Wow… just… wow.

Did Mr. McGovern only look at CA as his source for current web design? What about sites like A List Apart, Authentic Boredom, etc?

I consider myself part of that “young web designers” group McGovern mentions, yet I know that the stuff printed in CA are the way-out-there, extreme versions of everything. Web design even more so. Usability and standards are not necessarily the winning criteria to be included in a CA Interactive Annual, but that doesn’t mean I have no knowledge of that part of web design.

To me, when I pick up a CA, I want to see eye-candy. The stuff we dream about doing. Normal, day-to-day clients aren’t always going to provide CA-"quality" material, so this is where we can get inspiration, thoughts, and a little bit of “OOOOOO!”

I think the problem with the article isn’t the idea Gerry is trying to put across but the terrible way in which it is constructed and written - GCSE level essay writers would be criticised for trying to get a point across like that.

The whole idea of using design to enhance usability is a valid point - it seems to be another of these “state the bleeding obvious” articles.

I feel like an idiot.  Here I was, this whole time, thinking you were talking about George McGovern, multiple U.S. presidential race loser. I was thinking, “what the hell would *he* know about web design???”

Apparently about as much as Gerry does.

With a site as ugly as that I don’t understand why people are actually taking him seriously.
mp3 players don’t have to be good looking, they sit in your pocket 90% of the time, but apple made theirs nice and look what happened: Big hit!

Content/Usability/Accessablilty are highest priority, but design is also one of the top!

funny, i went to the nike website last week.
I ended up googling for the shoes i was looking for, which directed me directly to their e-shop. just typing http://www.nike.com just does not work to sell a shoe, but more to sell a brand image. BUT that’s what it was made for.
Before evaluating a website, one needs to compare it to its intended strategy/purpose, and THEN see if it works or not.
Also, I think Gerry McSomething is wrong in coming up with such a radical conclusion, and very short-sighted metaphors.
Postsigns that move, why not, if it removes all those not relevant to me ? (like signs for trucks when i’m driving a car :) )
Besides, I hate it when i go to ebay and i hate it when i go to amazon, because , excuse me, the navigation is not that intuitive, and that blurb about using conventional navigation systems is a lie : any type of convention is in permanent balance, and constantly reevaluated. So convention comes from people trying out things that turn out to work, until that doesn’t anymore because the world keeps on turning, and people learn and anticipate.

The bottom line ? intelligent approach to web design, and thorought understanding of the electronic medium and hypertextual environments. Something his own site lacks (where is the hover state of those menu buttons, where is the site that uses all available screen space ? etc, etc...)

In the end, the internet is what we want it to be, and it can be many things (including but not exclusively, an interactive art gallery), because we are many people on this planet :)

Wow. I did not noticed that article in my RSS feeds but I did not regret it, It was definitely not of any interest.

I agree that CommArts awards focus nearly only on flash website but I think his comparison with signpost is too easy and not objective.

As you said, Brand image is important and the signs on the road does not need to be attractive… they MUST be there. Nike must not be on the market, Nike WANTS to be the N?1 on the market so he has to attract people and there comes the user-experience.

To compare nike with Google, Amazon and eBay is in my opinion a strong lack of comprehension. Those website sell Nike products (well, not Google), their job is to present the product and to help the user to find the product he is looking for… Task oriented, right. But, why the hell would you buy a Nike shoes instead of an Adidas one? Because you know that AirMax shoes have a SOOOO soool air cushion… How do you know that? Did you read it on Amazon, ebay? Of course not. It is explained with user-attractive animations on the nike website.

So here we are, It is true that Nike is not that user-friendly in some way, but beside that, their job is not to be task oriented, their job on the web is to convinced people that Nike’s products are the best… It is really amazing that such an expert cannot make the difference between a brand website and a retailer website.

Oh, and a last word about google… they deliver services, so theyMUST be task/service oriented on the web. Nike offers Mass-products, it is totally different.

PS: as Mind justin said, a cute website combined with a strong usability is the best combination… and Mc Govern does not seem to have understood that.

Spoken like someone with a truly crummy-looking website. (McGovern’s that is.)

Good comment this. I havent seen your site before, nor have i posted on a blog comment list - but i had to, to say “nice one”.

Design is fucntional and aesthetic. I see that Mr McGovern worked on the lloyds tsb skite - i dont find that suprising, as i have created better looking turds.

Its not even functionally great.

