Big, Beautiful, Dumb
I think it would be good to start this entry off with a summary of why people think Big on the web is a good thing. Big in this sense relates to big font sizes, big buttons, big forms and other big things on a website. This message has been brought to you by Garrett Dimon.
Big is simple. It’s easy. It’s friendly. And it’s practical. Big is easy to click. It’s easy to read. It’s focused. It’s direct and too the point. It forces you to make tough decisions with your real estate leading to more signal and less noise. Bigger is better. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
Yesterday when I wrote about the new Odeo redesign I questioned whether less always equals simple and in the following discussion it seems that many of you agreed that just because you do less of something, that doesn’t make it easier. I believe the same goes with big. While big does help you focus more on how to more efficiently use your screen realestate I have to feel a bit worried as to why any designer or IA would ever stop worrying about that in the first place. Do you really need Big to force you into that mode of thinking?
Odeo obviously showed some concern for screen real estate and they did so at the expense of getting enough information across on their site to actually make it valuable. If you don’t really have anything to say and feel that certain big items can convey your message then by all means go for it, but getting your idea across effectively and efficiently doesn’t necessarily mean doing it bigger.
Potentially stupid question, but if Big is so great why do we all want monitors with higher resolutions? So we can make those Word documents bigger or because we wish to fit more stuff on the screen? Maybe it’s both.
This is something I’ve noticed with quite a few Web 2.0 ventures recently. I’m all for cleaning up, stripping down, and otherwise simplifying the user-experience, but how does that translate to making things bigger? Nothing about this contact form is simpler than others like it. If anything, it makes me wish I was far-sighted.
It’s kind of insulting. It’s like when people talk louder to someone who doesn’t speak the local native language, hoping that the increased volume will improve understanding. To the contrary, using this giant form just makes me feel stupid. Odea apparently thinks I’m an idiot, and making the registration form really big will help me wrap my little brain around how to use it.
If everything is big how does anything stand out?
In January something new is coming from the 9rules crew and you will find the design goes back to the way I like things. Simple. Clean. Clear. I love the 9rules homepage and the Fine Fools designs, but my tendencies lean towards Whitespace and Business Logs designs. On the new 9rules pages there is one element on one page that stands out and everything else is there to complement it.
If you believe that everything must be big because everything needs to be noticed, you might as well make everything small so at least you can save some bandwidth. It will have the same effect anyways.
To summarize, big is good in portions as it always has been since the beginning of design. Thinking that making everything big makes things easier is silly just the same as thinking that making everything small saves the person the trouble of having to move their eyes across the screen. Recognizing a trend and taking portions of it to work in your own designs is a great thing. Seeing a trend and applying it to everything you do might not be the best of ideas.
Related reading:
I like big because I like to lean back. Tiny fonts require me to look closer, and I hate sitting my nose fixed to the screen. So partly we need big monitors to fit more big things on them.
But whether you buy a monitor with a bigger resolution or lean back, both make the pixels look smaller. And smaller pixels equals smoother graphics that are easier on the eye.
It’s all about convenience! (for me anyway.)
By Niko on December 16, 2005 12:29 pm
This reminds me of how an engineer mixes a live concert or a studio album. At some point during the process, someone says “I need more guitar” then “I need more vocal” then “I need more piano” and at some point it’s just a muddy mess of instruments that’s so loud you can’t hear yourself think, much less the music. To effectively bring something out front, it helps to start by scaling back the rest, rather than pushing up the desired area of focus.
By Lance E. Leonard on December 16, 2005 12:31 pm
One reason why the use of big items has picked up, it’s due in part to the use of fluid layouts.
Now you are able to use a larger part of the screen which gives you the ability to make things bigger.
By Alex Giron on December 16, 2005 12:34 pm
Alex, I’m not so sure I can agree with you there. Fluid layouts have been around forever, and fluid layouts with CSS have been around since CSS defined what a block-level element was. Big didn’t start way back then, it’s definitely a newer concept. Chicken and the egg… Big didn’t start because of fluid layouts, and fluid layouts didn’t start Big design.
Big all started because of 37signals signup forms for their applications. They were the first (or one of the very first) people to boost the size of an input text field on a page, and then everything else followed after that. Let’s give credit (maybe not the right word!) where credit’s due here :)
By Mike Rundle on December 16, 2005 12:45 pm
I see “big” being used more and more with fluid layouts…
for example:
http://www.clearleft.com/
I agree with you 100%, Big all started because of 37signals.
I’m just saying I see a trend going on.
