Re: FN-FORUM tony/Bad Webdesign

date posted 1st February 2002 19:31

tony - i certainly did not mean to criticise you - i may have been flipant -
but my original point was that different sites aim to do different things -
you are a pro. wb designer - i am not - i am a dabbler - but i was
commenting n the whole nav/content over design debate that is going on - as
an illustrator the design and images are more important than the text
(possibly short sighted on my behalf) - obviously when you are talking about
commercial sites for commercial appeal and mass audiences you are correct -
but not all sites are for that purpose - but i still do think that the idea
that bad design should be termed as art is in my mind inciorrect

anyhow i am sorry if i annoyed anyone as you say we are all free to express
our own opinion

i come from possibly a different point of view as i am an illustrator

if any of you think my site is art i am willing to sell prints of the front
page fpor a reasonable sum ho ho ho



john

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Crockford" [EMAIL REMOVED]
To: [EMAIL REMOVED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: RE: FN-FORUM Bad Webdesign


>
> >so shite design should be called art?
>
> I never said that.
>
>
> >This conversation is about "webdesign" not development
>
> I'm making the point that *design* is about making things that work AND
look
> nice.
>
> Designing something, in my mind, means to create, "fit for a purpose".
>
> Art, on the other hand is not as much purposeful, as entertaining.
> You don't *use* a piece of art. (shades of grey people, please....)
>
> Some of the sites put forward as stunning examples of *design* are in
fact,
> stunning art pieces.
>
> No less value, but not, in my mind, good design.
>
> The level I aspire to is to create a visually stunning web site,
overflowing
> with content and excellent navigation that is accessible to all.
>
>
> >Have you never looked at a site that is so visually stunning you think
> >F**K -
>
> Yeah, but I'd probably consider it *art* unless I could see it's purpose
and
> find my way around it easily.
>
>
> >but don't look down your nose at
> >what does not fit into your idea of what makes a good site.
>
>
> Never, ever, said or did that either.
>
>
> It's all about semantics, as usual, and email is no medium for discussing
> the finer points of anything.
>
> I think that we should be more careful in the future to describe stuff
more
> accurately.
>
> There is elegant design in simple sites that work well.
>
> What a lot of web designers refer to as great *design* is usually more
> artistic than functional. Leading edge Flash experimentation sites are
fun
> to look at, but usually non-functional.
>
> The more pragmatic contributors on this list and others would praise good
> design in a site that works, looks good, and meets the needs of the user,
> it's target audience, and the client.
>
> I'm pleased with what I do, it's getting better (IMHO) with every new site
I
> attempt, but I'm never going to be a leading edge designer, because I
don't
> have the artistic talent.
>
> I know my place, but it doesn't mean I can't express an opinion.
>
> Feel free to attack my opinion, but please don't attack me.
>
> Thanks for reading
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
============================================================================
==
> = Calling OLD HIPPIES!!! Get your old college work on show at:
=
> = http://www.STUDENTSART.com where we print your work and you get
royalties! =
> = ** A FREE SERVICE ** set up by students - for students.
=
>
============================================================================
==
>
> Sponsor the forum for as little as £1 at:
>
> http://www.freelancers.net/cgi/sponsor.cgi?action=show
>
>
> Freelancers and Freelance Jobs:
> http://www.freelancers.net
>
> Forum FAQs:
> http://freelancers.netrickery.com
>
> To unsubscribe please email:
> [EMAIL REMOVED]
>
> If you have difficulties unsubscribing please email:
> [EMAIL REMOVED]