|
|
Posted by asdf on 10/17/89 12:01
>
> Many webpages - J.Korpela's website pages, to take an example -
> are pleasing enough. If they were "more pleasing" than they
> needed to be, they would look ugly. The insatiable desire for
> pleasures of the eye often come from those who are not that
> interested in the substantial things in an informational or
> teaching website. They misunderstand the product they are dealing
> with and their demands are quite unreasonable and superficial.
>
Ok... we seem to have stumbled upon a point of agreement... that many
websites are produced by designers (and I use the term VERY loosely here)
that are trying too hard to impress. *Who* they are trying to impress is the
important point.
In my own case, as a producer AND consumer of web designs, I prefer that the
design *enhances* and *emphasises* the content, that is to say that the
'design' does not become the main focus (unless of course, the design *is*
the message- this is sometimes the case... think of a photographic studio or
rock band for instance, where the design is largely the message).
But even within this fairly tight design spec, there is myriad scope for
creativity by the 'designer'. Even at the basic design level of selection of
colours and fonts, and the 'layout' of the page, there are innumerable
possibilities to enhance and emphasise the message that is being presented.
A 'perfect functional' design might still see us stuck in the early days of
the web, with a #CCCCCC background, #000000 Times New Roman font, and
blue/purple links, though sometimes this is still an appropriate 'design'.
More often than not, however, clients prefer to see a design that is clear,
consistent and matches or enhances their market image. I don't believe these
demands to be unreasonable or superficial (though I suppose we've all the
the 'horror client' :) ).
It's 'horses for courses'...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|