“I want to be like Mike” – Who is the Michael Jordan of web Design?
Another frustrating day as an in-house designer is typically attributed to the constant and unstoppable comparison of your work to “industry leaders”. It isn’t a project that goes by that a perfectly good brainstorm is inappropriately interrupted with the comment, “lets just see what Yahoo! is doing” or “how does Amazon handle this?” Why do we yearn and struggle to be like Google, Yahoo!, Ebay or Amazon?
This unproductive and unfortunate beast is probably the same reason my resume always gets me an interview; because it says “Discovery Channel” on it. There is some self-conscious inclined subconscious thinking that tells us, “if it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for me”. I say, don’t ask, “What is Yahoo! doing?” demand the creation of a product that forces Yahoo! to ask what you are doing!
A little over a year ago I completed a two-year project that demanded the entire redesign (information and visual design) of 80 print magazine’s web properties. With every single one of them, a computer was up with yahoo.com displayed and compared during the projects’ inception – “lets just do what Yahoo is doing”. My first question typically is, “what does a portal like Yahoo! have anything to with a monthly print magazine?” I usually follow with the realistic eye-opening concept that Yahoo! is by no means done with their site. It would be naïve and down-right ignorant to assume Yahoo!, Google, Ebay or Amazon aren’t constantly discussing how to correct, better or enhance their websites. Do we assume these leaders of the pack feel as though they’ve reached perfection; what they have now is the best the world has to offer? Absolutely not!
As unprofessional as it might be, I was secretly laughing and grinning in an “I told you so” sort of fashion when Yahoo! announced its recent redesign of yahoo.com. My old colleagues spent countless hours figuring out how to mimic the old Yahoo!, they never stopped to focus on how to ensure their site represents the best-in-thinking of techniques that would prove to be the basis for the new Yahoo!. Just because Google has a minimalist style and is successful doesn’t mean all sites should now be minimalist. Just because Yahoo! has a left-hand navigation with icons, doesn’t mean you need them too. Craig’s List is extremely popular and successful – this doesn’t mean that all successful sites must be designed with overwhelming table-based blocks of categories.
Perhaps this all boils down to the leader vs. follower mentality. Do you want to be like Michael Jordan or do you want Michael Jordon to want to be like you?
- September 28th, 2006
- 39comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
I’ve always found the big sites lag behind many others in innovative design ideas that look really nice. One of the primary reasons I come read Newsvine everyday is I enjoy their design much more than other sites.
I’m not what I’d consider an artist and yet I get to play at one for my company, I’m a jack of all trades one of which is developing a new website. I’ve been looking at hundreds of my favorite sites and trying to figure out what makes them good for their audience and what my audience is and going from there. Nothing is really original in the design but more like best practices of many other sites that relate well to my audience.
Being a programmer I find the coding part a bit more interesting than the design part but it’s fun to be free to do it all. The best challenge is keeping it all accessible, standards-complient, and yet innovative looking.
I completely agree. Just because Yahoo! did it doesn’t make it right. Yahoo and Goolge do many things right, many things better than others. Lets be inspired by what they do right, work to correct what they do wrong and always design for our audience.
I think it is interesting how you find the interest in the code behind. I think that is what makes sites like CSSBeauty.com successful – it highlights the beauty of the code-behind – how there can be visual beauty on the front complimented by “beautiful” code.
I’m biased of course, but I’d actually say Apple :)
If we’re discussing news sites, I like Newsvine, and also the new NYTimes site for scanability and choice on the home page.
Re always comparing to Yahoo: Sad. It’s true that the big portal sites like Yahoo spend lots of time and money analyzing their IA and design, but whatever they find works for their demographic, which may not be yours. So the copying may not even work, in addition to being bad practice.
At the same time, it’s a good idea to see what others are doing, and comparing their solutions to your own. It must be frustrating though to always hear the same question–how is Yahoo doing it?
