The Case Against Code II

My most recent post sparked a few strong, well thought-out comments by a variety of people. Feeling that I may not have explained myself quite as well as I hoped to, I decided to post a follow-up which I hope will make things a bit clearer.

I do not believe for a second that designers should design for the web without keeping code in their mind every step of the way. Rather I feel that — when presented with a situation that at face value seems exceedingly difficult or impossible — if that situation results in a stronger design than compromising for the sake of standard practice or ease of build, then they should use whatever code is necessary to make the result happen. I didn’t mean “screw code” as a call to disregard code when visually designing a website; I meant “screw code” as a call to disregard any limitations of code, perceived or real. While every web designer intuitively builds up a library of code knowledge and instinct with time and practice, there are a million different possibilities, and for the most part anything is possible.

This is what I was referring to when I said that “with a fresh web project, it’s important to not get caught up in the minutiae of the technicalities of code when the calling is for the most powerful execution of an idea.” If that most powerful execution of an idea calls for an innovative layout, then you do it with an innovative layout. Web standards and accessibility do not necessarily exclude fresh design thinking, and semantic code can still result in innovative layouts.

With print, there was more of an open field when it came to creating unconventional or groundbreaking designs. This is what I meant when I said that “designers ignored the technical limitations until the concept was pretty much sorted out, and then entered the production phase without any preconceived notions of what could and couldn’t be done.” It’s my own personal observation that it seems like the web is more structured and conventional in nature, and that’s as much its strength as it is its weakness. While there is something to be said for consistent top or left navigation and other web practices, there’s also something to be said for experimentation in pursuit of the perfect layout. Progress comes from a different way of thinking, and while the web has come an exceedingly far way in an exceedingly short time span, there shouldn’t be a barrier, imagined (even if it’s just by the few) or otherwise, against that pursuit of the perfect layout.

I also recognize that this is far from an absolute, and that some websites — probably the majority (primarily amongst online retailers, large company websites, etc) — do call for a standard navigation system and other commonly-accepted conventions. Particularly where a portion of the viewers do require audio aids, semantic markup and other assisted functions. However (and this may be my inexperience shining through) semantic code does not cancel out innovative solutions, and virtually anything is possible without sacrificing accessibility.

My main point is this: a website design should not be scaled back in ambition because of convention. Just because we have always coded a certain way or more often side towards having certain elements built a certain way, does not mean we always should. While that’s a pretty obvious statement to make, I can’t help but feel that, in what little I have seen on the web, it’s too often the case where conventional thinking shines through. While I’m far from an expert and cannot say what would or wouldn’t work better in any given situation, it’s my own position that the concept should be fully explored and defined before the design stages begin, and the design stage should occur (while keeping at least a rough idea of how to code it all in mind) as it did in print: with a clean sheet of potential. Coding limits a design only so far as we let it, and if an innovative or unconventional design is the best possible execution of the given concept or idea, then that’s what should be implemented.

Addendum

Just now, Inspired Mag posted a showcase of “Creative Blogs with Totally Original Design.” While some are more conventional than others (albeit still wonderfully rendered), sites like Trippin Words, Dustin Curtis’ blog, Movie Titles and idsgn all bring something different to the table, cosmetically and/or structurally. Meanwhile, db-db does as well, but I feel like the mayhem that ensues detracts from its difference. Simply being unconventional isn’t enough, it has to serve the preordained concept, and I feel that, at least with those few sites I mentioned, they do that.