skin deep design

… serves us best.

Getting the visual themes, balance and details somewhat right may be all one has to master in web design, as that is after all what the majority of visitors see and judge sites by. That is; if they notice much of the design at all while focusing on content or latest super deals on offer.
The old “content is king” mantra still holds up.

Much has been written about visual web design, but in the end good web design serves only one purpose: to assist in serving content the best way possible.
Now we only need some great content providers to complete the loop…

The more sense a web page makes at source-code level, the easier it is to – literally – create an artificial structure and stretch a visual design over it before serving. Visual reordering of content carrying elements relative to source-code order may work in some cases, but it is rarely ever optimal. The “only the visual matters” trap is very real, and easy to fall into while designing.

NOTE: I still miss some flexibility surrounding CSS floats order – no real improvements in 20 years seems a bit daft, but I can live with what we have.

simplicity wins

There is no single “right” formula for good web designs – neither outcomes nor methods involved, only a range from good to acceptable to bad and worse ways to build up and serve a design.

Less is almost always more in web design, but if done well and balanced, a lot of visual details can be added before it gets overloaded. In most cases the trick is to stick with one theme and style throughout, and avoid distracting from the main content.

Sites focusing on a single range of subjects, may do fine with strong emphasis on that subject-range in its visual design. Most sites provide the best impression with toned-down and more or less subject-neutral designs though.

NOTE: I could have lightened the design a lot on this site and got it right. But, as this is a “live browser test” as much as a platform for delivering content, quite a few seemingly superfluous, overdone, and often altered or replaced visual details are crammed in for testing purposes.

the wider range

Over the last couple of decades, what can be included on a web site to design around or leave as stand-alone apps, has (of course) increased and evolved in complexity. Makes the old “web page” function less and less like a page, and more like a delivery-box in a warehouse for which adresses must be provided.

That the ranges of screens, devices and apps have widen tremendously in the same timeframe, also make choices about “who”, or “what”, to design for, more difficult for some. It shouldn't really matter though.
Designwise and otherwise, what we create should work reasonably well across the entire technical and programmatical range that adhere to existing standards.

Regarding the “who” part; you can't please everyone anyway, so just pick a group of potential visitors to a given site, and design it to please them.
It is my impression that many design to satisfy their own taste, and of course to meet clients' wishes and demands. Others design according to what they think are good advices, mainly from others in the trade.
All good as long as the finished work meet expectations.

NOTE: Once the purely technical conditions are met, I try to avoid making “improvements” on the underlying work. Chances are improvements for some will become barriers for others.

all the same, or what…

If all designers, front-end coders and web developers followed the same formulas to the letter, the world of web design would most likely be a boring place of “sameness” with nothing standing out. Luckily they do not, and with a bit of luck they never will get to that point.

Does not mean we should not do our best to reduce and/or eliminate as many barriers, bugs and bad solutions as possible while performing our web design related crafts. A state of Nirvana may last for hours after jobs well done even if nobody else notice the finer details, especially those behind the scene…

sincerely georg; sign

Hageland 16.dec.2020
last rev: 17.dec.2020

points of view

What constitutes “web design” is seen differently by different people, depending on where they stand relative to the term and the various professions behind it. The Wikipedia: Web Design article is as good as any for a more complete presentation of the subject.

Web design isn't so much about visual appearance on pre-defined screens, as about appearance and behavior when used across the entire range of screens and devices they are meant to end up on, and then some added flexibility to make the entire package work reliable when subjected to end-user stress – resizing, page/text zoom and such. Not to forget the relevant parts of Assistive Technology…
Web designs are pushed through a long list of tests every time the designed pages end up outside the designer's controlled environment. Those “real-life quality checks” are all that matter.

My personal opinion depends on “what hat” I choose to put on at any given time, as over the years I have covered pretty much all sides of web design one way or another.
Now I'm retired, and all things web design is just a hobby. I'm mainly doing whatever I do out here just for fun.

Fact is I rarely ever bother forming opinions about web design at all these days, as it isn't an important subject to me anymore. There is ample room for just about anything on the web, and whether any of it makes sense or serves a purpose or not, is not for me to decide.

However, if I do decide to form some personal thoughts on the subject, they may come over as follows…

visitor's view

When landing on a new site, a superficial glance is usually all I offer its design as such, and then mainly to see how the content and navigation is organised. Maybe I'll look it over more in depth once its content is “extracted”, but that depends totally on how appealing I find the site's main content, and ease of function.

So, from my point of view, the simpler designs may win over more complex and advanced designs, simply by not unnecessary calling for attention and/or getting in the way of what I'm there for.
On the other hand, design in itself has no effect on “revisiting frequency”, except that the most “design focused” and/or distracting ones will have to carry really interesting content to call for revisits.

author's view

When I want something to dominate web pages, pictures, key sentences, poems, mathematical formulas, or something along those lines, are my choices. Would be irritating if my content had to compete with the design, as that would affect the integrity of my content. Designs that adorn the content are perfectly fine though, and are in fact very much desired.

Again, the simpler-looking designs tend to win, regardless of how complex they actually are. Totally vanilla works best on print though.

designer's view

For a minute or two, maybe… a state of Nirwana

… until I discover another code-flaw.

local details…