May 17, 2004 | View Comments (22) | Category: Our Thoughts
Summary: Why its bad that too many of us are caught playing it safe.
One of the services that Business Logs focuses on is helping companies integrate blogging technology into their existing sites. For many companies “blogs” are still in the early adapter, aka too risky, stages and the ones that have implemented them are seeing great benefits.
I think the problem is that too many companies are playing it safe. Over time this technology will be incorporated one way or another on every site it and then to differentiate your company you will have to reach for something new. 8-10 years ago your company was special if it had a website. Then websites became a commodity and if you didn't have one you were behind the curve and if you did have one it was nothing special.
Again, over time this is what is going to happen with blogs.
Same type of cycle happens in the design world, more so than ever I believe. Many of us (myself included) have fallen into the trap of playing it safe. The playing it safe trend of the year is drop-shadows. Sure they look nice, but everywhere I turn there they are. It seems people are adding them simply because it is the safe thing to do. I mean, really, how many innovators can you name in the web design profession?
I am waiting for that one designer who seems to think just a tad bit different (or hell vastly) than everyone else. I hate to keep on coming back to them as an example but the last design firm website that really stuck in my head and stayed there was the old 37Signals site. Back in 1999 nobody did minimalist like this (well maybe somebody did, but I didn't know them) and this is what helped them standout. When the time came to redesign their site they didn't have to worry about creating anything fantastic or revolutionary because their reputation had already been created.
What happens is we get more and more of the two-column blog sites that get vaulted and experience their 15 minutes of fame never to relive it again. Bad design still exists, but good design is becoming a very common thing as well. Good content helps to keep people coming back to your site, but I also think a good, different design would entice them to come back even more.
Paul Ford (one of the best writers around) took a different approach to the design of his website by adding so many columns that there was going to be a h-scroll bar no matter what. The layout does have a purpose and it also becomes more memorable that way. Paul avoided playing it safe and it worked.
Every week new sites popup that are beautiful, but their designs only last in my head for a short period of time. Very few site designs actually stick for me because they are not that different from anything else out there. I tried something different with the homepage and I think it helps people remember me.
Over time when all companies incorporate blogging technology in their site, the companies that continue to innovate will be the ones that stick out. To say that Business Logs is a company that implements blogs for companies would be totally useless. Companies can have their IT team do that if that was all that was needed. However, the power of the technology allows for many different innovative uses and that is where we fit in.
Zeldman made a name for himself not through his design work, but through his commitment to standards and not playing it safe at a time where no one would even think about building a website without tables.
Burger King went to the edge with their Subservient Chicken site.
Google went the opposite way of every other portal that was in existence. Now their site has become the standard for search engine design.
Do youself a favor and next time you get ready to start a design of a site, why don't you sketch out some ideas that take it to the edge? Ideas that you would never think about implementing. You never know maybe you will and then you might have a success on your hands. Its too easy to get lost in the sea of websites nowadays to not at least consider not playing it safe.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/241
Ha, funny that you write this. With fiftyfoureleven we wanted to go somewhere different. Something a little unique, preferrably not fixed width and basically not like every other 'shadowy' site out there.
In the end look what happened. Why? For us it came down to what best suits our content; the look is nice, it works for our content, and perhaps imprtant to this post, the look isn't mainstream yet.
That being said, I wouldn't call using what now to many of us is getting to be a tired formula as playing it safe. Try selling that shadowy look to a corporate client - we have. Three enlisted, two said WTF is that? They haven't seen it before, they don't want to risk it (kind of like your blog thoery).
-----
"Google went the opposite way of every other portal that was in existence."
Google was not and has yet to become a portal - though it seems that they are on the road to portaldom and yes they are doing it differently, they succeeded by providing a better product. The 'look' was different becuase the service was basic compared to the other providers at the time.
-----
Wrt blogs, there is something else besides companies thinking that a blog is 'too risky'.
We've sold two of our clients on developing blogs. They're all over the idea. Sounds great.
But: Where does the content come from? Who writes it? Does legal have to review it first? Blah blah, the list goes on.
These companies have a hard enough time appreciating that their 'brochure' content isn't necessarily right for their webpage. For us we found that it wasn't risk but in fact the lack of knowledge that held them back. Once they saw the possibilities they hopped on board.
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com/sandbox/weblog/)
Mike, that was all highly insightful. I just wanted to let you know. :)
Chris Vincent (http://dris.dyndns.org:8080/)
Thanks, Chris. I wasn't sure if I made my points or not, I tend to blither on...
