Bookmark article
Follow article
Email to a friend
Share articleI refer to the design aspects of Web 2.0 as "Web 2.Oh-Oh" The "trend" has passed and should be avoided - kind of like the swoosh of the dot.doom era...
Very helpful
out of 10
7 votes
Beware The Look of Web 2.0
A recent trend is the desire to appear "Web 2.0". It's something I hear a lot and it's something I think most businesses should steer clear of when designing their web sites.
Written May 22, 2008, read 289 times since then.
As a designer and consultant I've worked with all types of clients. Big businesses like PayPal and small startups like Judy's Book. And everything in between. I've also been doing this for years, and over those years you begin to get a knack for noticing trends.
Before I go on, let me define what I mean by "Web 2.0" and lay some groundwork for what I think businesses should avoid. When looking a the web today and the way we market, socialize, etc. on the web it's clear there are some good things we can take from that.
Web design has lots of great things going for it right now, and we've made huge strides in the last 4-5 years.
- Authentic conversations.
- Transparency.
- Social Networking with peers, etc.
- Collaboration.
- Web Standards.
- Focus on usability.
- "User"-driven content (Like this article!)
Those things are good. However, what I usually hear in regards to Web 2.0 is more about style. Style, as in, the "look" of Web 2.0. You know; gradients, bright colors, reflections, drop shadows, etc.
None of these techniques are problems in of themselves. They can be used, if done correctly, to great effect and many sites and applications that share this look are very well done.
The problems, as with any trend, lie in extreme overuse. A business who intentionally shoots for a Web 2.0 style is potentially setting themselves up to be ignored. Lost in a sea of sameness.
Design is much more about visual style. Much, much more. Style and look and feel are but a small piece that sits along side (and contributes to) many other important bits; layout, readability, information hierarchy, etc.
A good design transcends and embraces style. It doesn't follow the lead of any trend. A great design is timeless.
More relevant to the topic of this article, a great design will get you noticed and remembered. Good designers know this, and will push clients away from trends.
Branding 101 states that in order to have a strong brand, you must differentiate. You simply can't do that by latching on to trends, especially one as pervasive and long lasting as Web 2.0.
When you set out to design your site you should first look at the business goals you've got. What do you want your site to communicate and/or do. Then take a look at your audiences. Hopefully you'll be able to easily align the needs of your customers with your business goals and begin to get an idea of what your site will say and do.
You can let your designer address how best to address those goals in a stylistic manner later. It's always best to give your designer problems and goals, as opposed to presenting features and solutions.
Telling a designer you want a Web 2.0 look, for example, is pretty much putting the cart before the horse. Never mind all I just said about it being potentially bad for your brand.
Beware a designer that will let you lead them like that. It means you're not getting any benefit of their creative thinking, and if you're not getting that creative thinking, then what's the point of hiring a designer?
The best designs start with solid goals and problems to solve and a willingness by the client to relinquish some creative control to the designer. On today's web, despite all the advances we've made in web design, we're starting to see a homogenous style that while bad for those within it, provides lots of opportunity to stand out and make a strong impression.
Learn more about the author, Keith Robinson.
Comment on this article
-
Posted by Jeff Fisher, Portland, Oregon | May 23, 2008 -
Posted by Emma McCreary, Portland, Oregon | May 25, 2008Well...I dunno about this. As a consumer of Web 2.0 products (Facebook, Flickr, Basecamp, etc), when I see a Web 2.0 aesthetic, I think of it as the company making a statement about their positioning. There seems to be a qualitative difference in outlook to Web 2.0 - putting user interaction and transparency first, for instance. I want to buy from companies who think like this, therefore, the style informs my buying choice. It doesn't determine it, but it is part of it. And you can indeed position your company by being aware of and informed by a certain design style that has meaning for consumers. That doesn't mean you copy it and don't do your own design work (including the "thinking" work of branding and differentiation). But to say it's just irrelevant and "bad" to want to be identified as Web 2.0 with your design style is going too far I think. Design is about communicating who you are, and if you are a Web 2.0 informed company, I think reflecting that in your design makes sense.
Of course, there are many different ways to do Web 2.0 aesthetic and not all of them have gradients and drop-shadows. Flickr for instance has more of a Google-simplicity look.
Another reason to look at what other sites in the space are doing is that usability is often a matter of familiarity. If you understand how a lot of your users are used to interacting with a website, you will be able to make a site that is intuitive for them to use.
-
Posted by David Billings, Portland, Oregon | May 27, 2008Emma, I think you're right on point - especially with the aim of marketing to what's already happening.
However, I've had clients me ask for "that Web 2.0 look" in logos and designs. When I ask what they mean, the answer is usually a snide, "You don't know what Web 2.0 is?"
My answer is to ask them describe it to me. Usually they can't because they don't understand what it really is; they heard the term on Dateline as the Hot New Trend and they just want it, whatever it is.
Still, they think I'm an idiot because I don't know what they mean by "that Web 2.0 look."
I may be an idiot in some areas (!), but I know that good design always comes down to the basics: what's your goal? What are you trying to communicate?
If a client doesn't know that, then applying Web 2.0 and just being trendy isn't going to fix it.
However, if pushed far enough, I'll take the cash and make a Web 2.0 logo. Then, in a year I'll make a new one that's more like Web 2.8.
Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.
-
Posted by Emma McCreary, Portland, Oregon | May 27, 2008
Ok, yeah that makes sense then. I haven't been asked to do that, but that would be my response too, "So what do you mean by that?". Trying to understand the motivation, what is appealing to them about it. Hopefully not just the fad-like aspects.
It's kind of ironic because the cultural underpinnings of Web 2.0 are about authenticity...not about "looking" a certain way.
I think good design is authentic design - it's about communicating what actually is true, in the best sense of that word - the true mission of the company, the true gift it brings to its customers, etc.
Also ironic b/c Web 2.0 also seems to be about having a design sensibility and awareness...and asking for "The Web 2.0 look" kinda misses the whole point of design, like you are saying.
I think of it as a cultural movement, like post-modernism (but a lot more useful LOL). =)
-
Posted by DL Byron, Seattle, Washington | May 29, 2008Cool, cool Keith. And you're gonna talk about this during the BizJam, right?
-
Posted by Lara Eve Feltin, Seattle, Washington | May 30, 2008Keith Robinson is presenting a workshop at BizJam Seattle 08 on July 9, called, "Entrepreneurial Success By Design".
Check out a description here.
We're excited to have you, Keith!
Article tags
- design
- web 2.0
- style
- trends
- branding
- marketing
- web
