Can you over-design?
While attending a design presentation a little while ago a very interesting question was posed, “can you over-design”? The speaker used a great analogy that really got me thinking; can a great design be un-confrontational? Are we designing for ourselves, other designers or truly for our audience? What are we really trying to accomplish when we design; are we trying to impress, convince, persuade, attract, ease confusion or simply just present?
Imagine having to walk up to a stranger on the street to ask for directions; who is going to seem most approachable? Are you more willing to approach someone that looks, acts and dresses like yourself or someone in a tuxedo perhaps? I suppose there are many factors to account for, but the person in the tux is most likely going to seem the less approachable of the two options. I would assume the person has an agenda and somewhere to be – perhaps too busy or important to waste their time bothering with my direction dilemma. A tux can be attributed to many characteristics that might support my rational. A tux can signify wealth, importance, intelligence – even control, power, influence and a social class-division mentality. When in a state of being lost I am most likely going to want to seek out someone who I believe will understand my plight and can provide a solution in a helpful, courteous and comprehensive manner.
So, does this same street rational relate to design? Should we be creating the best aesthetic designs possible – simply utilizing the best of our ability to be as creativity, artistic and visually pleasing as possible? Or, should we be focusing on creating the best effective designs possible – creating work that focus’ on the site’s objective, its audience and that relationship? Are you designing for your peers or for your audience? And yes, sometimes they are two in the same.
I think the answer is simple; you design for your audience and ensure you’re delivering the best possible creative with respect to that audience and that site’s objective. I think the issue is not as simple and more real than we sometimes realize. I see designers everyday forgetting the business behind why they are there – designing for their peers and trying to impress those in our industry as opposed to those who will actually use the site. You can absolutely over-design, the key is knowing that and finding the balance between great design and an even better user-experience.
- February 7th, 2007
- 24comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
NICE ARTICLE!
Your point is well-made, but I dunno about the analogy. A tux is so rare these days, when you do see one, it’s generally someone in the service industry. And, hence, accustomed to helping people.
Plus, if a tux symbolizes intelligence, darn tootin’ I’m asking the wearer for help. :)
I hear you Michael. But, yeah as long as the point is well-made — you get the idea. Don’t always assume your design needs to be best-in-show; that isn’t what is always going to work best for your audience.
interesting, but not sure how well that analogy applies. it’s like the mac/pc ads–the pc guy is pretty right on, but per your analogy the mac would really be in a tux, not in the relaxed getup he’s wearing, to reflect the much more refined aesthetic of the mac lineup. as i often find myself designing for the masses, i think it’s out responsibilty to push the taste level even as we target a mass audience. target does this weel with their newer designer lines.
Good thinking. You might enjoy my own blog articles where I examine this from a “class” perspective.
I wouldn’t say you could compare a mac to Tux. You can in the sense that a Mac is one of the nicest designed computers and in theory you could equate that saying a tux is the nicest designed outfit.
A PC is more like generic brand clothing (GAP) and a MAC is more like a designer brand (Armani or Prada) — you pay more and it is arguable whether or not you are getting better quality, but “you” feel better and sexier (isn’t that what matters most?).
My Tux analogy is really going outside generic and designer brand — a tux is in a class of its own. Having specific reasons for existence; generally being worn for special occasions. Design like you are Prada, that is fine — because even Gap tries to look like Armani or Kenneth Cole. But if your market is Gap, then don’t start making Tux’s; they just won’t sell or sit well with that audience.
So, concluding with the whole clothing metaphor: if your audience is Gap wearing individuals, design as such — push the limits of design and always strive to be original; but don’t strive to be something you are not. Don’t design a tux, b/c that isn’t the essence of who your site is.
Christopher, than you for sharing your link. It is a great read! I suggest everyone checking it out if you have the time.
YES!
Some great insight there munzilla. Your emphatic “YES!’ leads me to believe you either really agree with my post or are a non-designer who only read my title.
But none the less, yes, you definitely can over-design.
BOTH!
No, seriously, I’m not a designer (unless I’m doing side projects), and there’s nothing worse to get as a web developer than a site design that’s been overdone with no thought toward usability and user experience. A lot of times it’s just because a print designer was sudden;y put on a web design project and didn’t realize how huge a difference it is to design for the web, but sometimes it’s just a matter of the designer not wanting to work within the confines of utility.
I read the article title as a bit different than the article actually came out. But the answer to both is yes.
It seemed a bit like your article (and correct me if I’m wrong) was about elegant versus accessible design. The tuxedo analogy is mostly what gave me that impression. Design is about conveying information in a visual way, and if a client or message isn’t prone to an elegant design, it would be a disservice to use that.