Of course it could have been a cleverly constructed(read:cheesy) PR stunt as at the bottom you have:

‘You are welcome to republish this article once you place the following text and link at the end of the article:

Gerry McGovern provides website content management solutions’

And could anyone tell me why ‘Email: ’
is the contact at the foot of the page and not Gerry?

I’d guess Brian is Gerry’s split personality, the one that has the design education.

The split personality that was asleep when Gerry wrote the article and designed the site, that is…

’The Web is, at heart, a task-focused, functional place.’. True.Design is fucntional and aesthetic

Gerry seems to think that all websites are commercial in nature and nobody could possibly see a benefit in developing a site that wasn’t driven by the need to turn a profit. This guy calls himself a worldwide authority?

I call him an ass-clown.

I think you might have misunderstood Gerry McGovern by taking him out of context (please forgive me if you’re familiar with his other work). His general message is that the content is key—his columns are generally aimed at improving the quality of the content published on websites. Taken in that context, this article’s point is that graphic design must not detract or distract from the content (… tasks ... functions) of the site, or the creation of content. That’s his beef with over-designed websites. Though also note that a main facet of his research and consultancy is writing copy for intranets, which have specific requirements different to those of the public web.

Looking at it a different way, perhaps the message is that the web needs to evolve to a newspaper-like maturity—certainly well-designed, with a lot of serious design (and typography and grid (!)) work behind them, but no-one can argue that the content isn’t the important bit of a newspaper.

OK, that’s two comments, two criticisms. Time I let you be!

I like the way Keane shows his lack of understanding by putting the URL of the site he’s currently at in the homepage-field… =))

oops… Sorry… Just noticed that that’s what happens to anyone who doesn’t enter any URL…

:)

Hmm, looking at it again in the cold light of day, my comment is a bit messy.

Disclaimer: I’m not a graphic designer.

I think my point was that McGovern’s statement needs to be qualified. Something like: “Graphic design plays a minor role on the web, *when compared with good content, task-focused architecture, etc*”

His closing comment—“Your website must be useful. It must be fast and convenient, with a navigation that is familiar and simple.”—is crucial. You’re not going to get a useful, convenient, familiar, simple website without good design, graphic or otherwise

I’m wondering...’what would Jakob do’.

Seriously, guys like McGovern, Nielson, and Flanders all have two things in common: Ugly websites and SHRILL voices.

I agree with his core statements about function and I learn a great deal from Jakob about usability, but their credibility only goes so far.

A useful turd is still a turd, no matter how rich in fibre it may be.

Sigh… I’m getting so used about frequent rants telling us designers, that we are a useless bunch, responsible for every evil on the web.

In my opinion those guys are so oblivious about good web-design, because good web-design is unobtrusive and functional. It’s amazing how restricted top-consulting (and top-selling) people like McGovern and Nielsen are.

If McGovern is allowed to make ludicrous comparisons, then maybe I’m too: I guess the majority of all buildings worldwide are part of impoverished shantytowns and favelas. Does this mean, that urban management and architecture are meaningless in a whole?

:P <- Lutz

McGovern, Nielsen, etc will keep publishing these things; because they are simply not aware of a lot of stuff and are not open minded enough / had the opportunity to learn about Design. It is their own responsibility to learn this.

Lots of good comments so far!

I think he’s really off-base with this line…
“Don?t try and force the Web to be what it?s not”
He’s misguided. He himself is trying to force the web into one vision (his) and all sites into having one purpose, they don’t.
I do tend to agree with his comments about CommunicationArts. I find their web awards meaningless and misguided. Or maybe misinformed.

McGovern, Nielsen and all of you guys have a point. McGovern and Nielsen just communicate their messages better. Learn from it.

McGovern didn’t quite put his words in the most subtle way, but you guys aren’t doing any better job than he is.

This conversation isin’t really helping anybody if nobody cares to try to understand each others’ point of views.

McGovern’s column and this respond to it are great examples about the lack of understanding of different fields of web design, even within those who call themselves web professionals.

Communication Arts? Yuck. Print magazine has heart and soul; Commarts lacks a voice and personality, I find the featured work to be boring, faceless and without the thoughtful artistic eye that Print mag seems to almost always have.

And there isn’t anything on the planet that wouldn’t benefit from graphic design. People like pretty things. People like useful things. People like clever things. People like thoughtful things. Graphic design is all of these things.

The Aesthetic-Usability Effec

If I may quote from Lidwell, Holden & Bauer, “Universal Principles of Design”.