I usually do some visual research to see what a company’s competitors are doing. That only makes sense to me. Do you all consider Yahoo one of your competitors?
As far as I know, we don’t.
(or maybe not since we got one of their best people onboard our own teams, hehehe)
But I’m not a representative on this issue, so who knows.
I think the reason Yahoo! tends to come up so much as the site to compare to, is because of their breathe of service; they are truly an internet portal. If you are in the business of news, finance, autos, photos, auctions, radio, e-mail, etc. Yahoo! is in your space. It is hard to find an area that Yahoo! doesn’t involve itself in. Also, most people have used Yahoo! in one way or another, so it is easy to understand and use in conversation.
I don’t think I ever actually looked at any of the portal sites for inspiration, but I work in the medical field. I’ve looked at tons of private practise and hospital websites, then lots of good standards based and accessibility sites that promote that functionality - which means usually it’s a website for designers.
My most frustrating part is not being taken as seriously by the doctors. Because I do everything IT for them I’m not an ‘expert’ in web design. This I readily admit is true but some of the jokers they consider experts makes me wince. If I get asked why my site isn’t 100% Flash movies again I’ll throw the laptop at them!
Would it be considered sucking up if I said Mike Davidson?
Yes, but say it anyway ;-)
And Dave Shea, Doug Bowman, andsoforthandsoforthomgthislistissolong… ;)
LOL, I am starting to wonder how many people actually read my post or simply read the title and briefly scan. I wasn’t actually asking a question – more ranting on the fact that the question of who is the Michael Jordan of web design seems to be asked and answered by our clients and boss’.
It isn’t that I asses who is or is not the greatest of great or even use them as inspiration. It is that our clients and decision makers do this – it is highly unproductive.
I read your entire article, and I liked the yahoo anecdote.
but if you clueless people really want to know who is the MJ of Web Design,
it’s these guys:
2 ADVANCED
For a second I thought that was the site for the latest Unreal.
The redesign for TWiT.tv looks pretty good, and I think MacZOT! has a pretty slick (albeit bright), minimalist design.
I suppose there are worse things than being compared to Yahoo!, like being asked to make every site a blue-or pink-ified, pastel-ated, sans-serif’d, badge-y “Web 2.0″ site
“it’s these guys: 2 ADVANCED“
Sorry, any flash designers are automatically disqualified. Calling flash a good web design is like saying that Shrek is a good actor.
flash interface is still the future.
Too bad you guys who can’t code flash get upset over this…but simple DHTML/CSS with zero flash is not going to last forever.
I can’t wait til there’s more 3D-flash OS and more 3D flash-browsers…the ones now are still too much in their infancy.
I will say I’ve seen a lot of 2Advanced’s work over the years and they are amazing! They are all flash and no substance – in a sense. You couldn’t call them the Michael Jordan of web design the same way you couldn’t compare a street ball’er to MJ. They might have some fancy moves and an unrealistic shooting average, but there is a hell of a lot more to the game than getting the ball into the hoop.
2Advanced still doesn’t include a DOCTYPE, ignores accessibility and focuses more on the visual than the forward thinking realism that the web demands for dynamic, easily changing, adjusting and updating.
I’m not knocking Flash as it has it’s uses. But it, just like AJAX has it place. They’re both tools to make a user experience successful. For me, at least, when I start thinking about a design, it’s “What does the end user need to experience in order for my client to be successful?”
That’s what should drive technology decisions when creating and designing a site. Technology shouldn’t drive the decisions.
“flash interface is still the future.“
Maybe it was the future in ‘98, but no longer.
“Too bad you guys who can’t code flash get upset over this…but simple DHTML/CSS with zero flash is not going to last forever.“
The problem with flash is that it is not extensible or adaptable. Trying viewing that site you linked to in a PDA or smartphone. Not gonna happen. The Interweb needs to be adaptable. Xhtml, CSS and Javascript if properly implemented will guarantee that your site will display on anything.
