'I think my standards have lowered enough that now I think ``good design'' is when the page doesn't irritate the living fuck out of me.'
June 5, 2001 7:48 PM Subscribe
'I think my standards have lowered enough that now I think ``good design'' is when the page doesn't irritate the living fuck out of me.' Does jwz have a point? (After all, he wrote enough of Netscape to know a bloated browser when he sees one.)
Well... unless I'm missing something, he has a point, but nothing new, and he doesn't really have enough subject to merit his rant. I went through six screens of rant to hear him say "Too many sites rely on shiny sizzle and there's not enough quality content. I hate that."
posted by Perigee at 8:23 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by Perigee at 8:23 PM on June 5, 2001
Let's have another discussion about how designers suck, based on a link to another UNIX geek who misses ARAPNET, and this the <IMG> tag was invented by Satan Himself. (No offense to UNIX geeks, I'm one myself, but I'm also a designer.)
There's no lack of weak-ass designers out there to provide jwz with examples, but there's also plenty of good stuff--smart, usable, design that complements the content.
Y'know, we're all still trying to figure out what this whole Internet thang is going to be. Trying to squash those who are trying to innovate seems pretty counter-productive.
posted by jpoulos at 8:29 PM on June 5, 2001
There's no lack of weak-ass designers out there to provide jwz with examples, but there's also plenty of good stuff--smart, usable, design that complements the content.
Y'know, we're all still trying to figure out what this whole Internet thang is going to be. Trying to squash those who are trying to innovate seems pretty counter-productive.
posted by jpoulos at 8:29 PM on June 5, 2001
Offtopic: he makes reference to jodi.org. What the heck is that?
posted by jpoulos at 8:33 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 8:33 PM on June 5, 2001
It's a very very long running site which usually has some really weird stuff on it.. like weird MacOS screens, odd animations about UNIX, and such. Very overhyped, and just very quirky.
posted by wackybrit at 8:40 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by wackybrit at 8:40 PM on June 5, 2001
"More often, you see sites whose top-level page is entirely devoid of text and hyperlinks. It's usually black, and usually has some kind of time-wasting animation going on. These days, more often than not, a huge Flash file with a spinning logo.
As far as I can tell, the whole point of having an intro page is to sit there and say, ``I am so cool. I am so cool that I don't even have to tell you what I do. I am so cool that I can sit here and just burn time while you look at things whoosh around my logo. Isn't my logo great?"
I'd fuck 'im. Well, as long as he didn't start telling me about his dental anxiety dreams.
posted by kristin at 9:09 PM on June 5, 2001
As far as I can tell, the whole point of having an intro page is to sit there and say, ``I am so cool. I am so cool that I don't even have to tell you what I do. I am so cool that I can sit here and just burn time while you look at things whoosh around my logo. Isn't my logo great?"
I'd fuck 'im. Well, as long as he didn't start telling me about his dental anxiety dreams.
posted by kristin at 9:09 PM on June 5, 2001
Now I feel old. People who don't know who jwz is or what jodi is. Sigh. Kids today.
posted by rodii at 9:26 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by rodii at 9:26 PM on June 5, 2001
It’s true that when design is all about the designer – informed entirely by his or her own whims, desire, or need for attention – very little is added to the world, and most of us turn away.
This goes for writing and writers as well, though, and this essay could be read as a text-only version of an annoying, overdesigned, self-indulgent website.
Not that I don’t agree with the sentiment.
posted by textist at 10:07 PM on June 5, 2001
This goes for writing and writers as well, though, and this essay could be read as a text-only version of an annoying, overdesigned, self-indulgent website.
Not that I don’t agree with the sentiment.
posted by textist at 10:07 PM on June 5, 2001
so maybe i am a kid for not knowing much about jodi.org...
but i've looked at it three times already (once a couple days ago when i ran into the link somewhere else, once after reading the linked material, and one more time after reading the comments), and the only thing i've been able to surmise is that it really hurts my eyes. so i'm sincerely asking, "what's the big deal about it?" (not that i'm usually the kind to go around looking for stunning and avant-garde visual design.)
