January 13, 2004 | View Comments (27) | Category: Design Critiques
Summary: The new procedure for design critiques so that everyone can be happy again.
Let's correct this situation so that everyone is a little more satisfied with these. Again these were only meant to help everyone, not
I suppose I assumed too much after reading the entries on here and Asterisk* concerning online opinions. I can understand people getting upset about being critiqued out in the open, but I don't understand people taking it to heart themselves thinking it is a bashing session. So in light of all the controversy, here is the new procedure that I am going to take. Help me tweak this so that we can get back to focusing on helping everyone and get away from arguing whether whose side is right.
Here are the new steps that I have outlined for myself:
Hopefully, this satisfies everyone. Didn't mean to cause trouble. In fact Zeldman has invited me over for dinner tomorrow night (I jest). But seriously he was cool with the whole thing and I figured he would be and that was my reasoning behind doing his site first. Just wanted to write something interesting for people to read, which is what I always try to do. Please keep this discussion focused on the procedure and any ideas you have regarding it. I shall now crawl back under my rock.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/106
good point david.
a true critique offers not only what is bad about a design, but what is good as well.
i think if you would have balanced out both you may not have received as much flak about the article.
Jeremy Flint (http://www.jeremyflint.com)
David, great point. Even with the more awkward procedure outlined above, I'm not seeing the value of the Zeldman critique or future critiques. Whitespace is free to produce them, of course, but I doubt their utility.
Brian (http://joechip.net/brian/)
Well, Brian, the way I see it, there's no other way to make the process better. At least Scrivs has made some attempt to be fair about it. Try posting a critique on http://www.yayhooray.com, some of the replies are insightful and extremely helpful, while others are just useless and rude.
Sure, you could make some moderated community site where people rank different aspects of a site, provide insight, etc. But, that site would be a ton of work, and would take forever to get the kind of traffic that would make it useful.
As long as things are always kept peaceful and people who will be held accountable (instead of 'Anonymous Cowards') are doing it, it's at least worth a shot. Even if they are personal sites, you're posting them on the internet, you know? Unless it's password protected, it's up for grabs. Peaceful, constructive, public criticism might be a good thing for the web design world.
Adam (http://www.dailystandards.com)
Excellent. I especially like that the designer gets to write a full-out explanation following yours.
One thing I would add in, though I know it's assumed: comments which diverge too far from the realm of objectivity will be deleted or snipped at the discretion of Scrivs.
By the way, you know you're making a name for yourself when your name becomes part of someone's spelling dictionary. Scrivs is now a word. Is Dris a word (I jest)?
Dris (http://dris.webhop.org/)
Scrivs -
Instead of approaching this as a critique, why not more of a question / answer session with the designer?
That way, you're achieving the purpose of "getting inside their head" and providing a useful service to "newbie" designers while maintaining professional courtesy with others who make their living in the field.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know of any designer in their right mind who would want another designer criticizing their work in a public forum – especially in a blog where a few key words typed into Google (like his / her name or agency) will result in your site and your critiques being returned instead theirs. On the other hand, a question / answer session provides a more positive intercourse that makes both parties look good.
I like the approach Vincent Flanders' takes in his January 12 post on Websites That Suck regarding critiquing personal sites and that of other designers.
Mark Fusco
"I don't know of any designer in their right mind who would want another designer criticizing their work in a public forum"
Actually quite a few designers :)
A question and answer session would be good, but the it relies on the designer justifying everything that he did and we all know that when it comes to design, especially with personal sites, some things are just done, well just because.
The future comments for these critiques will more than likely be heavily moderated so that only insightful stuff that helps the conversation stays. But I guess I should be careful about not trying to become a dictator of the discussion.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
"A question and answer session would be good, but the it relies on the designer justifying everything that he did..."
Well, according to step 3 in your new process, their going to have to do some justifying anyway right?
If they give you a "just because" answer, that'll help your interviewing skills improve by asking questions that are more indepth.
Mark Fusco
Personally I think some people made a mountain over a mole hill on this issue. The procedure guideline is well and good, and sounds a lot like the Q&A sessions I used to have with major companies and game developers, but usually the responses are canned and/or public relations material (i.e. made to put the person/company in a good light.)
As for moderating comments that aren't insightful or on topic, that is highly subjective, and once that takes place, you're going to attract even more of the people who love to make mountains out of mole hills.