Adam,
I am the last person to be a hard-core flash advocate; however it like Ajax can and will degrade nicely. We worked on a project a year or so ago where we had to redesign a high-end high-quality print magazine’s website. To get the same quality on the homepage that the print cover demanded, Flash was an obvious choice!
So, we created a dynamic flash application that pulled in content (text, links, photos) from a CMS. We then inserted some code that ONLY displayed the flash version of this content if they user had the flash player 6.0 or above. If the user did not have the flash player necessary, then the default setting was an exact replica of the content but displayed using HTML mark-up (pulling the exact same content dynamically).
Now you have two versions of the content with minimal effort. The little effort it took is one-time; now that everything is dynamic, they both update automatically!
I leave Flash only sites almost instantly. Why? My ad blocker makes me click to see Flash content, in order to effectively block annoying Flash ads. So, every Flash only site is black, with a bunch of “Click to View” buttons. Flash as an overall web design tool is dead to me. All of the supposed “advantages” are straw dog arguments…
I’ve noticed that it’s the little things that seem to make big ripples. For example, I was blown away back in the day by Mjau-Mjau - the lady that subtly flickers while you are hanging out on the site. Usability I think was rather non-existent then and it was these subtle elements that would make the site good or bad. Then, on the other extreme (not going as far as CG, there is the simplicicty of Basecamp - which I think is good utility even if bad design… to take that a step further, techcrunch.
My mom says that a good actor is one with whom you don’t notice their hands. To that end, I think a good design is one that delivers function in the most comfortable way for the user. If it is a search engine, Google first had it right (were they the first?) that what matters is speed and simplicity, yet this approach would be a disaster as design for, say, MTV… Just looked at MTV - well below my expectations :(
I am curious - what do you think of our site?
Nikitab –> Speaking as a standards advocate, “Table Hell” is the first thing that comes to mind; and looking under the hood proves to be ture. You’ve instantly confused me with respect to your brand; is it SiMIX or “Advanced Software Solutions”. Your stock photos (clearly being stock) scream unprofessional and perhaps even deceptive — this enhanced by the fact that your “Microsoft Certified Partner” links to nothing (obviously not true then?). Speaking as a business-oriented-designer; I have no idea what you do. It seems odd to me that you seperate products, solutions, and serives — in your industry, I would think those three are pretty much one-in-the-same.
Compared to most, you have a nicely designed site. Speaking as a professional, I would say this site is far from professional (being candid, please dont take personal offense).
These guy is good, independent and standards driven.
http://stopdesign.com/portfolio/
Corps, never, ever think outside the box. They are in it. Too much risk.
Not that independent or Corp free. Bowman went over to Google a few months ago as a full time employee — now working for the man.
I hope you’re joking. 2Advanced is more or less considered the most arrogant of the “top” design firms. Flash is quickly being usurped by Web 2.0-type functionality, relegating Flash to pure supporting aesthetics and certain other functions (file uploaders and such). I’ve been in the industry since 1998, and never have I seen a functional, scalable site in Flash that couldn’t have been done with more efficiency and elegance through other means.
If you’re looking for excellence in design, you should be talking about places like http://www.subtraction.com/ (who also designed the current NY Times page); usability, functionality, and intuitiveness are paramount to purely aesthetic plays like 2Advanced carries out.
2Advanced is whats wrong with web design. plain and simple.
Not even close. If we were talking about interface design for video games, then I would put them on the list. But for *web* design, they are so far below the list as to not even be on the radar.
Doh! Maybe that is why they brought him in. So they can keep him in a box :-)
Good catch!
“Doh! Maybe that is why they brought him in. So they can keep him in a box :-)“
Yeah, but what they don’t know is that Bowman is a master of the box model hack…He’ll be free in no time!
tcervo –> that was the geekiest thing I’ve ever read. But it made me laugh, so SH!T!!
Todd Dominey- hands down.
He is about as good a designer as he is coder. Something I find hard to balance.
“I am curious - what do you think of our site?“
It makes baby Jebus cry.
I almost got a job with Todd — would’ve been a great experience, I’m sure of that. I’m happy with where I ended up mind you, but yeah, Todd’s got skill for sure
Martin, extremely helpful. Thank you very much for the feedback - very very appreciated.
Table hell - we actually have our own development platform, so the page is generated dynamically.
Re: Stock photos - will take into consideration. I am actually not the designer of the site, but I don’t really see anything unprofessional in them… but that may be because I am a professional in an area different from design. Why don’t you like stock photos?
MSFT - no, we are actually a legit MSFT partner. Didn’t think we would need to link to anything, but it’s a good point. Would increase our credibility if we linked to a MSFT site where we were referenced… Will see if I can find something.
Services, products, solutions are all very different. Products is stand-alone software. Services are custom development. Solutions are existing web-based systems… this may need to be presented in a professional manner.
Again, thanks. Candid response very appreciated.
In my current project I’m using stock photos as placeholders or ideas, when the site design is done then we will hire professional photographer to get shots creativly ‘like’ the stock ones in the design but of our companies employees and locations.
What’s your company?
“Martin, extremely helpful. Thank you very much for the feedback - very very appreciated.
Table hell - we actually have our own development platform, so the page is generated dynamically.
Re: Stock photos - will take into consideration. I am actually not the designer of the site, but I don’t really see anything unprofessional in them… but that may be because I am a professional in an area different from design. Why don’t you like stock photos? “
nikitab, I hope you don’t mind a little more feedback:
As for the stock photos, here’s my take (and I had the same reaction as Martin.) The type of photos the site is using (shot from the top, looking down on the subject) is one of the most overused types of stock photographs. All the free or cheap stock sites (like istockphoto, for example) have TONS of these. I can buy those same photos (more or less) for $1 each on istockphoto. So can anyone else. MANY free “professional site templates” that people can download of the internet come with those same overhead type shots. They were fresh and new about 7-8 years ago, but now they’re very, very cliche. There are some excellent stock photo companies out there that do a good job of continually creating new and fresh content. These aren’t going to be available for $1 each, though. Expect to pay $1500 or more for a set or collection of new and fresh photos.
As for table hell and development platforms: can your system be adjusted to output css instead of tables? I’ve done many sites that are dynamically generated that use css instead of tables…That may or may not be possible with your platform, but I have a feeling it is…If not, perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate the platform.
Just my 2-cents…
I guess that’s where all of you and I differ.
It may have to do with my love of videogames, but I’d love to have some futurist flash-based web 3d browser with multi-touch based interface. I would hate to think that in 20 years, web browsers stay as dull as today.
tcervo,
Thanks - the more feedback the better. I am going to forward this feedback to the designer.
On the flip side, we figured that even though stock photos may be cliche, they still look fine to someone who is not a designer and our primary target is functional & business crowd which doesn’t quite follow the trends and with them it is usually our prototypes and past work that works to convert them.
As far as the platform - it’s not a code-generation system, so whether it will be CSS or not doesn’t really matter (although it does already generate CSS for some stuff). The way it’s built is we have our own ISAPI extension which interfaces with our platform. The platform itself is written in C++ and is at once an application platform and a development environment. So when a request comes in, the HTML/CSS/XML and whatnot are generated on the fly by the components written in C++, which work with our binary project files that describe the system.
So the developer deals ONLY with our platform at all times, which is based on visual integration of pre-built components: this leads to some immediate structural limitations, but that hasn’t been a big deal because we use this thing primarily in-house, so if we need something, we just modify the platform. Plus, since we are oriented towards funcation rather than aesthetic flexibility, while our platform is not good for some problems, those it solves, it does so really really well (fast, clean, efficient). Sorry, don’t mean to sound like an infomertial :P
We should probably make a quick presentation and post it on our site… not to self :)