By Alex Giron on December 16, 2005 12:58 pm
Well, this blog have some big titles going on too! I know I started to use big fonts and big layouts when I saw Garrett’s Website. I think Garrett started it all, 37 signals did it after Garrett (at least is what I know).
But its cool if some people wish to think 37signals is moving the Internet, just consider 98% of the people out there don’t even know what is web2.0, big layouts or anything; they just want to read a site without pressing the “+” button on their browsers.
I agree with Alex about the fluid layouts.
By Javier Cabrera (ClearYourMind) on December 16, 2005 1:18 pm
I think we people/sites like 33 Inc say they are “insulted” by big…they can just shut up. I’m insulted by the blot of ink on the 33 Inc…does that mean I complain like a whinny little girl? No. In the same light that he thinks big forms are screaming “idiot” at him, I think they’re appealing from both a design standpoint and usability standpoint.
By Josh Pigford on December 16, 2005 1:19 pm
In some instances big can be better, but in others, I just don’t think it works. In Odeo’s case, as you mentioned previously, the large form is distracting and leaves you struggling as to where to actually fill it out. On other sites, like 37 Signals and Garrett’s site, big works because it makes every bit of content just as equal as the next.
and what about Flock.com, what does everybody thing about the largness of that site? In my opinion it may not have beent he best choice, but it shows the uniqueness of the entire project in general, and how different it really is. This is definitely a subject worth reblogging…
By Zeerus on December 16, 2005 1:36 pm
Well the thing that gets to me about Flock.com is the navigation. It looks like they ran out of ideas and did some kind of “ripped paper” motif that clashes with the rest of the site.
Their company and their browser supposedly represents a clean UI, fresh features, an easy to use social interaction layer …….. then they drop the ripped and grungey navigation look at the top for some kind of juxtaposition. I don’t get it.
By Mike Rundle on December 16, 2005 1:46 pm
Javier: This site does have big headlines because the focus should be on the headlines and the entries. Notice how not everything is big though?
Alex: Big because of fluid layouts? I wouldn’t really go along with that since fluid has been around forever, but I guess in some cases it would apply to how designers think.
By Scrivs on December 16, 2005 1:46 pm
The problem with the Flock site isn’t the “largeness” of it, it’s that they still don’t say what they are trying to accomplish for the common layperson.
By Scrivs on December 16, 2005 1:48 pm
“The problem with the Flock site isn’t the “largeness” of it, it’s that they still don’t say what they are trying to accomplish for the common layperson”
The problem with Flock is that it isn’t intended for the layperson and it’s not really intended for what amount to as the “non-laypeople”. Hell, I really have no clue who it’s intended for.
By Alex Cabrera on December 16, 2005 1:56 pm
I don’t care if it’s big or small, just as long as there’s some sort of balance. When it’s ALL too big, it does remind you of Fisher Price. But if the website is easy to use, it’s still visually appealing, and I can do what I need to do with it, then the design succeeds. Some “big” designs succeed very well with this (e.g. 37Signals). Others, not so much (e.g. ODEO). So is it “big” that’s the problem or the improper use of it?
With ODEO, I remember actually being more confused with the lack of text than with. I have to give it to them for being experimental, though. This is the type of thinking and change that promotes discussion, and instead of kicking them down for their mistake, I think I want to applaud them for taking a bit of a risk. I’m sure that down the road, a better balance will be struck.
By Lea on December 16, 2005 1:59 pm
Alex: My bad, I knew that layperson comment would come back quickly. Let’s keep the focus on big and away from how much flock and their website sucks :-P
By Scrivs on December 16, 2005 2:02 pm
Lea: If we applaud them we can’t let them know what we are seeing being done wrong. While I do agree it’s great to see experimentation when do you take down that experimentation and get back to something useful?
Hell for all we know that might be the best converting site on the net.
By Scrivs on December 16, 2005 2:04 pm
Mike wrote:
Big all started because of 37signals signup forms for their applications. They were the first (or one of the very first) people to boost the size of an input text field on a page, and then everything else followed after that. Let’s give credit (maybe not the right word!) where credit’s due here :)
I know you said their signup forms, but I want to highlight the fact that none of their applications actually use the “big design” that they apparently started.
So, while the value of “big design” is up for debate, I would argue that 37signals isn’t responsible for how big “big design” has become. :)
By Ryan on December 16, 2005 2:43 pm
Making everything big would be as much an offense as making everything small. Readable interface design is more about contrast than anything else.
Want me to start with object X on this screen? Then object X should be the first thing I see, which probably means it should be bigger.
