Despite the the dot-com bubble bursting at the turn of the new millennium, the Web has become more intelligent, successful, and profitable in the past ten years. We have a ton of people to thank for that, but let’s focus on two groups that are celebrating their 10th anniversaries this 2008.
Google is one of the first web companies that reinvented the web as we know it. It essentially paved the way for what we call the Web 2.0 era because it was the better search engine that would leave Yahoo!, MSN, Altavista, Lycos, Ask, and the rest behind.
True to its name, Google just keeps on getting bigger. It took on e-mail (Gmail), advertising (AdSense and AdWords), office suites (Docs, Spreadsheets, Sites), multimedia (YouTube, Picasa), navigation (Earth, Sky, Moon, Maps, Street View), and even web browsing (Chrome). And even if the thought of Google looking into what we’re looking at and what we’re talking about is really scary, life with the help of the big G is just easier.
In the same vein, A List Apart has been the definitive resource “for people who make websites”. What started out as a mailing list evolved into a treasure trove of elegant web design articles that cultivated the love for the craft like no other. Design, standards, accessibility, optimization, business—this magazine covers it all.
It’s written the pages of web design history as well, from banishing <table>-based layouts to inventing CSS techniques (Sliding Doors of CSS, Holy Grail, Suckerfish Dropdowns, Sprites, Faux Columns, Mountaintop Corners) we never could have come up with. Websites today are efficient, meaningful, and beautiful because of ALA.
So many people admire Andy Rutledge and his insightful articles at Design View; but that seems to have changed overnight with his latest offering, USA.gov Redux.
It’s a thoughtful look into the redesign of the USA.gov website, but what has got people irked—primarily in 140 characters or less—is the deliberate sprinkling of provocative political views against Barack Obama and his brand of “Change”, from start to finish. It’s present even in the final mockup.
I’m not sure if the article was written in all seriousness, or hilarity, or satire, which makes me hesitant in even asking, was Andy right to mix design and politics in such a sour tone? We certainly have seen it work well in a hopeful context.
But we can’t try to pretend that design is pure and free from any sort of intent—whether at the hands of a designer manipulating the vision of his client into what he deems fit, or a designer who sees eye to eye with his client one-hundred percent. It seems the latter is impossible, but the former should not be laced with malicious agenda.
Will Harris shares some insight on working with designers. We often read about tips for designers by designers, but not tips for clients by clients. Still, both parties should read it (and print out the PDF, too!).
Designers (and professionals in related fields) will get great gems of advice that will make them go “oh, thank goodness he said that!” because it’s so common for clients to just sit there and say “I don’t like that” without giving any real reason behind their preference. A design project (again, this can apply to other fields) is the responsibility of both the designer and the client. They have to work together.
But let me digress a little bit. One thing that struck me while reading the article was Will’s first suggestion:
Choose your designer carefully. Look at their previous work. The best designers don’t have a “signature look.” Their sites look as different as their clients do. Awards don’t necessarily mean the design worked for the client. If you’re not sure about a design, go to sites they designed and ask their clients.
Do you agree that designers with more diverse-looking projects are better than those who maintain a signature look? On the one hand, it immediately leads a client into thinking that the designer has a wider skill set and can more easily meet their requirements especially if they’re fickle.
On the other hand, clients opt for designers with a consistent style exactly because they want to emulate that look on their own projects.
I think that in general, professionals start out not knowing exactly what they want to do, and try everything out first. As they grow older they start to specialize. As time passes, you’re supposed to be more sure of yourself and should be able to hold a distinguishable reputation among your peers. This can be said not only about the styles you create, but the skills you specialize in, the clientele you work with, and so on. I wouldn’t say this is the only way to go, but it seems to be the trend.
There are 29 categories on Wisdump today. 7 of them have 5 posts or less associated, 13 have got less than 20 posts. Several are completely redundant, probably great ideas when Scrivs ran the show, but the Wisdump I took over last year neither was nor is his playground. Categories like 9rules had its place back then, but today it’s a mere archive of Scrivs writing about his project.
Which brings me to which categories next Wisdump should have?
In my mind, you should always keep the number of categories to a minimum. It makes things easier for you, and it opens up opportunities for special styling, branding, things like that. Tags have effectively replaced the categories when it comes to show exactly what something is about, now categories are meant for sorting, and tags does the pinpointing.
more
The Wisdump redesign concept I posted previously have been updated. It still follows the same basic premise, but is now populated with more content, and the sidebar top isn’t as heavy.
more
