October 23, 2003 | View Comments (15) | Category: Our Thoughts
Summary: Hype can be a bad thing in the design world, because you can almost never live up to it.
As everyone in the world knows A List Apart relaunched yesterday with version 3.0. Obviously many people praised the resurrection of the once past king of web design. However, all over there were many "suggestions" on how it should have been made. I am not really sure what Zeldman was thinking when he hyped the launch up months/weeks ago. The expectations grew so big that there was no way that they could have lived up to them.
The design community it seems is looking for great new innovative websites from the "elites" of the web such as Bowman and Zeldman. However, what many people forget is that we are still trying to design sites that can compare to theirs' that were created a year ago. And honestly look at the content of ALA. It is only articles and discussions. What type of layout was Zeldman supposed to use besides a two-column layout that fit the content? The content dictated the structure, but not the design. Many people seem displeased with the design and honestly what design is perfect for everyone. It is these kind of criticisms that are hard for me to take because if someone wishes to say that a certain design sucks then at least back it up with a design of your own. 37signals can be quick to point out how a site can be improved and in fact back up their claims by showing how they would do it.
It is always easy to criticize someone's work, because obviously you could do better. However, could you really come up with a redesign that lived up to the legend of ALA? I mean look at the reputation of the site and Zeldman. I really don't think there is such a design that could live up to all of this. So what did Zeldman do? He created a site that he saw fit. He used excellent IA principles to improve the IA of the site tremendously. Who cares if the new design is not the second coming of Christ? I know I don't. I know that I can live with the design and it sure is easier to get to the articles I want. In the end my dislikes for the site will disappear after a couple of uses.
Most people should just be happy that this great resource is back online again because it still seems to be free to use. Free content. Great content. Easy to use layout and design that doesn't kill my eyes. I will take that kind of site anyday. Sorry for the rant, but it just seems to me that there are too many selfish and inconsiderate people in our community who forget that many people who do things for free should not be scolded, but congratulated for at the very least trying. The beauty of the web is that if you don't like it, move on.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/35
My comments on the ALA redesign are probably one of the ones you are referring to that were negative (if you read my blog) but I have since seen that I was a little harsh. I didn't really expect anything graphically astounding, as that is not what ALA is about, I just didn't expect it to look like a blog I guess. But I still think the ISSN number thing and the catch-phrasy naming of things like "up front" instead of just plain old "home" could be changed. The design doesn't really bother me, as long as the articles are still well written and helpful (which they are).
Derek (http://www.twotallsocks.com/)
You're definitely right. Jeffrey did a fantastic job with the new IA, and I honestly believe that the site does exactly what it was meant to do: display great article using the latest web design technologies.
What did people want it to look like? k10k? Zeldman's stylistic goals definitely rank "not overdesigning" way up there, and the new ALA accomplishes what it set out to do.
Mike (http://phark.net)
Derek: Actually I didn't read your blog...until now...shame on you :) Anyways, the only thing I am not really pleased about (not that Zeldman was trying to please me or anything) is the default size of the navigation elements. A wee bit small for my screen, but can easily be fixed with a font resize and it is not like the global nav runs deep anyways.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Oh I also forgot to mention that I am not sure if Zeld was trying to hype up the new launch or anything, but I think it just would have been best if he was like "Oh, by the way the new ALA is up". More than likely, people would have reacted better instead of having most people think that the coolest thing on the web was coming.
And I actually read in a forum that someone thought Zeldman was a better writer than designer. That might be true, but I don't remember Zeldman ever preaching how great his design skills were. That is usually left to the "Flash" people :)
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Hey the site works for me. Of course there are a million things that "I" don't like about it, but in the end it works. Could be better and could be worse...a lot worse. I do think the major thing that hurts the design is that it seems Zeldman simply went with the "typical" blog design. Maybe people were expecting something different. ALA 2.0 was more revolutionary and 3.0 just seems to improve the IA. But like everyone else is saying it is all about the content. Now if I had to pay for the site then that is something completely different...
Sam
I think it looks OK, but I preferred the old look... it had a new age nostalgic feel (If that makes sense). Well, for some people the new look is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Terence Ordona
I'd have to say that I liked the previous design better than this one, but that's not really my issue. I can live with the design... it's not bad, so much as not as good as I had expected from Zeldman.
My main issue is the typography. In typographic design, it's very important to show where the eyes are supposed to go to next. The new ALA makes it look like it's all running together. There should be more space between the tops of the <h?> tags and the paragraphs above them. Also, some appropriately-placed vertical lines would really help break-up what currently looks like long passages of text. Perhaps some underlines or border-bottom's for the <h?> tags...
Yes, there are some sizing and color differences here and there, and those are good, but just not enough.
Ryan Parman (http://www.skyzyx.com)
Going back and reading more of these comments, I feel that I need to point something else out:
Design is equally as important as function and content are. A lot of people are saying "it works, and that's what's important." I disagree. "Working" is only half of what's important.
It's kinda like sleeping with a girl because "she has a great personality." She may be ugly as sin, but at least she's a cool person. That just doesn't make sense to me. Flip it over, and it doesn't make sense to sleep with someone who's gorgeous, but is an arrogant, stuck-up bitch. You want someone who's cool AND beautiful. Both are equally important. The same thing goes for web design... it needs to be a balanced blend of form and function.