If you were to put together a new section of the site, designed solely to critique and praise certain sites, once you have permission to do so, that would be interesting and fun to read. I haven't seen other sites out there with content like that, yet. You could use a review format, grading on Presentation, Content, Ease of Use, Load Times, and so on. The only problem with this is that you'd need multiple reviewers, who favor different styles, so as to not lean towards any certain direction based on the style of the site you're reviewing.
Sorry if I'm just getting ahead of myself. :)
Matt Burris (http://www.goodblimey.com/)
"especially in a blog where a few key words typed into Google (like his / her name or agency) will result in your site and your critiques being returned instead theirs."
I think that adding a disclaimer to the critique could help in an instance where someone might come upon the critique while researching a company on google.
Saying that this is a critique of someone's work based on your personal observations and in no way makes any judgement on the quality of work or service of that person would help.
Again, mountains out of mole hills. Zeldman did not seem to have a problem with it. If someone were to run a google search on Zeldman, i am sure that there are nastier things said about him that the few comments Scrivs made concerning the redesign.
they could, for instance come across something like http://zeldman.drunkmenworkhere.org/
what is that anyway?
Jeremy Flint (http://www.jeremyflint.com)
Jeremy (and Scrivs) -
I invite you to do a google search on Jeremy Flint designs
I think you'll catch my meaning.
Mark Fusco
I particuarly like Matt's idea of using a standard review format. In the education field, rubrics are created in order to insure that the reviewer (or grader) looks at the same set of criteria for all web pages. Just the creation of a rubric for reviewing web sites would be a huge project on its own.
In my original field of music education, it took quite a long time to come up with rubrics for performances. Web design is largely subjective and could benefit in many of the same ways that performers do. In order for the rubric to be truly useful, it must be available for the designer (performer?) at or before the time of the review.
It would be wise, however, to avoid "grading" sites. While grading can motivate some people, it largely does so through competition (which isn't always a bad thing). I can imagine personal sites with grades being compared to each other. The outcry could be tremendous.
Unfortunately, the nature of a reviews is the reviewer makes remarks based only on his/her past experience and preferences. There isn't any way around it. Reviewers with different life experiences will respond in different ways to the same material.
With web design still in its infancy, we're lucky that Scrivs has stuck his neck out and started sharing how sites might be changed to better fit his life experiences.
Ben Kimball (http://www.benwired.com)
i see what you mean mark. so you were actually referring to what someone would see just in the google results rather than what pages may be linked to from google.
interesting. never thought of that.
Jeremy Flint (http://www.jeremyflint.com)
Exactly, Jeremey.
Do you really think anyone will want to be reviewed at the cost of unknowingly elevating the reviewer (and competition in a respect) over themselves in the eyes of Google?
True, the review of Zeldman is not going to affect him - he's a "celebrity" and has plenty of people writing about him. Same for corporations.
However, others aren't and don't. Just considering the nature of blogs and search engines and how they work - I don't think it provides a suitable medium for critisism - as can be noted by what you witnessed yourself.
Mark Fusco
I just reread my own comment, and it wasn't fair. I thoroughly enjoyed the critique, it was well though through and had some extremely good points. I just felt it was missing some positives.
Secondly, about Google ratings, I don't believe we should censor what we write on the internet just because of a tool that people use to navigate might favour one way or the other. SEO is all good and dandy, and I fully endorse its usage for better Google ratings. But not posting some feedback, views and opinions about a site because someone might read that before they see the site? No.
Especially as the average reader will wander, after the first paragraph, what the writer is talking about, and follow a link to the site and see for theirselves.
David House
I will definitely not censor myself because I might show up in a google result. If someone is researching me for any reason, I would hope they would be inclined to click the link and see the context of the comment.
Jeremy Flint (http://www.jeremyflint.com)
I think a lot of people are taking this badly. Reviews and criticism are very valuable tools. I myself would love to get a review of my work. I don't think anyone should ask for my permission, either.
The method Scrivs proposes sounds great, and there are lots of designers out there (myself included, though I don't do that much design work) who would love to be a part of this.
These are not ad hominem attacks people. They're reviews that may very well point out stuff that will help us all do better work.
sergio (http://overcaffeinated.net)
"I don't believe we should censor what we write on the internet..."
I'm not addressing censorship, but rather strategy. If the reviewer and the reviewee both have a vision of becoming respected A-list web design firms, why would the reviewee want a Whitespace review result coming up before his / her own site?
Sure the results might be different tomorrow, but why would one ever do that? What business sense does it make?
Almost reminds me of last night's episode of David Letterman, where he showed the web master of the CBS website put the mug of Jay Leno on the front page in its promotion of the People's Choice Awards.
