. For this to be a comfortable read on a desktop I have to resize my browser and I have to scroll to get to the extra information when a click-carousel would be easier.

I tend to agree. As a desktop user I used to be able to read about a brands identity, vision, mision, history etc. Now it all that content is often summed up in a quote in big types spanning the entire viewport which makes me feel like I'm looking at a poster rather than browsing a webpage.

I'm to lazy to find examples right now but I also see the signs of a trend here. I can't say if it's caused by RWD, popular bootstrap templates or something else but web designers (guilty myself) has always had a weakness for trends. Remember all the pointless Flash intros 10 years ago?

Edited December 7, 201411 yr by Nillervision

I tend to agree. As a desktop user I used to be able to read about a brands identity, vision, mision, history etc. Now it all that content is often summed up in a quote in big types spanning the entire viewport which makes me feel like I'm looking at a poster rather than browsing a webpage.

I'm to lazy to find examples right now but I also see the signs of a trend here. I can't say if it's caused by RWD, popular bootstrap templates or something else but web designers (guilty myself) has always had a weakness for trends. Remember all the pointless Flash intros 10 years ago?

Very true about the fact they are beginning to be a little like posters but that's what people want, they want the information as fast as possible, people these days are in a hurry but if there is information missing that the audience believe should be included they have not asked their audience the right questions.

 

i think you guys are again getting confused, bootstrap is not a trend, it's a grid, and as I said before grids have been used in design for years, but it's only in the last 10 or so years that the grid has taken hold in web design. Bootstrap is probebly being confused as a trend because people are starting to see it as an option, they see other websites that have used it and how nice they are and decide to use it themselves, the problem is that they don't really understand a grid, they don't realise that sometimes it's ok to break out of the grid and a grid does not have to be square or equally spaced all the time in order to create something a little different, meaning that some or most of the sites created look really generic.

 

An example of a trend as well as the long shadows I mentioned above is flat design, but even this is questionable as flat design has been around since the 1950's in fact the principles were based of Bauhaus, which in its minimist structure we base design on today, using geometric shapes and Johannes Itten colour theory. So, although flat design has been around for much longer than most people in web realise, as it's being applied in a new way, ie online, is it a trend or still a movement?

 

In summary when someone states that something is a trend when it's clearly not it is showing that they don't know the history of graphic design and therefore maybe it's the understanding of design and how to use it that's flawd and not the principles.

 

Here is a really good read about the sort of thing I mean http://designshack.net/articles/layouts/ditching-the-grid-alternate-layout-strategies-and-tips/

Very true about the fact they are beginning to be a little like posters but that's what people want, they want the information as fast as possible, people these days are in a hurry but if there is information missing that the audience believe should be included they have not asked their audience the right questions.

 

i think you guys are again getting confused, bootstrap is not a trend, it's a grid, and as I said before grids have been used in design for years, but it's only in the last 10 or so years that the grid has taken hold in web design. Bootstrap is probebly being confused as a trend because people are starting to see it as an option, they see other websites that have used it and how nice they are and decide to use it themselves, the problem is that they don't really understand a grid, they don't realise that sometimes it's ok to break out of the grid and a grid does not have to be square or equally spaced all the time in order to create something a little different, meaning that some or most of the sites created look really generic.

 

An example of a trend as well as the long shadows I mentioned above is flat design, but even this is questionable as flat design has been around since the 1950's in fact the principles were based of Bauhaus, which in its minimist structure we base design on today, using geometric shapes and Johannes Itten colour theory. So, although flat design has been around for much longer than most people in web realise, as it's being applied in a new way, ie online, is it a trend or still a movement?

 

In summary when someone states that something is a trend when it's clearly not it is showing that they don't know the history of graphic design and therefore maybe it's the understanding of design and how to use it that's flawd and not the principles.

 

Here is a really good read about the sort of thing I mean http://designshack.net/articles/layouts/ditching-the-grid-alternate-layout-strategies-and-tips/

 

I agree with everything apart from your assessment of Bootstrap. it's far, far more than a grid. when you abstract the grid you are still left with over 97% of the CSS. Bootstrap is a product, first and foremost and that's why a lot of sites built on Bootstrap typically look alike.

The issue I have with Bootstrap is that it makes way too many design decisions and you have to hack away at the CSS to undo this styling if you want to customise anything other than colour schemes. This is a very bad way to work. What Bootstrap is great for however is those who don't want to write any CSS or JS and just need some kind of UI that looks acceptable and works.

Frameworks like Inuit are far better suited to building a custom UI.

 

I know this about Boostrap because I was using it for a good 6-8 months in this manner before I dropped it and built my own framework. Now the average CSS on a project is less than a fifth of what you get with a Bootstrap project, and far easier to maintain.

