I’m thinking it’s time to pose some questions to designers (or people opinionated about design) about web design trends and their role on the web. So here I am, introducing Part 1 of A Trends Interview. Many thanks to the designers who put the effort into their responses.

1. The Web2.0 design style is good for web design. Agree?

If we are speaking of the generalized visual elements we associate with many Web2.0 sites (drop shadows, gradients, big type, etc.), then I cannot agree that it is good for web design. I disagree, not so much for the specific styles that are being used, but how visual elements seem to have taken a precedence over concept and communication. I would say the specific style in question is neither good nor bad. Rather, the fact that there seems to be so little deviation from that style for so many designs is what could be considered problematic.

In terms of user experience and interaction design - Web2.0 has a tremendous amount of potential for being “good” for web design. There are so many things that were all but impossible to do on the web a year ago, such as basic AJAX functionality, that are now a snap. While more options are not always better, the ever evolving web technologies do give designers more options for creativity.

P.J. Onori

I do not fully agree that this is good for web design. I think originality is key to the success of any concept and it is fairly rare that this is found in Web 2.0 (I’m not saying it doesn’t exist only that as a style it is easy to recognise and easy to design). I think one of the factors that has caused the Web2.0 design style to come about because graphic designers have influenced, or have been working in teams with, Web developers. This has brought about a typographically cleaner and better standard of web design. However this style has its limitations. Although good from an accessible perspective I think its difficult to use large visuals to communicate brand ethics or flash animations. These, if used correctly, can really help the brand reputation.

The one thing that concerns me is that Web Design 2 does not require a sales concept. What I mean by this is a clever visual idea which communicates key messages – for an example of a site that has used such an approach see http://www.3000k.com/ - although as I say this is rare. In my view Web Design 2 styles are normally text based with little or no thought about concepts and marketing which I feel is cant be a good thing from a clients perspective.

Matt Davies

Web 2.0 is great, but you can’t have a style. Currently, Web 2.0 doesn’t have a definition. I think Web 2.0 design should be light, which is great as it’s easier for the eyes.

Joe Anderson

The round rectangles and soft colors are usually easy on the eye, but I wouldn’t say they’re good or bad for web design. My only issue with the style is that it’s easy to copy, so it ends up lending itself to lots of sites that are just variations on a theme, rather than really trying to be innovative. I think it’s kind of funny when I see someone asking for a design that is Web 2.0 and Ruby on Rails, and they have no idea what they’re saying. In the end, I suppose it’s not terrible. It’s just another catch phrase. And since the barrier of entry to emulating the Web 2.0 style is rather low, it makes for fewer ridiculously ugly sites out there.

Brian Warren

Good. While some may argue against, I believe the Web 2.0 “style” refreshened the web. We witnessed a large migration towards standards based design and accessibility. My favorite is the use of large, easy to read typography. Light and clean. My impression of the Web 2.0 “style”.

Derek Punsalan

2. Do trends have a negative effect on website designs in a way which forms stereotypes? i.e. A technology site must look glossy/A rock band’s site must look grungy etc.

No, it’s just setting up stereotypes. It’s been around since before the web. Brochures for insurance agents tend to look different than liner notes for grunge bands. We’ll never escape these stereotypes in the industry. It’s just always going to present a challenge for people to be innovative.

Brian Warren

Trends are a double edge sword for a web designer. On the one hand they can help with clients who are undecided by showing parameters. On the other hand they can be used as a yard stick to instant successful design by designers and clients. In the later sense, it is dangerous and mutes the one point about being a designer which is at the core - originality. Trends will always happen and so will trend abuse, it’s a balance that is hard to make.

Tam Lister

I think “trend” isn’t so much the issue as the designers are. Seems a lot of designers get stuck in rut of thinking sites should be designed a certain way because of what’s popular.

Josh Pigford

Trends as you describe may help users to a certain degree, as sites within niches could trend to the same style of layout and functionality. So I wouldn’t say that they are negative from a users perspective, but at the same time stereotypes do get old, and if the trends stifle innovation then that is a negative point. So yes and no.

Mike Papageorge

Absolutely. Everyone is so busy making their rounded corners rounder than anyone else’s that not enough people are just going out on their own and doing something new. I’d like to see less trend-following and more trend-setting.

Richard Dunlop-Walters

3. Do you agree that much graphical effort is placed into the exterior of a site design but not into the content itself?

It depends on the site, of course. Look at any CSS gallery today, and 90% of what you’ll see is pretty faces on empty content. Content that has no organization, no clear purpose, no redemptive value. Of course, I’ve been guilty of this myself before. “Cast the first stone” and whatnot, I guess.

Content design is something that doesn’t get as much focus as it should. Fortunately, part of the Web 2.0 change is the focus on this content. Before, most companies would simply translate some crummy brochure into a web page and expect it to work. It doesn’t. What makes the web different is the way people navigate and sift through the information. And because users are spending their time rummaging through this information, designing that information is critical to your success or failure in convincing them of whatever it is you’re trying to convince them of, whether it’s that your product is worth their money or that your ideas are worth reading on a daily basis.

As a web designer, I’m often frustrated by people who want a pretty face on their site, but balk at redesigning their actual content. I dream of the day when information architecture is an entire profession unto itself. I’ve seen some rumblings of that going on in web design, and I can only hope it goes big time soon.

Tyson Tate

No I do not. I believe that content should be able to speak for itself, but this does not have to be done in a sense that you remove the design or graphical element. Yes, the content is key to search engines, readability and sense. I also feel text is as much a part of the design in the form and execution as any image - it is often a majority component of a website.

Tam Lister

This totally depends on the project - some clients get it about content, others don’t. A designer will almost always put his or her best effort into a design, but a given company may not shell out for decent copywriting. Just look at the whole “ugly design works” debate; many websites succeed in spite of their design. This counters what you pose in the question, so again, it’s a case by case thing.

Mike Papageorge

And that brings us to the end of Part 1. I’m sure the designers will be willing to answer any questions you may have so get debating! Thanks again to the designers who came onboard for this interview. Watch out for Part 2 soon.

Share This

↑ Jump up to the comment form

The posts Welcome 9rules readers!, A Trends Interview ~ Part 2 of 3, Call for interviewees!, Jakob Nielsen @ E-consultancy.com, Big Players (not) Using Trends, are related to this post.

Or why not take time out to find out about the author of the post.