But how I read your headline, I expected something completely different. I thought you were asking more about designing too much. There’s a certain point that a design, like any art, should be considered “done” and the designer should walk away. There will always be improvement that could be made, and a designer could second-guess his decisions for an eternity.
The latter is why I’m afraid to decorate my own apartment with my design. I have a quote on a large print that could go above my couch, and I had planned to design a piece to go there, but I’m thinking that I’ll see it every day and pick apart something I wish I had done differently.
Steve, good assessment. In all honesty, my writing evolves as I am writing — I don’t usually have a structure. I just start writing as I am thinking and sometimes the thought can shift slightly.
I was thinking, can you over-design? It started as more of a general question, but the more I wrote the more I realized it a question which there can be only one answer, Yes! So the question became rhetorical and I started thinking about why we design the way we do. I wanted to focus on more why we over-design and than should we over-design.
We over-design because we often blur our industry audience (those we want to show the site too) with that of our actual user-audience (those most likely to use the site). Sometimes we spend more time fixing something we know our peers will see when there is a 99% chance our actual audience will never notice nor care. It is professional pride, but sometimes it can negitively influence our design decisions.
Martin,
You are exactly what William said you are and more. As you build our site (Simple Technology Group, Inc.), I can not wait to see what you come up with as an end product. The logo will be most suave I am sure.
This is precisely the issue we see with our competitors that host multiple products. They overwhelm you with what they can do vs. looking to meet a customers needs. This along with superb customer service 24×7x365, technical support the same and YOUR end product looks to make us very successful indeed.
Since our web hosting will be for existing or sites created by others, we are not helping in design, we will be sure to throw people your way that would like reasonable pricing on superior work. I know, I know, I haven’t seen it yet, but have been privy to the discussions you and William have had.
Can you point me to a site you created from beginning to end? We are proud to have you doing this for us. Maybe one day we join forces (we have to make it 1st!)? Regardless, thank you for your talent! I read your SEO document several times and see that this is truly a challenge without a pro like you involved.
Sincerely,
James Clayton
James,
I appreciate the comment. It is always nice to see a client reading my posts (well..some of them at least). I’ll answer your other questions off-line (unless others are interested in the answer as well).
I do appreciate when a client that spends the time to know who they are hiring or working with. I have a very open and honest mentality. So many people consider information sacred and secretive — often people will hesitate to share their site stats, rates or simple business decisions; why? It is this sharing of knowledge that empowers our industry.
It is this lack of knowledge sharing that really prompted this blog’s existence. The SEO documents were one of my first posts. I found it so difficult to find legitimate research on SEO without paying for it. Everyone wanted to up-sell for the buzz word of the year and thus no one would just share what was known.
I am sure some of you would hide your CSS if you could — I know I’ve seen many try. By “viewing source” is how I learned what I know now — imagine a world where you couldn’t just “view source”; most of us wouldn’t be here today (that and the ability to ‘Google’ something). Enough of my rant, this comment is turning into a post of itself.
Good point, and it can be similarly made for clients as well. I’m a print designer, but I think the fundamentals are essentially the same. It’s important to keep the audience in mind, and sometimes the client will forget that. For example, you might be making something that’s intended to catch the eyes of young children, and a client might want to fill it with text.
Or even worse, sometimes you might forget to keep the audience in mind, and design instead for your client’s tastes. I know I’ve done that sometimes. This is when it’s most dangerous, because when you have no one keeping the intended audience in mind, you’re almost certainly going to miss that audience.
A good question.
I work with a lot of non-profits, and usually they are working with me because they want to upgrade from in-house, photocopied marketing to something professionally designed. The last thing I want to do is create the impression of your “tux-wearing gentleman”…that somehow, this non-profit now has enough money, volunteers, time, etc. to have a “fancy” brochure. That volunteers are no longer needed. That they are flushed with money. I don’t want their marketing to be priced out of their market or demographic, or to create the appearance of financial abundance when most non-profits constantly need support.
So I do think we have to be careful, because not everything has to look like a Lexus or Apple ad.
I love what Milton Glaser once said, and it applies to this question and the concept of how do we know when to stop designing:
“Less isn’t more; just enough is more.”
You really got a point. In fact “Efficency”should be the way we, designers, must think.
We must always remember our target “Consumers” not another designers.
I think Steve Jobs once quote a quote that was something like “Perfection is not when there’s nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” very true and applicable to design I believe.
Daniel, great quote from Jobs — something I have to remember to keep in mind.
Very Nice Article
Nice Article
yes i think we can sometimes over design and most of this samples can be seen in some Web 2.0 designs but what peoples don’t understand is that we 2.0 is not 100% about design as it’s most about functionality :)
Very Nice Article thanks