A blog is a blog is a blog

November 21, 2003 | View Comments (12) | Category: Design

Summary: Keep things the way they are and they will stay simple.

Kottke is doing a redesign. In the design blogging world this is considered a big deal because he is one of those "A-List" bloggers that I speak of occassionaly so his redesign takes an almost religious war type attitude. Either you really like it, really hate it, or to be honest could care less. The interesting thing about the redesign is the structure he has decided to go with in regards to his content.

Instead of having remaindered links section on the side (sideblog) he has now integrated those into the main blog along with other topics such as book reviews, movie reviews, and design stuff. This is definitely nothing new since it has been done since day 1. I integrate different topics (although I try to remain consistent) into one column. Kottke has decided though that each subject deserves a different style. Make sense. Lets the reader know what they are looking at by visual association. However, while reading the comments many people are starting to see this as an evolution of blogs. I ask, do blogs need an evolution?

It never fails that once we figure out a technology we always want to make it more powerful and have more features. MT stopped becoming a blogging system and now it is almost a full blown CMS (another topic, another day). Why? Because someone wanted to figure out a way to make it happen. The problem with trying to make a blog more than it is, is that you are taking away what makes blogs so special. Blogs are enjoyable because it is an easy way to get information. It might be the easiest way to get information on the web. You go to a site and usually there is very little clutter and read the entries on the homepage. Very easy. Why then when we have really truly come across the perfect design for reading a website would we want to make it more complicated? Because that is what we do best I guess.

Yahoo started off as a good website. You could do some searches on it and there was a directory to allow for browsing of the web. Then they blew up and "had" to have everything on the homepage till the directory and search functions got sort of lost in the chaos. Google decided that they just wanted search functions and added just search to the page. They didn't try to make a search site anything more than it was. It worked.

Integration of anything causes it to be more difficult. Sure it sounds cool to have a clock radio, cd player, phone, coffee maker, but how easy do you think it will be to use. When we start making something more than it was intended to be then we in turn are adding more functions and increasing the complexity of its use. Blogs are easy, so let's keep them easy. If you want something more then maybe you can create a news site or portal. The same goes with web design. It's all good and dandy to add cool features, but sometimes you have to remember is that you are just creating a website and nothing more.

Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/58

Comments

#1

I found his redesign rather annoying to work with, but I didn't frequent his site before so I don't really remember what it used to be like. And I'm too lazy to look it up on archive.org

JC (http://www.thelionsweb.com/weblog)

#2

Well the thing is that his site was always known as one of the first to make the content simply put in front of you. The beauty of his design was that it was so simple. However, now he wants to change the structure of how his site works, without changing the layout.

Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)

#3

The reason that we try to make things better, more complicated, etc., is because we are always trying to add to what we currently have, in an attempt to make it better. It's much easier to mess around with your layout, adding many pointless features and making the design more complicated than it needs to be, than it is to just leave things as they are, and not worry about making the design better, because it's about as good as it can get.

milbertus (http://www.milbertus.com)

#4

So then milbertus you agree that it is stupid to add things without changing the layout? The layout was perfect for a reason that fit a certain purpose. When we begin to add more features we are changing the purpose and therefore most of the time it would be wise to change certain aspects of the design.

Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)

#5

To be honest, while I'm a bit interested in the whole conversation going on over there, I don't think what he is doing is all that new or different aside from putting his outside comments daily links into the main column.

Both of which I found no easier or hard to use than before, after a moment of getting used to it.

As for the rest (the visual formating, etc.), lots of sites do that. I have a bit of a different format and style with my Song of The Week and review type posts. It's no big deal, they're still just posts.

It's kind of funny to read all the comments and not how "new" all of that seems to some folks. I don't know, the word "blog" has always bothered me unless it's referred to as a technology to help manage and serve up a Web site.

I've had a Web site, and daily journal, since long before the word "blog" was coined. To me they're all just personal Web sites with journals.

I use the term "blog" more out of convenience than anything else.

Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)

#6

It's mostly the links thing that annoys me, I think. it's a totally different type of content and makes more for a distraction. When I'm reading a blog or something, I read entries,a nd then may go on to featured links or something... The different visual styles isn't terribly exciting. Having comments scattered through the page without apparent context is a bit odd.

JC (http://www.thelionsweb.com/weblog)

#7

Well since I was late to the whole personal publishing phenom I have been using "blog" since the beginning. I think it might be okay if you post different topics in one column, but when you start posting entries and then a section of links, it become two completely different types of content in one section. On kottke's site this may be no big deal since most of his users are experienced designers, but for any other site I could see how this would be a disaster.

Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)

#8

"couldn't care less"

Sam (http://www.grammarnazi.com)

#9

The odd thing is if you couldn't care less why would you ruin this discussion by even posting that...is there a reason you don't care less?

Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)

#10

"So then milbertus you agree that it is stupid to add things without changing the layout?"

Yeah, I do agree. Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. Change with a good reason, however, is definitely a good thing.

milbertus (http://www.milbertus.com)

#11

Scrivs... he's a grammar nazi... he's pointing out that you said "could care less" which implies that you could indeed care less than you currently do, though you are trying to say just the opposite.
:-)

Myself, I like to say... "I could care less... but not much"
it's somewhat more... contemptuous.
heh.

JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)

#12

Ummm, oh yeah I knew that...stoopid grammar...good ting I can spell.

Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)

Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed