The Case Against Code
by Stuart Thursby
By trade, we are graphic designers. For the most part, that means that we do a bit everything; we work in print, we work on the web, we work with outdoor; we work with interactive. In short, we work with whatever needs working on to get the message across. Because the point isn’t the methods you use to convey a concept, the point is the concept itself.
Good. Now that we have that blatant truth out of the way, we can move on to the topic of the day: screw code.
I’ve heard graphic designers of all levels complain about how their Photoshop mockups were completely eviscerated in the development stage. Not only have I heard it, but I’ve been there and done it: coding a website introduces inherent realities which a Photoshop document cannot account for. As a result, I’ve found myself (and I’m sure many of you can say the same) dialing down my designs somewhat to allow for a more realistic and attainable end result.
And that is entirely the wrong way to go about it.
On any given project, limits are something which can simultaneously allow for boundless creativity or stifling rigidity. From the outset of any given project, certain limits should be established: a hierarchy, a general colour palette & tone for the site, rough visual concept, etc. However, under almost no circumstances should the limited nature of the web be one of them. I’ve caught myself saying “oh no, that can’t be done like that” because I knew, from previous experiences, that it was difficult to get it right. However, if that piece of difficult code is what differentiates your site from the competitors, then you damn well better get it to work. Because in the effectiveness of a website (or any communications piece) it’s the concept that matters; not the practicalities.
I found that, by introducing these little qualifications or semi-excuses to avoid particularly troublesome bits of a web design project, I would gaze back with tinted glasses on the days of working primarily with print (which, in full disclosure, was no more than two years ago) where it seemed like anything could go. However, this was simply not the case, as there was an entirely different batch of restrictions related to print: budgets, printers, paper stock, etc.
In short, we got on with it not by cutting back on our concept because of any inherent technical limitations, but instead we would embrace these restrictions and find a whole other way of approaching the project at hand which ended up working better in the long run. Small budget but with a need for strong visual impact? Print black or white text on coloured paper.
The point is graphic designers back in the day didn’t go around saying “this can’t be done, that’s impossible, and the other thing’s all wrong.” 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 amazing what can be achieved without a preformed bias; we’ve all worked on projects where the best results came from the most unexpected places, and that’s because of the benefits of an open mind.
Same principle for the web.
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. Banish “no”, “cannot” and “won’t” from the dictionary; they have no purpose when all that matters is the concept. Are there limitations to working on the web? Sure there are, and they’ll be addressed in due course.
But there were always limitations, and the best results embrace them as part of the entire process, not by compromising for them at the beginning.
§
The opinions expressed in this blog are entirely my own and in no way whatsoever reflect the positions of Applied Arts or anyone else I’m affiliated with.
Comments
[...] This post was Twitted by andyrutledge [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by sthursby: The Case Against Code http://bit.ly/8IfhuU…
In the last paragraph you contradict yourself, isn’t the beginning a part of the whole process? If in the beginning, you discover there is no feasible way to implement a solid gold toilet, then you wouldbe doing your job in limiting your materials to ceramic.
You are mistaken: the concept doesn’t matter, the results do.
Well, obviously there are are some certain guidelines: if the client demands for something as off-the-wall as unfeasible as a solid gold toilet, then encouraging the client to switch to ceramic or another material is a necessary part of the process (unless it is possible to construct a feasible solid gold toilet). Likewise, if the client demands the most innovative website on the market, certain limitations do eventually come into play (bandwidth, loading times,etc).
My point with this post is that too often I found myself excessively limiting a design due to conventions or a pre-established sense of what works and what doesn’t, and that that’s no way to design. To a degree, yes, it’s not possible to do certain things, but on the whole, many more things are possible than at first appear. My point was to ignore seemingly restrictive boundaries at the outset, and not to limit your thinking process into conventional means because that’s how it’s always been done.
My background is very similar to yours so, to a degree, I understand where your coming from. However, ignoring technical limitations of your medium is simply irresponsible. If you hand over a print piece to a production or prepress manager which exceeds technical limitations they’ll tell you to start over.
Concept is certainly important, but being able to properly apply it to your medium is more important. Furthermore, concept goes further than aesthetic. You must consider the entire user experience. If a feature won’t function properly on the web due to it’s “limitations” then the user experience will suffer, inevitably resulting from a flawed concept.
Sounds like you just need to stop saying “screw it”, and learn more about code.
You were able to transcend the limitations in print because you knew the ins and outs of the printing process. The same is true for the web.
I have yet to craft a design that I couldn’t replicate exactly in HTML/CSS (or, at least: with as much margin for error as any print project can expect), but I have seen concepts that shouldn’t even have been tried. Not because of the limitations of HTML, but because they these concepts showed a complete lack of regard for the medium.
I think what I was trying to get at (and may have inadequately gotten across) was that I felt that, too often, I saw a continual stream of websites which had very similar layouts, with very similar structures, as a result of either a specific intent of concrete usability and standards (which is fine) or an “easy way out” when other options may have been better (which is not so fine). The websites we see which get all the press and attention are those which take a different approach, which truly try to do something different, whatever the coding requirements of it — they find a way to get it done. And the best part is that it’s best done when it serves the content, which proves that sometimes unconventional layouts or websites can in fact be better. I’m thinking of not only of web designer’s personal websites, where they have unlimited room to experiment (see: Jason Santa Maria, among others), but also some impressive corporate websites as well (see: Apple, among others).
I’m far from a rockstar designer; far from it, I feel like I’m not even in the same stratosphere as those who do it full-time for a living. But I know that I’ve been guilty of mentally organizing a website based on how others were built or set up, and that, while that can work from a conventional standpoint…conventions come from innovations. The “lightbulb” moment occurred when I built a simple website which had been been designed by a print designer. At first glance, I was taken aback because it broke all kinds of convention, but with some minor modifications, I found that the site actually worked quite well, despite its difference. Better than a more conventional layout would. With the increasing flexibility and power of web code nowadays, I truly feel like we can do more than we currently are, and that there’s room for innovation without sacrificing usability.
hi Stuart, I’ve been on the same path – I hear your pain.
But you forget that you couldn’t do everything in print – you were spectacularly limited: colour, stock, finish, distribution, cost – to name 5. You just knew those rules too well.
Tech is a limitation – but the web isn’t print, it’s immature and changing – the development of good standards compliant sites is enormously important to it’s development.
Look back 10 years to a 1999 page on http://www.archive.org and see how far we’ve come. It’s incredible.
Also we haven’t had our RayGun moment yet… maybe someone, maybe you, will explode our boundaries and that will change the game.
I really like what you write – but unfortunately your first post sounds rather petulant; it’s not really a case, just a rant. Next time try marking that up… where we come from we start that with and end with . That way everyone knows what they’re looking at.
hah! stripped out my code! so much for “rant” tags…
I would definitely call this a rant, which is I guess why I put it under the “waxing” category: maybe there needs to be a rant one for more emotional posts =p.
I have no doubt that web standards are immensely important; rather, I feel that sacrificing a more effective design for the sake of common usability (i.e. logos predominantly in the top left; navigation always at the top, etc.) is a step backwards, not a step forwards. The website in question (which I’ll edit the post with a link to later) had the logo in the upper right, and navigation on the bottom, below the content itself. However, because the content was short enough, it could all fit on one screen on the majority of screens, and it complemented the flow of the document quite well. In effect, it “read” like it was an HTML brochure instead of a conventional site, which was exactly the intent.
Is this a groundbreaking web site? Would this work for anything more complex than a two or three page site? Not likely, but it made me let go of some preconceived notions which I felt were holding me back in my own design work.
For the most part I agree with you, but would add a caveat in the opposite direction of the comments so far: understanding code can actually make design more liberating.
There are many interesting effects involving opacities and nested, floating DIVs, resizing windows and reflowing content, and hover states and mouse events– designers will only be able to take advantage of these if they understand some of the underlying code.
By way of context, I write code and my partner is a designer. I feel like this is an ideal division of labour, and we’ve made a point of the fact that he shouldn’t be constrained by perceived code limitations. It’s made me a better programmer. But just as I do my best to understand grids, type and colour theory, his base level knowledge of my work is crucial.
[...] came across The Case Against Code on Stuart Thursby’s blog today. As I understand it, he writes that web designers [...]
As a designer moving into the illustration market I’ve come across the realization that in oder to be simply amazing at something you need to put time into it. And that made me think a lot more about design and code. Especially with all the job ads out there requiring designers to know everything. And if you know everything you simply cannot be considered an expert at any of them since you’ve now split your time devotion to multiple areas over one. Simply put every hour I learn code will make 0 impact in making me a better illustrator. And it can’t be much different for design.
The movie and video game industry understand this and push it sometimes to the opposite extreme that pigeon holes certain artists from branching off into other areas. If you’re good at textures, you’re a texture guy and that’s all you’re likely going to do when the AD needs someone they can count on.
I really love this blog and your approach and sensibilities to design and professionalism. I’m interested in your opinion about this.
Stuart,
re: “rather, I feel that sacrificing a more effective design for the sake of common usability (i.e. logos predominantly in the top left; navigation always at the top, etc.) is a step backwards, not a step forwards.”
There is no design or layout that cannot be properly articulated with good, semantic markup, CSS, and perhaps JS …and with a mind to usability and accessibility (in its various forms). I’m not sure where you’re getting the mistaken idea that there is some required limitation brought to the web by semantic markup, web standards, good usability, or accessibility, but those notions exist only in your own mind. You’re beating up a straw man.
What’s more, never forget that content on the Web is not merely for consumption by average-functioning human eyes. It is also for consumption by people with various physical and sensory challenges and for consumption by a host of technologies that must be able to understand what is presented and properly read, categorize, archive, and be referenced by other technologies and other humans (just as the ocean is not a flat, blue surface: most of the “content” is below the surface).
Rather than complain about the limitations you perceive, adjust your abilities to render those limitations–real or imagined–resolved, as others have done. Best of luck.
Andy, I’m going to post a follow-up post soon which I hope will address some of the points you brought up in your comment. I hope it will clear up my argument a bit more.
Aaron, I feel that there are two types of people in the creative world: specialists and generalists. Specialists are those who are the very cream of their very specific crop (the Michael Beiruts, Matthew Carters and Joe McNallys of the world), whereas generalists do several things very well, or many things decently. The vast majority of creatives are probably generalists, and that’s a good thing, as sometimes a project calls for a different approach, and generalists will recognize that. However, the person they’ll go to for those executions will, more often than not, be the specialists, who can best execute the idea. Just as some people are destined to be obsessive compulsive and others a bit more freestyle, those who are predisposed to being a generalist should focus on learning as much as they can about many different subjects, whereas the specialists, while being aware of the benefits and limitations of other disciplines, should spend most of their time on their field of choice.
This is a pretty simplistic and narrow definition, but it’s how I see the creative world, and any successful studio or agency requires the complementary strengths of both in order to succeed. If jobs are advertising for those who can do a bit of everything, it’s likely because the position requires someone to do a bit of everything, and a specialist would be ill-suited to the role. However, that same specialist might excel in a larger agency, or as a freelancer, compared to a smaller shop where everyone has to pitch in on most projects.
[...] The Case Against Code [...]
[...] by Stuart Thursby’s admittedly misguided “The Case Against Code,” Andy Rutledge followed up with this tweet in [...]