But make everything bigger and I may not sense immediately to start with object X. Make everything small and I have the same problem — *plus* I now run into the legibility issues inherent in small text on displays.
Make big what needs to be big. If you believe your users will struggle with the default or styled sizes of text in form fields, make them bigger.
Make small what needs to be small. Copyright notices and inline icons (think about Yahoo’s downward-pointing purple arrow in stories) should not interfere with one’s concentration, even if you’re sure they need to be present.
In general, I design online stuff assuming it will be a bit harder to read than a same-size printed document. So that means maybe 10 percent larger, not “Web 2.0 big.”
But centuries of typographical and design theory don’t have to be tossed out based on today’s trends or anything else.
By Jay Small on December 16, 2005 3:05 pm
It’s just another trend that is going too far in the wrong direction. Personally, I’d rather have sites like Odeo with extra large elements than go back to the days of people trying to use 10px body text on their sites….I am STILL having to convince designers that the text shouldn’t be that small on the web.
Maybe in another few years when this trend is over, we’ll finally just have normal sites with normal size text that everyone can read.
By Jeff L on December 16, 2005 3:11 pm
Scrivs: Can’t you applaud the direction, by being critical of the application of it? That’s what I mean… I like that they are taking risks and I believe for the right reasons, and I think you can say “good for them,” while at the same time pointing out the pitfalls. Just because we are critical of something, we don’t necessarily have to be blind to the positives. I’m sure they didn’t just throw out their old site design in favour of this new one on assumption alone.
By Lea on December 16, 2005 3:38 pm
I can’t believe no one mentioned Fitt’s Law
For a less head-imploding explanation (and a very good one, too), check Marcin Wichary’s demonstration (Martin Wichary, for those not in the know, is a User Interface Designer for Google)
By Ale Muñoz on December 16, 2005 3:47 pm
Not long ago, I hated big. I thought it was slightly annoying and “in your face.” However, lately I’ve found myself bumping up the text size until it’s smooth. The after-effect of my screen resolution, I’m sure, but the large size (and smoothness) makes my eyes (and OCD) breathe a sigh of relief.
Geez, how old am I? Like 97?
By Nicole on December 16, 2005 4:15 pm
Big has its place in design, and I think certain elements of web pages and web apps scream for “big.” In its current state, though, “big” is merely a trend, just like “small” was a trend in 2000.
Design is an art that blends big and small, bold and slight, beautiful and mundane. The goal of blending these elements is quite simple - to convey a message.
Therefore, when designing, you really only need to ask yourself one question: have I conveyed the message clearly enough? If yes, then you’ve used “big” just right - coincidentally, you’ve also used “small” and “contrast” and “style” and “positioning” etc. just in the right amounts.
Unless you’re Carrie from Sex in the City, it’s not just about “big!”
By Chris on December 16, 2005 4:23 pm
I’ve been running a little survey on my site and published the results yesterday. Check it out. It’s relevant.
I go along with the passing trend theory and think it will resolve itself into more judicious use of Big. That’s what designers already do anyway, isn’t it, but perhaps 37 Signals gave more food for thought?
I also think Niko’s #1 comment is spot on.
By Peter on December 16, 2005 5:36 pm
Scrivs - You’re very right about big not necessarily being a good thing. Cameron said it best. The problem is with the “undjudicious use of big”. Unfortunately, that’s a potential problem with any style.
By Garrett on December 16, 2005 8:26 pm
Dang, another 9rules design is coming?
You guys don’t mess around :)
By Bryan on December 16, 2005 8:49 pm
Javier: This site does have big headlines because the focus should be on the headlines and the entries. Notice how not everything is big though?
Well, Scrivs, there you have it. Big fonts and big things to attract attention.
“why do we all want monitors with higher resolutions?”
Because we want more space to work! you can set the font bigger on any word/open office, but if you’re using 800×600 you don’t have plenty room… well, you asked. (and you answered too..doh!)
By Javier Cabrera (ClearYourMind) on December 16, 2005 11:55 pm
Big is turning into a bit of a trend along the lines of so many other things online. Way I see it will always be the way it has been - as just another option when designing. I personally prefer the simplicity and the content king style of sites. If they happen to be fluid or they happen to have big fonts then if it works fine. As with any web trend there are spats of copy versions springing up all over the place. Thing I look for are those sites using whatever design effectively and not just for the sake of it. If the site dictates it then that is probably more key to me - what is the point and function of the site over what is in fashion. There are many ways you can attract attention apart from being big - it’s just a tool.