Edited December 7, 201411 yr by rbrtsmith

...i think you guys are again getting confused, bootstrap is not a trend, it's a grid, and as I said before grids have been used in design for years, but it's only in the last 10 or so years that the grid has taken hold in web design. Bootstrap is probebly being confused as a trend because people are starting to see it as an option, they see other websites that have used it and how nice they are and decide to use it themselves, the problem is that they don't really understand a grid, they don't realise that sometimes it's ok to break out of the grid and a grid does not have to be square or equally spaced all the time in order to create something a little different, meaning that some or most of the sites created look really generic.

 

An example of a trend as well as the long shadows I mentioned above is flat design, but even this is questionable as flat design has been around since the 1950's in fact the principles were based of Bauhaus, which in its minimist structure we base design on today, using geometric shapes and Johannes Itten colour theory. So, although flat design has been around for much longer than most people in web realise, as it's being applied in a new way, ie online, is it a trend or still a movement? ...

I'm familiar with the design movements of the era of modernism and agree that flat webdesign is very influenced by Bauhaus, as well as Constructivism, Minimalism and the Swiss typographic styles. But it's besides the point. I am not talking about design but how design trends influences content (or rather the lack of content) and from what I read OP is talking about the same. In my opnion a design trend (new or old) should not influence the amount of content.

Edited December 7, 201411 yr by Nillervision

I'm familiar with the design movements of the modernism era and agree that flat webdesign is very influenced by Bauhaus, as well as Constructivism, Minimalism and the Swiss typographic styles. But it's besides the point. I am not talking about design but how design trends influence content (or rather the lack of content) and from what I read OP is talking about the same. In my opnion a design trend (new or old) should not influence the amount of content.

 

Agreed. I think this also stems from something I mentioned earlier in this thread. A problem that I commonly see on mobile first sites is that the desktop version is severely lacking, they have just taken the mobile UI and made everything bigger. There's no reason why you cannot show more content on larger screens, as long as you make the content accessible in someway to mobile users, like toggling an area or maybe on a subpage.

 

Yes people want information fast - but they want information not just a quick headline or a slogan. You have to design things in such a manner that the content is easy to access. Of course everything is project dependant, but I've seen plenty of examples where they have got it wrong and I've been left wanting more information but not able to get it.

I'm familiar with the design movements of the era of modernism and agree that flat webdesign is very influenced by Bauhaus, as well as Constructivism, Minimalism and the Swiss typographic styles. But it's besides the point. I am not talking about design but how design trends influences content (or rather the lack of content) and from what I read OP is talking about the same. In my opnion a design trend (new or old) should not influence the amount of content.

I agree, and if a site is properly designed, it won't and shouldn't, I only pointed out that what is being referred to in this sense ie bootstrap, is being referred to as a trend when it's not a trend, its a grid. Design trends should not influence any part of content unless it's suitable and not distracting from the content, but in most cases, a grid should influence design.

 

I think the confusion is over the fact bootstrap has so many extra features, much more than just a grid causes this.

I agree, and if a site is properly designed, it won't and shouldn't, I only pointed out that what is being referred to in this sense ie bootstrap, is being referred to as a trend when it's not a trend, its a grid. Design trends should not influence any part of content unless it's suitable and not distracting from the content, but in most cases, a grid should influence design.

 

I think the confusion is over the fact bootstrap has so many extra features, much more than just a grid causes this.

 

Fuzzy I already put in the post above, BS is not just a grid it does come with a trend seen as it's a product and has already made a lot of design decisions for the user. the grid is literally only 3% of the css. Hence why it can be easy to spot sites built on Bootstrap.

Edited December 8, 201411 yr by rbrtsmith

Since we all agree that the user experience should not suffer from neither trends or screen resolutions it's only fair to say that Fuzzy has got a point when suggesting that users often want the information fast as possible. And a good design definitely can eliminate the need for large text blocks (an image says more than a thousand words).

I believe the key is to understand the message that should be communicated as well as the users preferences and then try to present the message in the most suitable media/format.

Fuzzy I already put in the post above, BS is not just a grid it does come with a trend seen as it's a product and has already made a lot of design decisions for the user. the grid is literally only 3% of the css. Hence why it can be easy to spot sites built on Bootstrap.