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com/sandbox/weblog/)
"Very few site designs actually stick for me because they are not that different from anything else out there."
I agree totally but I also see it as a necessity. Web users expect a design that they've become accustomed to, just as newspaper and magazine designs haven't strayed too much from what works. There are a few tried and true methods and layout formats that help a user to get what their after. For the web, they can be classified roughly as left-margin, top-margin, left + top-margin, right-margin and distributed.
If a designer disregards a tested method for the user to navigate their site and comes up with a totally unique design, or method for navigating the site, then most visitors will end up being confused - even seasoned geeks.
Most sites look the same for this very fact. You can still innovate within these guidelines but your job should be to enable a user to get at the information they've come for. The tried and tested designs (2-col, 3-col etc.) aren't going away anytime soon. You can have all the graphics "chops" in the world but when its all said and done, most sites will have the same underlying structure and to a certain extent ... look the same.
Graphical techniques used to spice it up a bit - ala drop-shadowed content boxes - are just that: attempts to spice it up a bit!
When I look at the entries that made it into the CSS Vault. I don't get discouraged because of the fact that I've seen the same design a hundred times over, because their not all the same. Each designer brings something unique that I can appreciate by itself. I get excited when I see an excellent color scheme that works well for that site, or subtle graphical elements here and there which add to the the whole feel and usability. And being dedicated to CSS layout and standards implementations, as I am, I get really excited when I see a design/layout that previously could only be accomplished with a table-based layout. Isn't that what the CSS Vault is trying to recognize?
Terry (http://www.xdevdesign.com/)
I'm starting to get lost ... we're constantly talking about design usability, accessibility, consistency, standards, etc. I actually see my design options decreasing instead of increasing.
... maybe I'm just having a bad (design) day.
Bart N. (http://percept.be)
I think the old 37Signals site was a breakthrough, not so much because of its minimalist design, but rather its down-to-earth, real, minimalist copy.
In an industry of hyped up consultants and agencies spewing the same old rhetoric, 37S got real and bottom-lined it.
I think that approach is what won them over in a business sense.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
I hate to say this, but depending on the site your working on and your goals it might be fine (better?) to play it safe.
Like it or not there have been some conventions established on the Web that many sites, IMHO, should do their best to stick to. It's hard to do something breakthrough and do it right.
It all really comes down to your goals and you audience. If your goal is to stand out, or experiment with design and your audience can accept that -- then knock yourself out -- if not, you might be better off "playing it safe."
As far as one site that I think is different and really refreshing:
His design was driven by goals though. He wanted to feature photos and concentrate less on content that he didn't have time to produce. I think it worked and it's a nice, fresh look that I'd not really seen before.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
Oh, and Scrivs?
It might be time to "put your money where your mouth is." With posts like this your, perhaps unintentionally, placing an expectation of something groundbreaking on your next design!
I, for one, will be looking forward to it! ;) The pressure's on!
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
I agree w/Keith. It's rare that you will find a corporate client who will wnat to do something groundbreaking. I don't think it's always a case of wanting to play it safe, but moreso the expectation that groundbreaking = increased expense / time.
However, designers can use still use innovation to their advantage by implenting new things on their own sites. That way it can be shown to a potential client that the experimentive idea can be done without sacrificing their project restrictions too much - if at all.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
I completely agree with having to stick with the guidelines that the client sets. Thats why I said maybe we could all start just by sketching out ideas first. Wouldnt' hurt to say to your client "Well here is one that has never been done before and just thought I would show you..."
Hopefully, nobody is getting the idea that the web needs to be revolutionized or anything. I understand that 2-3 cols are the norm and that is what many web users expect. I am just worried that even during the discovery phase of the site's design that no one is trying to think outside of their norm. It's like they start with one question: "Do I go with 2 or 3 columns with this content?" And they continue on from there.
And yes the original 37Signals had one of the best copywriting you will ever find on a company's site. The design and content played together very well hand in hand.
And damn you Keith...:-)
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
And there are also other ways to "play it safe" besides just drop shadows et al. Over time, most of the sites in the Vault start look the same, predictable. But, for example, if you browse around on Netdiver, you'll see that not all of those sites resemble each other. Which tells me you can still hit the tried-and-true methods and "play it safe" in terms of design and usability without falling victim to playing it clichéd.
eris (http://www.erisfree.com)
But then (uh oh, usability perspective coming on) you have to look at what users are accustomed to in regards to user experience, namely where the logo/home button always is, where the search box can be found, where the main navigation usually is placed, etc.