posted by lotsofno at 10:16 PM on June 5, 2001
but i've looked at it three times already (once a couple days ago when i ran into the link somewhere else, once after reading the linked material, and one more time after reading the comments), and the only thing i've been able to surmise is that it really hurts my eyes. so i'm sincerely asking, "what's the big deal about it?" (not that i'm usually the kind to go around looking for stunning and avant-garde visual design.)
posted by lotsofno at 10:16 PM on June 5, 2001
Well, sure there are a lot of bad designers out there, but that doesn't mean you have to revert back to Netscape 3 to turn off all the bells and whistles. I read through his little rant and started rolling my eyes after the first 3 paragraphs. Really MOS (more of same), and nothing that hasn't been said before. But to limit yourself to Netscape 3 when the whole world has switched to 5th generation browsers is just stupid. I mean, NN3 supports HTML3.2, and this has been deprecated for many, many years. Surely it's time to move on?
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:11 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:11 PM on June 5, 2001
Well, sure there are a lot of bad designers out there, but that doesn't mean you have to revert back to Netscape 3 to turn off all the bells and whistles. I read through his little rant and started rolling my eyes after the first 3 paragraphs. Really MOS (more of same), and nothing that hasn't been said before. But to limit yourself to Netscape 3 when the whole world has switched to 5th generation browsers is just stupid. I mean, NN3 supports HTML3.2, and this has been deprecated for many, many years. Surely it's time to move on?
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:12 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:12 PM on June 5, 2001
doh
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:12 PM on June 5, 2001
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 11:12 PM on June 5, 2001
Obviously design and presentation convey information when done right... in exactly the same way that body language does.
A good design sets a mood and tone, a context for the information contained in it.
Programmers (and I am one) seem to think they know everything about all disciplines... obviously many of them think they know enough about design concepts to decide it all sucks :)
posted by soulhuntre at 11:31 PM on June 5, 2001
A good design sets a mood and tone, a context for the information contained in it.
Programmers (and I am one) seem to think they know everything about all disciplines... obviously many of them think they know enough about design concepts to decide it all sucks :)
posted by soulhuntre at 11:31 PM on June 5, 2001
i've had it explained to me that with these heavily designed sites, the design IS the content. they're supposed to be expressions of the designer's visual ideas, and a presentation of their abilities.
that's all very well, but when i'm left sitting at a splash page, searching fruitlessly through the minute text ("::::: 0.12 HEAVY STATIC ::::: 0.10a INFINITE EXPANSION LANDING ZONE ::::: 1.13 IS IT OBVIOUS I'M STROKING MY COCK? :::::") for the link that actually takes you in, i generally fall into the agreeing with jwz camp.
it's hard to feel endeared to art that's all but inaccessable to those who aren't initiated into the design mentality.
posted by titboy at 11:38 PM on June 5, 2001
that's all very well, but when i'm left sitting at a splash page, searching fruitlessly through the minute text ("::::: 0.12 HEAVY STATIC ::::: 0.10a INFINITE EXPANSION LANDING ZONE ::::: 1.13 IS IT OBVIOUS I'M STROKING MY COCK? :::::") for the link that actually takes you in, i generally fall into the agreeing with jwz camp.
it's hard to feel endeared to art that's all but inaccessable to those who aren't initiated into the design mentality.
posted by titboy at 11:38 PM on June 5, 2001
You know, the art and science of human communication is the marriage of presentation and information.
Take any form of advertising. The message is very consistently, "buy this product", but the presentation is reinvented over and over and over again to appeal to new people or to re-enlist the members of the chior. Sometimes the presentation has more impact when it is the message! The meaning is implicit- not spelled out to the consumer of the information, leaving a greater impact. Take anti-drinking-and-driving ad campaigns. Which is more effective? An add of plain text indicating, "Don't drink and drive." or a 30 second spot with no text or sound where the camera pans across a rainy street upon which the tangled wreckage of a crashed automobile is strewn. Admidst the mess are scattered and shattered alcohol containers and two covered corpses. I think the latter presents a stronger message. The human consumer of information wants to participate in a sophisticated dialog, not have every answer provided.
