I go into this blog-post blind, but I am conscious of two things: firstly that I have a question, but no conclusion; secondly, I’m haunted by an image of neatly aligned post-it notes, stuck on a whiteboard.
Does the designer need to be involved in a development project from conception to sign off, or should they be roped in once all development work is done?
This picture is taken from the presentation How We Make Websites by Matthew Wood and Michael Smethurst of the BBC, given at the Institutional Web Management Workshop 2009. I remembered the image as a page layout, and I imagined the different coloured notes to be some kind of attention mapping.
OK, I got it wrong as it turns out, the image is from the “Design your URI schema” slide. In my head it is linked with Matthew saying, and this could possibly be a misquotation “We don’t do any mock-ups in Photoshop” which is more likely to have come during the “Apply decor CSS” section.
What am I on about?
The workflow outlined in the presentation is dealing with masses of data, so I can understand why the web designer is being brought in late in the process.
We do however seem to have two concepts of design, and two stages of design: firstly design as a process of organising and structuring information; secondly design as a process of decoration. In essence, one is functional, the other is frivolous.
I agree that form should follow function; the site needs to work, but I think some degree of designed visualisation throughout the process can improve the final outcome.
Grids, Wire-framing, and Attention Mapping
Loads has be written about these so I don’t think I should write an overview, but I think they really help set the agenda for what you want an application to do. I think they can help a designer communicate ideas with a developer, and the developer can feedback whether or not something is workable…
I designed a homepage for E42, Edge Hill’s magazine and mocked it up in HTML and CSS. I figured it was a simple job for the developer, so I gave to him and said “Make it work!”. Presenting the stories in two columns turned out to be a nightmare, something to do with odd and even numbers of stories, and closing div tags. Anyway a bit of communication and a simple wireframe mock-up could have saved an afternoons work.
Conversely our main events page was created by the development team: it functions perfectly, but has no visual punch. If a monotone wireframe had been used, the focus could have been drawn quicker to the latest event; and if some attention mapping was done, you wouldn’t have to scroll down to find the button to the Events Timeline!
One Thing about Wire-framing
Wire-framing is great in certain contexts, getting the balance and composition of a static page right, early in the workflow, increases consideration for the end user throughout the process.
With applications like GO, where the end user can add and remove their own content, they are also creating their own page composition: In this context it is worth concentrating on the individual components.
By using Photoshop layers you can compare how the components sit next to one another, and see if you are achieving harmony or just making noise.
Experience has taught me the importance of planning up front: however nothing is conceived and visible in an instant. Just about every project hits a lull, where things look OK, but there is a lack of balance, or something just isn’t standing out the way it should do.
This is where a happy accident often occurs, usually by hiding layers in Photoshop the right juxtaposition of text, imagery and colour can miraculously happen, and everything falls into place.
This can’t be built in as part of your core plan, but by involving a designer throughout, little twists to the plot can happen, and you could end up with a more effective website.
Well the answer to the original question is no: let’s face it if something works it works; but people are becoming more conscious of the visual appearance of applications and how the intuitiveness of a layout gives them confidence as a user; also there is a psychological element that if something looks good it probably works better too.
Obviously there are other aesthetic questions: why do so many interfaces resemble a Mac operating system, or the dashboard of an Audi; but this is beside the point.