By karmatosed on December 17, 2005 6:13 am
I said it on Garrett’s blog and I’ll say it again here. I strongly believe the whole ‘big’ thing is a design trend, just like karmatosed said. It has little to do with usability or making things clearer. I guess we all agree 8px text is unreadable and large text is easy to read. I find the current ‘trendy’ enormous forms with enormous buttons and headers plain ugly and I won’t use it in any design I make, no matter how trendy it may be. I see no gain in it or whatsoever besides looking like 37Signals.
The only thing I like when it comes to this whole trend is the big clear headers. A big header is good because headers are ‘important’ and need to attract attention. But even before the whole ‘big is the new black’ trend we all agreed on that already I guess.
By Marco on December 17, 2005 9:12 am
I agree with you.
If you only have a hammer as tool, soon each problem looks like a nail.
By Joerg Petermann on December 17, 2005 12:51 pm
Well in my opinion big is a bit relative. For example a layout can look better with 20px fonts then it does with 12px fonts but there are actual writing rules we must follow that make reading easier and better for the eyes.
It’s like you said “big is good in portions” but you mentioned another important issue that I dunno if you talked about it that is text size on different screen resolutions.
By Mario on December 17, 2005 6:11 pm
I agree that it is a trend. It’s something that may have started out from a useability standpoint, but it is now a trend. Which isn’t really a bad thing.
Yes big has a place in design. Its called emphasis. The things that need to be big are the things that you as a designer want to draw your viewer to. If everything is big, what are we supposed to focus on?
I chose to go large with my new design for article titles as well. But you’ll find the actuall article font is rather small. Am I saying the title is more important than the content? No. But it gets the viewers attention for all the right reasons.
By Koray on December 18, 2005 1:31 pm
I just signed up for tadalist and actually had to scroll for a 6 textbox form. I found it more confusing than the same signup form with normal font sizes due to the fact that I had to take in each box and label one at a time rather than scanning the whole form at a glance.
By Derek on December 18, 2005 11:02 pm
This site was very nice.. also visit http://www.noshi.se for more great news!
By Linus Ekenstam on December 19, 2005 7:26 am
Wait a second….I thought smaller was better!!! Oh nevermind, that was four years ago. This article reminded me of the time when micro sized fonts were really popular. People even used it more as a design element. It was so small it could not even be read, but it was also used in content presentation.
I think “big” is simply a fad and it will fade away as the micro sized typography did. Although I do believe it has practical implications. It is far more accesability friendly (hell, the micro sized fonts deffied accesability).
I think the we has definitely evolved into a content driven medium and using larger fonts and content areas definitely helps to draw attention to what is needed, but I also see it as a fad and the ones that use it as a means to present content will continue to use it but as a fad it will fall by the wayside. I also think the size of things will draw back a bit as well.
By Caleb on December 19, 2005 5:28 pm
I believe that as web applications become more complex that big buttons, text, etc., will become less popular again. They’re appropriate for more consumer-type applications, but for professional-level use, big items can clump up the UI. There’s a place for both, but I believe a resurgence of clean, tight UI with standard size elements, buttons, and fonts is on its way.
By Josh Williams on December 23, 2005 1:39 pm
I agree with Josh; that it’s merely a passing trend. What attracts me to the use of large text is the novelty factor. It’s still quite an unusual thing to see for the casual visitor (who doesn’t spend all day browsing Web 2.0 blogs!), so it immediately looks like a fresh, new, inviting concept.
Can’t wait for Amazon to triple their font size.
By Nick Dunn on December 26, 2005 3:10 pm
It’s still all about the negative space.
By James AkaXakA on December 31, 2005 1:24 pm
Your site looks great.
Big is better!
http://moremerchant.com
By JT on January 2, 2006 10:04 pm
Yeah, it’s kind of big and dumb, but I like it. The big dumb forms might be a bit much, but I’m liking the bigger text we’re seeing on weblogs. So much of the design world existed at 10 or 11px verdana for so long. Whitespace looks good, it was one of the bookmarks I was coming back to with my latest layout. The big fuckoff comment badges are a nice touch too.
By dave on January 3, 2006 3:17 am
It’s all about the trends. Personally, I like the use of larger text becaues it creates visual balance — makes the site more interesting to look at. I never liked small type because it’s really hard on the eyes on a monitor, and as computer monitor resolutions have grown, the need for smaller type for core body text has really diminished.
Efficient use of typography is even more important on the web than in design because of the relative limited number of fonts available. Good designers can use type efficiently and still play in between the constraints of technology.
By King Bastard on January 4, 2006 6:12 pm
I went BIG on the basis of this article.
Thanks!
By Taoski on January 6, 2006 8:44 am