I see these arguments, "primarily text, that doesn't change the default font, that doesn't load a dozen images with nothing but text in them, that doesn't hide the URLs inside a frame cell, that doesn't make it impossible for me to use the Back button..." as more of personal preference issues rather than good or bad design. Furthermore, a site designed to conform to this person's personal taste will still work in modern browsers, right? It isn't like with the evolution of HTML and the advent of web enhancements (flash, DHTML, etc) that sites designed in a basic fashion no longer work. With that in mind, is this person not forcing non-basic sites to perform poorly by using a sub-standard, obsolete viewing method? After all, Netscape 3 is circa 1996 technology.
Sure, there are poorly designed sites. There always will be, just as there are stupid commercials and dumb, dumb, dumb radio advertisements. This is more of a reflection on the designer and not necessarily the designer's toolbox. It certainly says nothing about what is and what is not viable as an effective way to present information.
This is my viewpoint as a consumer of information. I'm a programmer, not a designer.
posted by internook at 5:24 AM on June 6, 2001
Take any form of advertising. The message is very consistently, "buy this product", but the presentation is reinvented over and over and over again to appeal to new people or to re-enlist the members of the chior. Sometimes the presentation has more impact when it is the message! The meaning is implicit- not spelled out to the consumer of the information, leaving a greater impact. Take anti-drinking-and-driving ad campaigns. Which is more effective? An add of plain text indicating, "Don't drink and drive." or a 30 second spot with no text or sound where the camera pans across a rainy street upon which the tangled wreckage of a crashed automobile is strewn. Admidst the mess are scattered and shattered alcohol containers and two covered corpses. I think the latter presents a stronger message. The human consumer of information wants to participate in a sophisticated dialog, not have every answer provided.
I see these arguments, "primarily text, that doesn't change the default font, that doesn't load a dozen images with nothing but text in them, that doesn't hide the URLs inside a frame cell, that doesn't make it impossible for me to use the Back button..." as more of personal preference issues rather than good or bad design. Furthermore, a site designed to conform to this person's personal taste will still work in modern browsers, right? It isn't like with the evolution of HTML and the advent of web enhancements (flash, DHTML, etc) that sites designed in a basic fashion no longer work. With that in mind, is this person not forcing non-basic sites to perform poorly by using a sub-standard, obsolete viewing method? After all, Netscape 3 is circa 1996 technology.
Sure, there are poorly designed sites. There always will be, just as there are stupid commercials and dumb, dumb, dumb radio advertisements. This is more of a reflection on the designer and not necessarily the designer's toolbox. It certainly says nothing about what is and what is not viable as an effective way to present information.
This is my viewpoint as a consumer of information. I'm a programmer, not a designer.
posted by internook at 5:24 AM on June 6, 2001
From his description of the 404 page I guess he's talking about k10k. I really don't see the point in this little rant. I mean if you don't like a site, just don't visit it. It's not exactly rocket science now is it?
posted by astro38 at 6:35 AM on June 6, 2001
posted by astro38 at 6:35 AM on June 6, 2001
I'd rather read JWZ than Jakob Neilsen.
Precisely. Whatever you say about jwz, he's had an intimate connection with the evolution of the web browser itself. And I think he poses an interesting question: Netscape 3 may be the stuff of 1996, but it's demonstrably faster and more crash-proof than the rotten 4.x series on Linux, and most decent sites look okay. (Yes, I think this is mainly a UNIX/Linux issue, where the dominant browser is a pile of crap, and the 5.o browsers are either bloated, unstable, or unrecognised by most half-arsed browser detection scripts.)
If you like, jwz is the Weary Coder, aware of the compromises and kludges that make web browsers so irritating, in contrast to Zeldman the Weary Designer.
posted by holgate at 7:32 AM on June 6, 2001
Precisely. Whatever you say about jwz, he's had an intimate connection with the evolution of the web browser itself. And I think he poses an interesting question: Netscape 3 may be the stuff of 1996, but it's demonstrably faster and more crash-proof than the rotten 4.x series on Linux, and most decent sites look okay. (Yes, I think this is mainly a UNIX/Linux issue, where the dominant browser is a pile of crap, and the 5.o browsers are either bloated, unstable, or unrecognised by most half-arsed browser detection scripts.)
If you like, jwz is the Weary Coder, aware of the compromises and kludges that make web browsers so irritating, in contrast to Zeldman the Weary Designer.
posted by holgate at 7:32 AM on June 6, 2001
Whatever you say about jwz, he's had an intimate connection with the evolution of the web browser itself.
That's all well and good, but we're not talking about the browser, but the pages they interpret.
An analogy (I love analogies): A certain car's engine may function better at high speeds. Just because the engine's designer feels that roads should be straight, to take advantage of that, doesn't mean he should be dictating how city's are planned. I happen to enjoy the curves.
posted by jpoulos at 8:48 AM on June 6, 2001
That's all well and good, but we're not talking about the browser, but the pages they interpret.
An analogy (I love analogies): A certain car's engine may function better at high speeds. Just because the engine's designer feels that roads should be straight, to take advantage of that, doesn't mean he should be dictating how city's are planned. I happen to enjoy the curves.
posted by jpoulos at 8:48 AM on June 6, 2001
Not convinced by that analogy, jpoulos. Think "car", not "car engine": some car designers like building neat little two-door hatchbacks with good mileage-per-gallon; some want the spoilers, the chrome, and the souped-up engine. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, depending on the terrain: which you prefer depends upon the roads you travel. And I'd argue, like a good little European, that while driving the Audi TT might be fun, you're generally better off with the browser equivalent of a Ford Fiesta.
posted by holgate at 9:26 AM on June 6, 2001
posted by holgate at 9:26 AM on June 6, 2001
I mean if you don't like a site, just don't visit it. It's not exactly rocket science now is it?
Sure, but you're missing the point. Many sites seem designed to piss you off: they promise some information you want, but subject you to an excruciating stream of kludgery before they'll let you get it. Intel.com, for example - I went there a few weeks ago trying to find some information about one of their products. Typical, modern, good-little-consumer, Right Thing To Be Doing With The Web, none of this subversive free stuff, just being a harmless consumer checking out a multinational company's product. The entire thing was loaded down with giant colour pictures, weird half-broken javascript, and pages that took 30 seconds to load (on my 256k DSL). I eventually gave up on finding what I was looking for and just used google.
THAT's the kind of thing that makes me spew flames about arrogant, self-absorbed web designers. I don't want to be entertained, I want my damned information.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:33 AM on June 6, 2001
Sure, but you're missing the point. Many sites seem designed to piss you off: they promise some information you want, but subject you to an excruciating stream of kludgery before they'll let you get it. Intel.com, for example - I went there a few weeks ago trying to find some information about one of their products. Typical, modern, good-little-consumer, Right Thing To Be Doing With The Web, none of this subversive free stuff, just being a harmless consumer checking out a multinational company's product. The entire thing was loaded down with giant colour pictures, weird half-broken javascript, and pages that took 30 seconds to load (on my 256k DSL). I eventually gave up on finding what I was looking for and just used google.
THAT's the kind of thing that makes me spew flames about arrogant, self-absorbed web designers. I don't want to be entertained, I want my damned information.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:33 AM on June 6, 2001
that's all very well, but when i'm left sitting at a splash page, searching fruitlessly through the minute text [...] for the link that actually takes you in, i generally fall into the agreeing with jwz camp.
Oh, I totally agree. Why, just earlier today, I was looking at some website that, at first glance, was just a mess of hexadecimal coding and other random computer noise, and you had to look really closely at the tiny text to see that some of it was actually links -- some of them descriptive links buried in the noise, and others of them just random numbers. The only point of it all, I guess, was just to look different and "cool" and artistic. I bet jwz would hate it.
posted by webmutant at 11:43 AM on June 6, 2001
Oh, I totally agree. Why, just earlier today, I was looking at some website that, at first glance, was just a mess of hexadecimal coding and other random computer noise, and you had to look really closely at the tiny text to see that some of it was actually links -- some of them descriptive links buried in the noise, and others of them just random numbers. The only point of it all, I guess, was just to look different and "cool" and artistic. I bet jwz would hate it.
posted by webmutant at 11:43 AM on June 6, 2001
You've got it all wrong, webmutant. Didn't you see The Matrix? Coders like jwz see that page and all they see in the meaning beneath.
posted by jpoulos at 11:54 AM on June 6, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 11:54 AM on June 6, 2001
Always like to see Jamie, master of self-regard, hoist by his own petard, but that page is still pretty damned cool.
posted by rodii at 12:10 PM on June 6, 2001
posted by rodii at 12:10 PM on June 6, 2001
> I eventually gave up on finding what I was looking for
> and just used google.
It's been literally years since I went to the front door of any site when looking for something in particular (as opposed to coming in the front door of someplace like MeFi or RobotWisdom just to see what's there today.)
> Why, just earlier today, I was looking at some website
> that, at first glance, was just a mess of hexadecimal
> coding and other random computer noise, and you had
> to look really closely at the tiny text to see that some of
> it was actually links -- some of them descriptive links
> buried in the noise, and others of them just random
> numbers.
I guess a lot of it is just personal opinion, but Jaime's is the cleverest and most net-appropriate front page I've seen. The sites pointed to by "designers" as examples of good design all look to me like print-magazine pages, i.e. old-media ideas lifted intact and transferred from ink to pixels. (Though everyone has sources for his ideas and I first saw the notion of using a hex dump for its artistic effect in Terminator #1 where, I'm told, the stuff in the robot's viewfield was actually a dump of the Apple II's system ROMs.)
posted by jfuller at 1:39 PM on June 6, 2001
> and just used google.
It's been literally years since I went to the front door of any site when looking for something in particular (as opposed to coming in the front door of someplace like MeFi or RobotWisdom just to see what's there today.)
> Why, just earlier today, I was looking at some website
> that, at first glance, was just a mess of hexadecimal
> coding and other random computer noise, and you had
> to look really closely at the tiny text to see that some of
> it was actually links -- some of them descriptive links
> buried in the noise, and others of them just random
> numbers.
I guess a lot of it is just personal opinion, but Jaime's is the cleverest and most net-appropriate front page I've seen. The sites pointed to by "designers" as examples of good design all look to me like print-magazine pages, i.e. old-media ideas lifted intact and transferred from ink to pixels. (Though everyone has sources for his ideas and I first saw the notion of using a hex dump for its artistic effect in Terminator #1 where, I'm told, the stuff in the robot's viewfield was actually a dump of the Apple II's system ROMs.)
posted by jfuller at 1:39 PM on June 6, 2001
Many sites seem designed to piss you off: they promise some information you want, but subject you to an excruciating stream of kludgery before they'll let you get it. Intel.com, for example...
For a site like intel.com, yes, I agree totally - they shouldn't be putting up barriers that stop people from getting the info they want.
But k10k isn't that kind of site - they've chosen their target market to be designers with high end machines and fast connections. I don't see them as a good example for the kind of argument that was made in this link.
posted by astro38 at 2:49 PM on June 6, 2001
For a site like intel.com, yes, I agree totally - they shouldn't be putting up barriers that stop people from getting the info they want.
But k10k isn't that kind of site - they've chosen their target market to be designers with high end machines and fast connections. I don't see them as a good example for the kind of argument that was made in this link.
posted by astro38 at 2:49 PM on June 6, 2001
Speaking of k10k, they have this message up today on the front page:
Simon pointed me towards this design rant today - which has to be one of the most intolerant things I've read in long time - so here's my response
And if you click on the word "response"...
You guessed it, page not found. Clever, or really sloppy, you be the judge.
posted by GriffX at 3:08 PM on June 6, 2001
Simon pointed me towards this design rant today - which has to be one of the most intolerant things I've read in long time - so here's my response
And if you click on the word "response"...
You guessed it, page not found. Clever, or really sloppy, you be the judge.
posted by GriffX at 3:08 PM on June 6, 2001
"When I see a site that is primarily text, that doesn't change the default font, that doesn't load a dozen images with nothing but text in them, that doesn't hide the URLs inside a frame cell..."
That doesn't have some bizarre unlabelled compass graphic at the end of the page as the only way up or out...
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:27 PM on June 6, 2001
That doesn't have some bizarre unlabelled compass graphic at the end of the page as the only way up or out...
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:27 PM on June 6, 2001
When you saw the compass you didn't go "Hey, navigation button"? No shit, you really didn't? Never mind, rhetorical question. Heeheeheeheehee.
posted by jfuller at 6:54 AM on June 7, 2001
posted by jfuller at 6:54 AM on June 7, 2001
« Older The Register "outs" Codex Data Systems | San Fran: Matrix 2 Casting Call June 5, 6, 7 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tweek! at 7:57 PM on June 5, 2001