Comments on: Is Less Really More?

By: Johan

Johan — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:52:38 +0000

Maybe you can optimize page load time

Like compress your stuff, cache control?

By: Johan

Johan — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:03:42 +0000

From the perspective of design, the “less is more” principle is followed to achieve a “less cluttered” interface, spare use of screen estate by using icons instead of large header images.

By: Andrew Faulkner

Andrew Faulkner — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:04:04 +0000

From a design point of view, less is often more because it allows the content to breathe. A claustrophobic feel to the content often puts people off reading. And at the end of the day, that’s what they’re there for.

From a standards/semantics point of view, less code often produces more standards /semantics friendly design. A case of divitis can be as bad as tables for code bloating. But sometimes sacrifices have to be made. It can be necessary to add another div tag to achieve a certain result in my view.

By: Al Newkirk

Al Newkirk — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:07:55 +0000

Yes, but CSS is more fluid. Example: After developing a sliced image even with optimization, what happens when you want to print? CSS and XHTML have addressed these issues. Compression and Cache Control are very good ideas however alot more time and resource consuming than say, “lightening your load”. Henceforth, I am changing the way I design. From now on I am dummying-down my interfaces.

By: J Phill

J Phill — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:10:39 +0000

I think it depends on the project. I immediately think of the Basecamp application when I think of less being more. Very simple interface, which is needed because the app is awesome and doesn’t require a complex interface.

By: giz404

giz404 — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:14:53 +0000

What really matters is the content. As long as the design is not plain ugly, it should do it. A site may be beautiful at first glance, but if it’s not usable, it won’t work as well as a more basic one (design-wise). If it’s ergonomic and functionnal, somehow, it’s beautiful.

By: Al Newkirk

Al Newkirk — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:19:05 +0000

One designer whos website I happened past to whom I must pay homage is, Luke W. The design examples here display simply yet effective layouts and placements.

By: Johan

Johan — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:19:59 +0000

if you reduce the number of background images, you reduce page load. CSS has background-position to move around 1 image.

Example: CSS sprites

By: Tor Bollingmo

Tor Bollingmo — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:31:44 +0000

Well, since people really got aware of standards for like two years ago, I’ve been coding properly - doesn’t everybody know the evil of tables, by now?

Less design is bad, less effects is good.

By: Al Newkirk

Al Newkirk — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:46:08 +0000

I disagree Tor, I think less design more effects. Afterall, effects general accent simple elements where unnecessary design is, well unnecessary.

By: Tor Bollingmo

Tor Bollingmo — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:49:38 +0000

I didn’t mean design as in ‘graphics’ I meant as in good solutions for the user to understand things better :)

By: Al Newkirk

Al Newkirk — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:04:16 +0000

“Tor, Agree with that I do” as would be said by the geat Yoda (Starwars).

By: Johan

Johan — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:27:47 +0000

I didn’t mean design as in ‘graphics’ I meant as in good solutions for the user to understand things better :)

For example:
information design: information architecture -> typography
usability design: page flow -> placement, ordering of blocks

By: Abhijit Nadgouda

Abhijit Nadgouda — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:31:05 +0000

I have been using less is more not as a design approach but as guidelines to keep a check on all the different aspects of design. None of them should be more! Whether it is graphics centred or text centred depends on the project. But in either case, none of the aspects should be more enough to ruin the function or usability or performance of the web site.

By: Clinton

Clinton — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:37:17 +0000

Hasn’t the method of generating web pages from ImageReady gone the way of the dodo bird? Having said that, I think there’s a time and place for that style of web design, but in general you’re doing a disservice to yourself, other designers and your client.

The CSS-driven, semantic style of page design does get a little boring — where’s the creativity when all sites look like blogs? — but it’s the way of the future. Well, the future is NOW. When in doubt, go clean and go functional. Generating a page through Photoshop makes for a quick n’ dirty job that will be a pain to customize and update in the future.

By: Al Newkirk

Al Newkirk — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:25:30 +0000

Clinton, you have definately hit the nail on the head. There is “A Time & A Place” for Photo-based designing (Photoshop). I am laughing to myself because your right, most websites on the net today look like blogs, oscommerce or php-nuke. Definately a sad day for web designers.

Here is a side note/question for you readers. I am an exceptional designer well versed in Photoshop, CSS, HTML and graphic design. I am also an expert programmer with working knowledge of Perl, PHP, C#, etc. What do I call myself? Am I a web designer, web developer, or application developer? Is there a name that sums it al up, besides “NERD”. :-)

By: Michael Murphy

Michael Murphy — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:20:46 +0000

As a fellow fadtastic author, I can’t pass up this opportunity to plug an article I published here a while ago on the trend to minimalism from a design standpoint. That article is here: http://fadtastic.net/2006/02/02/when-less-isnt-less/
I think it depends on the purpose of the site. For a personal page, I would say anything goes. If you’re writing a web app or a creating a site with some goal in mind, then every element should support and point to that goal. Otherwise it just distracts from it.

By: Quest McKinney

Quest McKinney — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:33:12 +0000

I definitely choose to design my sites using xhtml/css. I truly believe it is the best choice between html/photoshop and xhtml/css. There are several advantages to choosing the latter. One advantage is the W3C compliance, which as you know, helps with SEO. The more well formed your site, the eaiser it is for Google to index the site. Also, Google is the biggest blind user on the web, which gets us into Section 508 compliance. Section 508 talks about visually impaired users on the web. Visually impaired users use screenreaders to surf the web, but those screenreaders have a difficult time reading table structure and graphics. HTML/PHOTOSHOP designed sites can create a very unpleasant experience for the visually impaired web user. My final advantage deals with the mobile web. XHTML/CSS designed sites give you a headstart in ensuring your site is mobile ready. Well, these are just a few advantages to choosing the xhtml/css designed site.

By: Andrew Faulkner

Andrew Faulkner — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:07:40 +0000

Quest McKinney,

Some very good points there. I also believe that standards and SEO walk hand-in-hand.