Tweney applauds digital tools and trends that eschew distracting "designery" flourishes in favor of naked content and argues that design-lessness is what the Web has been evolving towards all along. And then he goes on to praise the rise of beautiful editorial layouts on blogs and iPad apps.
He may be legitimately fed up. But it's his ideas of "design" and how we can fix it that are flawed. The answer is not retreating from design, but embracing and empowering it in its best forms.Design Frustration: "Too Many Notes!"
It's all too easy to be frustrated with Web design, especially when technology enables us to designate it as something completely distinct from content -- fully detaching the medium from the message, as Tweney puts it. "To me, 'design' means a guy in confrontationally architectural eyewear either entertaining me visually or forcing me to pay attention to certain things," one friend told me. If those who rabidly consume content on constantly morphing platforms see design as an exercise in either frivolity or tyranny, then why not call the whole thing off? If less is more, hell, none must be best.
"Just give me the content!" is the digital consumer's cri de coeur, as if "content" were some pure, powerful substance to be consumed directly from the source, like unobtainium. Sadly, no such magical stuff exists--at least, not until Mozilla invents a browser extension that performs mind melds.
In reality, design and content always merge at some point in the stream. "Content can certainly be electronically distributed independently of design," says Robert Stribley, an information architect at Razorfish, "but it can't be presented effectively without design." Those "undesigned" content-liberators like Instapaper, Readability, and Flipboard? All designed to a 'T' by some of the most innovative designers out there. (Spend five minutes with one of the Android Market's terrible Instapaper knockoffs, and you'll learn the hard way what "undesign" really looks like.)
Readability offers 15 thoughtfully chosen options (from margin width to font appearance) to enhance the design of content, not strip it away. And the designer of Instapaper has written hundreds of words about all the important choices he made to optimize the app's user experience.
The only difference between these "undesigned" tools and the Flash-addled screenjunk they replace is that one is optimized for what we want to do with text--read it--and the other isn't. Neither is "less" or "more" designed. One is simply better designed for its function than the other.
What actually repulses us is distraction, not design.
"So much web design is not improving the content experience. That's what's behind this mini-rebellion," says Jason Fried of 37signals, who's been in the digital-simplicity business for over a decade. Saying there's "too much" design and demanding a revolt or a retreat is as silly as the inarticulate king in Amadeus telling Mozart his music has "too many notes." Of course, not every designer is a Mozart, but that's not the point. As legendary designer Milton Glaser said, less is not more. Just enough is more. We don't need fewer notes: we need the right ones. And designers, now as always, are giving them to us.Design Evolution: It Gets Better
So what are the right notes? On this, of course, designers differ wildly. According to Scott Dadich, former Creative Director at Wired and current leader of Conde Nast's iPad-app charge, "a designer's job is to package and curate and convey information in a compelling visual organization -- our entire goal is to create rich experiences that digitally instantiate the magazine." Fried, meanwhile, says users value what he calls "the speed aesthetic": "The Drudge Report is one of the best designed sites on the web because it's one page and it's instant. Or Craiglist: hideous, but functional and fast, and works. That's good design."
Such strong design opinions can't please everyone, and these certainly haven't. But what Tweney resists about web design-as-usual, and what designers like Rich Ziade (inventor of Readability) and Marco Arment (of Instapaper fame) are actually reinventing, is the "one size fits all" model of digital content design. Tweney wants to pull control over experience away from designers and give it to users, but my hunch is that users don't actually want to be as literally in "control" as designers. We just want stuff to work.
"The future is all about designing for multiple use cases, not saying 'your use isn't important anymore,' or marginalizing design in general," says Timothy Meaney of Arc90, the digital consulting firm behind Readability. "If I use Readability on Jason Santa Maria's beautifully designed blog, I'm not rejecting his choices. I'm optimizing the design for an additional, different use case--maybe I'm reading on the subway on a tiny phone screen, or maybe I'll want to listen to his blog instead of read it because I'm jogging. We're not anti-immersive experiences, or anti-design--we're just pro-accessibility." In that respect, the ever-increasing distinction between content and design attributes in Web standards that makes tools like Readability possible -- and which Tweney marks as the "the beginning of the end for the design-centric way of doing things" -- has made web design more important, and more inclusive, than ever: in a word, better.
Digital design isn't fading, but it is changing: to keep pace with evolving technology, to drive new economics, to satisfy users' dynamic desires. Indeed, the fact that we tend to call them "users" in the first place--instead of viewers, readers, or audiences--is important to keep in mind when considering the role or future of digital design. Online, content is a tool. We use it. It's not passive and neither are we. And if its design hinders that use, we get irritable. That's why good Web design often has more in common with the invisible soft-science of industrial design than the in-your-face, "art directed" aestheticism that many of us associate it with.
But the amazing thing about digital content, unlike the physical tools we're used to, is that it can and does morph to match whatever use-case we like--and that is thanks to design, not in spite of it. Dadich's immersion, Fried's speed, and Meaney's context-specific clarity already co-exist in digital design's big tent. The future of web design lies in expanding that tent, not folding it up.