Mark Fusco
Oops. Last post should read
CBS webmaster had mistakenly put photo of Jay Leno (NBC and fellow candidate for award) on CBS website.
Mark Fusco
I just thought of another possible amendment to the procedure. Since it seems to be a huge deal to so many people, those posting commentary are required to provide a name and URL (if they have one).
Dris (http://dris.webhop.org/)
This seems to be shaping up nicely. Can't wait to read the first (next) one.
I like Dris' name/url suggestion. That might help keep the comments in the realm of the useful, which I think is my biggest issue with this kind of thing.
I do think you should keep (moderated) comments for sure, and I also like the idea of question and answers in addition to the review, as long as the designer doesn't get too defensive.
I mean, lots of times there are design decisions made for reasons that aren't easily identified.
Could be educational to shed some light on these designer's processes if they're going to be involved.
Anyway -- good luck. If nothing else I'm sure this will mix up some good discussion.
Keith
I also refuse to alter my blog or any other writings solely to cater to Google's ranking algorithms. It's foolish to think about what Google will do with everything you write.
Adam Kalsey (http://kalsey.com/)
I once got asked to change the cover note for my online CV because my (ex) boss didn't like the fact that I'd implied that the company was in trouble. (I'd said that I didn't think I'd have a job there for much longer, and I was right - I quit not long after, and I still hear from my former cow-orkers who are trying to leave as well.) I thought he was being hypersensitive, but that was pretty much normal for him.
The point is this: whether you write "I expect to be leaving SauronCorp soon because I don't see much future in it" or you do a review that says "Mr Jeffrey Aragorn is a good king but I don't like the colour scheme he picked for his crown", the fact remains that you are expressing your opinion. You don't need to add some kind of disclaimer to protect the foolish. To quote a friend's .sig, "if this were biblical truth, your bushes would be on fire".
I'm afraid most of the commenters on this issue are being overly serious and sensitive. Is this a web designer thing, or have the people without strong negative feelings already gone elsewhere?
Eric TF Bat (http://flurf.net)
Two points:
first, would not this line solve the Google problem above?
meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"
second, why should website reviews be any different than for books, compact discs, or movies? Granted, we don't pay to visit sites authored by Zeldman, et al, but as designers our opinions shape the direction of the web standards community. all criticism can lead to change, innovation and new techniques. Without peer-driven critiques, and the belief things could be better, we'd be stuck coding for Netscape 4.
Jason
Thanks for the interesting article Scrivs - it prompted me to write about critiquing. Keep it coming!
oli (http://oli.boblet.net/)
Well done Scrivs and all the people who are pro-critiques. Jason says it well:
"Without peer-driven critiques, and the belief things could be better, we'd be stuck coding for Netscape 4."
In fact we would be stuck in caves...
In addition, reviewing others' work will help Scrivs develop his professional skills. Anyone working in this area will have been in the position where he / she is asked to critique a prospect's site or a client's suggestions. It's in everyone's best interests to learn how to review the work of another in a way which is tactful, but which is powerful enough to provoke changes for the better.
To that end, here's a method which is taught by the Toastmasters public speaking club. Part of the Toastmasters "curriculum" is peer review of other members' performance.
That review, known as "evaluation", usually follows a set format: C-R-C or Commend-Recommend-Commend.
Start with commendations to convince the reviewee that you have his / her best interests at heart and that you are not simply rubbishing the work. Give recommendations which go beyond "I don't like that," but instead provide an alternative: "maybe you could try it this way instead." The final commendation finishes your review on an upbeat note.
So I recommend that you work C-R-C into your method, or at least think C-R-C when writing your review. That will enable you to make insightful recommendations without ruffling anyone's feathers.
My second recommendation is: mind your language. Using words like "critique" and "retort" makes the process sound adverserial. Call it "evaluation", not "critque," and the whole process already sounds more balanced.
To sum up: thoughtful evaluatons of the work of our peers stimulates discussion and improves the design skills of all involved. Improving our evaluation skills and methods makes us all more professional. Keep up the good work Scrivs.
PS The URL is for my Toastmasters Club. Please, no evaluation! I am happy with the layout, but the CMS invalidates the mark up and the stylesheet needs work.
Adrian Trenholm (http://www.trenholmdesign.co.uk/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=628)
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
I think a lot of the abuse came from the fact that you didn't look at a single positive of the site. Considering your posting of 'Your Site Sucks' a while back, I was somewhat surprised at this.
David House