“The Aesthetic-Usability Effect is a phenomenon in which users perceive more-aesthetic designs as easier to use than less-aesthetic designs - whether they are or not. Aesthetic designs are perceived to be more usable, are more readily accepted and used over time, and promote creative thinking & problem solving. Aesthetic designs also foster positive relationships with people, making them more tolarant of problems with a design” and more patient in learning to navigate/manipulate/learn it.

Design is not decoration; it is the tools and principles by which we craft a communication. Usability has been shown to be enhanced by aethestics through user testing, end of story. I’m suprised McGovern would rag on an entire field of communications professionals when all he really means to say is the obvious, people skip intro nowadays.

I think that individuals like Gerry McGovern and Jakob Nielsen hide behind concerns over “functionality” to excuse their own lack of visual design savvy. I agree with you Mark. Both aesthetically pleasing design and solid usability need to be present in order for a website to be effective. Gerry has as much to learn about presentation as Flash designers do about function. I’m tired of so-called experts touting one aspect over another. Truely good web design is wholistic, and it’s time “professionals” realize that.

In fact,even Jakob Neilson mentions how crap Amazon’s design is in his Alertbox column of July 25, 2005.

Those choosing to speak negatively about Gerry’s opinion are fooling themselves if they believe that traditional graphic design has not had both a negative (Gerry point) and a positive (not a point talked about or not talked about by Gerry) effect on the modern day development of website and web applications.

The attacks upon his website design and professional skill set is a pitiful stand by for addressing his opinion with objective reasoning. Those slamming a person for having an opinion should be mindful of the opinions they have themselves.

Eh, bunch of crap. If you’re talking about shopping carts, you’re talking about an application where the argument is more about usability and placement of buttons (very important design decisions, though more standardized) and less about the experience.

Where I think this guy misses the point entirely is that the web excels at communication - presenting information quickly. He went a little too quickly, I think, making a very big statement with nothing to back it up. There are no illustrations to prove his points (and which are proven to aid in retention and understanding, I might add), and this guy’s site demonstrates a severe lack of branding knowledge. The sun dawning over the earth? What is this, 2001? Come on!

A further designer’s critique might also question the use of years as navigation elements ... what am I going to find when I visit 2001? Hal 9000? What’s with the logos on the right side? Are those ads? Endorsements? And does anyone know what “solutions” means as a navigation element? There’s no hierarchy of information, either, with every bit of text having basically the same weight. It’s as if he threw content at the page and left it where it’d stick.

I guess what I’m saying is this: Gerry should back up his big statement with demonstrated expertise and actual content. Gerry is unqualified to make this statement and it shows. Although I agree about Flash intros.

Gerry’s article is not very well written as a critique. He makes attempts a valid points and misses.

Web site design is in an adolescent phase of existence. We are trying to find the balance between aesthetics and profits. Most real web proponents will agree that aesthetics are part of usability. Seth Godin, in his “Knock Knock” ebook, suggests that the design will be more effective if it meets the user expectation for the type of company, service, product etc. In the case of Nike, their site may well meet user expectation—lots of style but short on performance, much like most of their mainstream product lines. But their clientele expect that.

In addition, Nike is part of the mega corporations whose whole business can rely on its cache as a brand versus a provider of quality necessary products. They make their business on creating desire in an average product. They will spend more on marketing and advertising than most companies will spend in their existence.

Most business can’t afford to waste prospects time with barriers and confusing navigation because they have no cache and people will not be patient with strangers. There is significant research to show that simple, unbeautiful sites can and do sell products, generate revenue and get return visits. What “designers” often don’t realize is that in many cases it is content and solutions that close the deal on the web, not visual appeal, Flash intros and complex JavaScriptnavigation.

Mark is correct though in stating that there are exceptions, that there is a time and a place for Flash and more flamboyant design on the web...but it applies to a very small place on the web where the site owner is moving to meet the expectation of the user. But if the site owner is developing these sites for the sake of themselves they may be sending money to the fire.

On a final note, design, advertising and writing awards are fine provided the correct metric is observed by the right people. If the aforementioned magazine awards are about the look of a site, then fine. But if you attempt to communicate to business that that will somehow lead to inevitable profits on the web you are grossly mistaken. Businesses who hire firms to design and develop a website must make sure that they are hiring the firm to achieve their goal and not to create some elitist art piece. If a design firm can demonstrate that their projects directly lead to a positive change in the business, and that met the objectives of the client, then that is the firm to hire. If the only thing a design firm can say is that they won 20 design or advertising awards from their peers you should be cautious unless you believe in success by association.