It's this knowledge already found in the world that users apply to new interfaces, expecting to find something similar to what they are used to. If the knowledge they have already accumulated doesn't assist them in using an unfamiliar interface, this gulf of perception might cause them to use it erroneously, and that's a bad price to pay for a crazy new design.
Slow changes are cool, drastic changes are for designers :)
Mike (http://www.businesslogs.com)
The Kinja that wasn't is a good example of something that is a departure, albeit not very radical, that didn't get used.
It's being used over at textbased right now, and it really works for me.
We presented a similar layout to a client for a blog/product site, but they preferred to Play It Safe: nav on the left, two columns on the right.
Hapilly with CSS the design can be changed quickly once that type of layout enters the realm of 'safe'.
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com/sandbox/weblog/)
I know we like to think as many web users as being inept, but I do think some usability people and designers do not give them enough credit.
Again going back to the old 37signals site, there is nothing conventional about it, yet it seemed to work.
Drastic changes can not and should not happen all the time, but every once in a while it is nice to come across something different. I think even web users would take notice and try to "understand" how the site works.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Scrivs, in regards to #16, you might really be surprised at how little a user would care to "take notice and try to understand how the site works."
If there is one thing I've learned from user observation it's that they usually don't want to think about how to use something. They don't get credit in this way because they really do have a short attention span in most cases.
Obviously it depends on the audience and the level of motivation, but I've seen people give up all too often and so fast it'd make your head spin. Even motivated users have a quick "trigger" finger to get off a site.
I know I do.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
I look at it as an exercise in controlled evolution. Look at some of the trends in whatever media/medium you choose and try to see the next step. Then implement it before anyone else does.
I hardly ever look at something and think, "We need a revolution in this design." I think most revolution design fails. It's being different solely for the sake of being different. At the other end of the continuum, there is consistency for solely for the sake of consistency.
Getting buy-in for evolving design, or more specifically people's (client) understanding of design is about showing them your design minimizes risk and maximizes opportunity.
Most company's are not into making artistic statements. They want to make money and build reputation (which should turn eventually into money). If the design doesn't speak to one, or preferably both of those goals then the design fails. It may still be good art, but it isn't good design.
Matthew Oliphant (http://businesslogs.com)
When I wrote for my college paper we were told to write our articles to a 9th grade level despite the fact that university students were our target audience. It wasn't so much that we considered our peers to be inept, but that it was best to keep things simple, simple, quick and easy to understand. This is a standard practice across most journalism fields, so it is probably a good rule to follow in terms of the design and usability of websites.
eris (http://www.erisfree.com)
I'm glad you mentioned Paul Ford, I think I mentioned his hori-design when you posted about centered vs left/right-aligned designs. The thing I like about Paul Ford's site is that the hori design actually backs up his philosophies about the Web. He has this "graph narrative" theory and the design beautifully complements that ('cause the multiple columns end up looking like a graph - that's my guess anyway).
I recently re-designed, into a (yawn) 3-column design. Boy did I want to do something innovative, but unfortunately I'm not a good enough designer! ;-) btw I admire your homepage design too.
Richard MacManus (http://www.readwriteweb.com)
I come up with new designs all the time, the reason I reject them usually comes down to:
1. Users don't want to think
2. The design detracts from the content
3. In the end who the hell really cares about the design, aslong as they can access the content. You don't see a newspaper wanting to be revolutionary by bringing out a triangle rather than rectangular print. Most of the world reads newspapers, so if their tried, tested and succesful method doesn't need changing... why should the web?
I agree that every designer should bring something unique to the web page, but I see no reason for triangular or donnie darko type web sites yet.
As for who you should design for - you're always supposed to design for the thickest person possible, unless of course you know that your audience is a bunch of super geeks.
Robert Lofthouse
I've done a (very) small survey on the design of a few popular (and in my opinion) well designed sites. They are all XHTML+CSS designs, but it is interesting to see how table-like they all are. It's available at http://approximatelynormal.net/topographica/ - any comments appreciated
Hadley (http://approximatelynormal.net)
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 agree totally. Alazanto has always been one of those sites that stuck out to me, for example. And it's because it's insanely unique and gets the job done.
I wrote an article on this same subject some time ago. In the comments, Kevin Davis explained how he came up with his work on the Alazanto design.
We always follow a formula, because we know it works. What we need to do is spend some time coming up with new formulas. After all, it will all become "playing it safe" just as quickly as someone comes up with it.
Chris Vincent (http://dris.dyndns.org:8080/)