Ryan Parman (http://www.skyzyx.com)
Ryan, while there is some truth to what you are saying I think it's important to point out that design can be subjective. For example I happen to really like the design of ALA -- others don't -- who is to say who is right or wrong in that case?
Frankly while I think design is obviously important (it's really not something to debate, but) the asethetics of many sites (ALA is a prime example) are not as important as the functionality and content. Period.
Look at k10k. I rarely look at that site as a whole anymore. It looks great but takes to damn long to load, so I just look at the news page which functions great. To me their design (while very good) is ultimately a wasted effort as I do evertything I can to avoid it.
See what I'm getting at here...?
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
I think it would be great if Zeldman could do a writeup justifying why he used certain elements of typography and font size. Maybe his only reasoning would that it just looked good on his screen. Even if that's the case it would explain why he did what he did. When someone of the stature of Zeldman does something many people are going to be quick to criticize and question why they did something different. I don't think he will write something up like that because he just doesn't seem like that type.
Ryan: I agree that design can play a large role on the web today. However, you analogy of using a girl makes me wonder what kind of girl eBay would be. The really ugly girl that everyone sleeps with? :)
And for the record I do like the old color scheme better, but why do a redesign and not change the colors? I guess that is the problem with getting things right the first time (or second).
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Its great ALA is back. Its stuffed with some really great material and the contributors are often competent.
I think that the new overall feel of the redesigned site is positive. The colors are more laid back and not that "in your face". The overall impression of the colors I would say was more calm, maybe even more serious than before. All in all good makeovers.
However. I agree with Ryan about the typography. Look at a typical list of comments for example. There is no typographical distinction between the instructions to discuss and the comments themselves. The pagenav element floats at the same distance to other elements as an ordinary <p> in a comment. With some simple typographic techniques the eye would move more easily across the page.
Jocke (http://www.coffeeandtv.org)
My first impression of the new ALA design was that I liked it. First impressions are useful, so I always try to remember them as a reference point. But first impressions aren't the whole story. I soon started to feel it was a constrained design, and I don't mean REstrained, which is much better.
It's a bit dinky, it's holding its ass in if you know what I mean. It's amusing many people elsewhere have criticised it for "looking like a blog". You'd think that was good, or why else do so many people make their blogs look like a blog? But of course I know what they mean.
I thought the use of rotating details from Fred Gates's paintings was innovative, but of course some details are better than others.
The horizontal menu is a straight lift from the zeldman.com horizontal menu for his DWWS subsite, nothing wrong with that, his horizontal menu when examined is well conceived, better than others. Type could be bigger though, I guess by using that size he wants to match his earlier horizontal menu.
There is certainly more of a likeness between ALA and zeldman.com now, which may have been an intention. His ALA body text is good I thought, better than on zeldman.com (he sometimes seems to forget how text looks on a PC I find, designing on his Mac his font hierarchy choices sometimes betray less familiarity with how type looks on a PC).
Sometimes with Zeldman you only start to appreciate how good he actually is by examining his code closely. I loved his work when I first came across it, although sometimes these days I think he is coasting.
I've examined on my own site recently the whole issue of ISSNs for websites, so I won't comment on that piece of pretentiousness further here.
Joel Biroco (http://biroco.com/journal.htm)
"Frankly while I think design is obviously important (it's really not something to debate, but) the asethetics of many sites (ALA is a prime example) are not as important as the functionality and content. Period.... See what I'm getting at here...?" -- Keith
I'm not talking about a full-blown, mind-boggling, graphics-heavy website here. Actually, I generally prefer minimalistic designs: clean, simple, to the point. But aesthetics is always an issue. Granted content is important, but it would be much more enjoyable to read the W3C's CSS2 specification in a design such as Mezzoblue as opposed to USE-IT or even the W3C site itself.
"I agree that design can play a large role on the web today. However, you analogy of using a girl makes me wonder what kind of girl eBay would be. The really ugly girl that everyone sleeps with? :)" -- Scrivs
Absolutely. Without trying to make this analogy any more crude, sure you might get your "cookie", but wouldn't that cookie be better with someone beautiful as opposed to ugly? Sure everybody uses eBay, but how many people (aside from the neurotic eBay junkies) actually enjoy using eBay. Same with Yahoo. People use it, but how enjoyable is it to use?
This reminds me of an article I read once, let me see if I can find it in my bookmarks. Hmmm... Oh, here it is: http://www.youngpup.net/?request=/articles/init().xml . Read it. Think about it. Be inspired. Make it your mantra. If you've got an "ugly-girl" website, give her an Extreme Makeover [http://abc.go.com/primetime/extrememakeover/] . She may need it.
Ryan Parman (http://www.skyzyx.com)
That is a nice lil writeup. Thanks for the link Ryan.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
For the record, I like the design. Yes it's not all that innovative or especially eye-popping but I don't think it should be.
ALA is all about the content anyway, so as long as I can read it and get around it I'm very happy and the design has served it's purpose.
Frankly people who are dissing ALA's design probably don't really understand Web design. Form should always follow function and if you don't like the form of a perfectly functional Web site it's really just a matter of personal aesthetics and taste. There is no such thing as a perfectly designed site, at some point it's all subjective.
In other words - who cares if someone doesn't like a particular design, as long as it works.
ALA works just fine.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)