BTW: Someone mentioned the iPod looking pretty as an end. The iPod’s design was first and foremost to be the least complicated it could be. Engineers and user interface designers will create something and then start trimming away all the extras until you are left with a the simplest form and then turn it into something beautiful. That being said—the guy who helped lead Apple’s design team has recently been given an award by his home country, the UK.

Obviously, the author has been hanging around the wrong web sites, and encountering the wrong kind of designers. Will someone email him a good collection of bookmarks. This type of ignorance is too embarassing to tolerate. Someone try and help him save some face before it’s too late. Or is it?

I work for a Fortune 100 company. Quite simply, we use design before we build the pages or produce the content in order to get usability feedback, comments or suggestions, which is something that to this day is done with print. Make a thumbnail, then build it. I’m glad that I have been able to fortify my design experience and bring it to the web. I’m sorry this gentlemen has not learned design nor how to use them for our new interactive medium.

Remember back in the day when interactive was opening a magazine and flipping through pages and finding an ad that made you open a sleeve to smell it?

A designer came up with that.

Designers make the web ‘work.’

Hard for me to say that everyone has inevitably come to grasp how to best design, but alas, those that do find work.

And alas for me, I’ve made the mistake of visiting Gerry’s sites and now see why it is completely futile for people like that to exist. Though this site design I actually like althought it could use darker text. Could you show me the font in black please? oh wait, I’ll photoshop it.

Mark - I thank you for your praise. It has taken me a year to really crystallize my feelings on design in relation to business and the web and I am still thinking about it.

who the flug am i? - You state that you “use design before you build the pages” to do usability testing and get feedback. I would argue that very little testing is done with print or the web. Most design is done in a bubble of “know bests”—design teams and marketers who know what they want. The problem here is that sometimes their muse for the design is a prize, sometimes the muse for design is ego, and sometimes the muse for design is the way in which the end user will interact and feel (consciously of subconsciously) about the product of the site.

In your case of a Fortune 100 Co. you will do testing because you “A” can afford it and “B” understand the minor enhancements to user experience will add up over the course of a design. The problem is and the one that Gerry wishes to address and the audience to whom he is speaking is the 98% of business in most western nations that is smaller than the Fortune 100’s or 500’s or 1000’s, for that matter. Most western business is predominantly small and those companies are often owner managed by individuals who don’t have marketing degrees, they have good products or services that people want and or need. These companies are not going to do usability testing to any large degree because it is going to cost them more than the price of the project to test the project. These companies will have to rely on the firms they hire to provide a web project that will meet their need and help achieve their goals. McGovern’s idea is to help these owner managed companies gain an understanding of how business can benefit from improving the content of their sites. His audience is likely not going to be self interested graphic-come-web designers who are looking to build their portfolios and improve their design skills.

Website design for business is not exclusive of visual design, it may use it more subtly and sparingly to convey a message in a way that will be best received by the end user. Let’s not forget simple rules of visual design count as visual design regardless of whether or not we have bandwidth bursting graphical UI’s or flash intro’s just one image on a whole website.  Alignment, contrast, typeface etc all contribute to the design of a sight whether or not it looks cool. It can still look good.

Truly successful design on the web enhances user experience, meets or exceeds their expectation, and enables them to take the desired action that is the goal of the site owner. How it looks wholly depends on the end user’s desire and expectation. Often the problem is that business and designers assume that they are the the same as the end user—and they are wrong.

haha who the fug he thinks he is !? :D

Gerry McGovern’s has some very strong oponions there. Sounds like he has a bee in his bonnet. I agree with MIND justin ...

‘Content/Usability/Accessablilty are highest priority,
but design is also one of the top.’

Gerry seriously doesn’t know what he is talking about. Look at his site.

Here is a recent newspaper article on “Websites judged in less than a blink”

Summary: “INTERNET users can give web sites a thumbs up or thumbs down in less than the blink of an eye, a new study has found.

In just one-twentieth of a second - less than half the time it takes to blink - people make aesthetic judgments that influence the rest of their experience with an internet site.

The study was published in the latest issue of the Behaviour and Information Technology journal.”

URL:
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17859512&#x5E;15318&#x5E;&#x5E;nbv&#x5E;15306,00.html