Bootstrap has a trend for usage but not for design, like Dreamweaver for example it produces visual design but just because a lot of people use it that does not make it a design trend, that makes it a tool. A trend by definition is a consistent entity (much like branding) with a set 'template' that says "do this in order to make it look trendy" bootstrap offers multiple tools for design but it's not set that you must use certain ones to be trendy, if websites look the same it's because the person using the tool does not know how to make something more unique, a lack of creativity does not make it a trend. ( although a lack of creativity amongst it's users could be referred to as a trend)

Bootstrap has a trend for usage but not for design, like Dreamweaver for example it produces visual design but just because a lot of people use it that does not make it a design trend, that makes it a tool. A trend by definition is a consistent entity (much like branding) with a set 'template' that says "do this in order to make it look trendy" bootstrap offers multiple tools for design but it's not set that you must use certain ones to be trendy, if websites look the same it's because the person using the tool does not know how to make something more unique, a lack of creativity does not make it a trend. ( although a lack of creativity amongst it's users could be referred to as a trend)

 

I get what you're saying, but Bootstrap is not intended for the CSS to be heavily modifed, It's target market is for those who just want to write a quick ui and to write it all in the HTML. If you start to modify the CSS then you should not be using BS and instead be using a true framework like Inuit or be building your own from scratch. I discussed this at length with Harry Roberts, one of the leading font-end devs in Europe, if not the world and that, more or less was his assessment of Bootstrap and I totally agree with him. You can include certain parts and change variables like colours, but you shouldn't be changing the core CSS files.

 

I know it's not a trend as such but because BS is so popular you do see a lot of 'Bootstrap' sites around, i'm not just talking about the order of things either, the navbars all look alike, the modals all look alike, sliders and so on.. Ours didn't have this appearence because I heavily modified the CSS, but the resulting code was not at all optimised. then having learnt the error of my ways I went and started from scratch, the CSS on an average project is now less than 1/5th what it was when hacking away at BS

Edited December 8, 201411 yr by rbrtsmith

 

I know it's not a trend as such but because BS is so popular you do see a lot of 'Bootstrap' sites around, i'm not just talking about the order of things either, the navbars all look alike, the modals all look alike, sliders and so on.

 

That was my first thought when I was first introduced to it – "Wow, these sites all look the same"

Sorry but you are wrong again, people want to be able to swap between one device and another in a seamless experience, they don't want to learn how to use the same website on two or more platforms, why do you think Apple supply ios as an example across both iPad and iPhone, obviously when it comes to versions of desktop and mobile in computer development it sometimes requires a seperate solution, although Microsoft don't think so.

 

Web is different in respects that without reducing accessibility, useability and UX we can create one website that does it all, I mean seriously, how annoyed would you get if you went from let's say Ms word to Ms excel and the menus or design were so different that in order to use it you had to learn everything again?

 

It's about branding, continuity, fast access to information, familiarity, comfort and most impotantly delivering the information in the fastest possible way, this all packaged as a small part of user experience.

 

I have a different opinion but not sure that makes me wrong Actually I think we're talking about different things - you're highlighting best practice and I'm pointing out that doesn't always happen.

 

A "seamless" experience does not necessarily mean the same experience. And I'm not sure your example holds up - the menus are often the first things to change on a RWD website. However, I am not arguing that it is not possible to create a website which does it all, I am suggesting that, in practice, some client-designer partnerships are happy with a very template-based solution. Which is usually influenced by whatever the current "trend" is and at the moment that is designs influenced by Bootstrap and similar grid-based RWD. These are mobile-centric designs which have in turn resulted in websites which look like posters as Nillervision points out.

 

Incidentally, I'd probably characterize Bauhaus as a movement not a trend. I was using trend as "a general direction of things" not "trendy".

A "seamless" experience does not necessarily mean the same experience.

Incidentally, I'd probably characterize Bauhaus as a movement not a trend. I was using trend as "a general direction of things" not "trendy".

 

All true, seamless experience does not necessarily mean the same experience, but if you have a website on a desktop and a website on a mobile it has to be recognisable as the same place using things like branding making for a seamless experience.

 

You are also right that Bauhaus "was" is a movement but as design today is "influenced" heavily by Bauhaus it is in a sense "trendy" to use it, it was "trendy" to use pop art in the 1950's and 60's and that was a movement and not a trend.

 

I am suggesting that, in practice, some client-designer partnerships are happy with a very template-based solution.

 

of course they are, they think its a solution to a problem when in reality it solves very little.

 

Which is usually influenced by whatever the current "trend" is and at the moment that is designs influenced by Bootstrap and similar grid-based RWD.

 

As I have stated above, the influence is not based on the software but rather the restriction people think exists here is an example of a very generic bootstrap theme built by someone who obviously is not a designer but knows how to use bootstrap

 

http://htmlcoder.me/preview/idea/v.1.0/

 

Very bland and very "bootstrap"

 

now lets look at two works of an actual designers

 

http://jandbeyond.org/

http://redantler.com/

 

these to me, have much more imagination, especially in the context that one of them for example has images that reach to the edge of your browser rather than being stuck in the middle like most bootstrap themes.

 

The template uses 'trendy' features, the other two stand out because they choose not to, there is the difference between design and non design, the ability to be more creative even when using what some might refer to as 'restrictive' software.