Reliable Web Designer

[james2004]

Does anyone know of a reliable web designer in the Worcestershire area.

Ours has gone bust half way through so im stuck starting again. I want a local designer so i can keep an eye on them.

Its for a company website and they need to be half decent as there is some level of interactivity to the site. The design is done through so its mostly coding.

Thanks

[fisicx]

The design is done through so its mostly coding.
That sets the alarm bells ringing straight away. The coding is the design, the layout is just the eye candy you add on afterwards.

Sorry this doesn't answer you question but it really would be better to start again and do it the right way round:

write the content > construct the wireframe > testing > add the styling (layout) > user testing > publish

[CPLTD]

Does anyone know of a reliable web designer in the Worcestershire area.

Ours has gone bust half way through so im stuck starting again. I want a local designer so i can keep an eye on them.

Its for a company website and they need to be half decent as there is some level of interactivity to the site. The design is done through so its mostly coding.

Thanks

do they have to be local as most web development companies work remotley from there clients,
If not I can recomend a fellow member on this site Webforma Studios (http://www.webforma.co.uk) as for Chris.
Hope that helps:cool:

[matt.chatterley]

I can recommend Kev from MultiLayer Design (http://multilayerdesign.com) - though he isn't local to you - he's done some really great work on some of our sites (and clients sites) in the past. :)

[CreationCoast]

You might not necesarily need to start again from scratch... we're not in the area you specify, but if you'd like us to take a look at what you have so far and give you some advice on it, feel free to send us a PM.

Cheers,

Jamie

[mobyme]

You might not necesarily need to start again from scratch...
Cheers,

Jamie

No but it's an arse backwards way of doing it and it will always show. The layout is just the veneer on top of a well coded site.

[PETTE]

Or you can contact me here (http://www.simon-center.com/contactme.php) to find out weather I could complete your project for free. Best to catch me online.

I could redesign your pages for you and provide some free banners and business cards/forms. But you'll have to find a programmer/coder if the coding is too much.

But I'm not located in your area.

[CreationCoast]

write the content > construct the wireframe > testing > add the styling (layout) > user testing > publish

What's to say the original designer hadn't completed all the way to this process - up until the point of coding the layout, Mobyme? From experience, beyond the wireframe stage, you'd move onto the design stage in Photoshop. You'd never proof a design in coding as this could be unnecessary work in establishing where the design needs tweaking.

Anyhow, if the design is unworkable for being coded we can soon let you know. Chuck it over to us and we can check!

PS Any good web designer would design a site knowing that the coding of it was perfectly achievable.

[wood1e2]

We are not in Worcestshire, but we could help :) PM me if you want...payment on satisfactory completion :)

[fisicx]

What's to say the original designer hadn't completed all the way to this process - up until the point of coding the layout
Because the OP said so.
From experience, beyond the wireframe stage, you'd move onto the design stage in Photoshop.
Why? If the page has a logical structure all the layout work can be done in the CSS, all you need photoshop for is the images.
You'd never proof a design in coding as this could be unnecessary work in establishing where the design needs tweaking.
Every site should work in a 'text only' form. You can fully test the functionality, accessibility, information flows, completeness of data, navigation and so on. Making the interface look pretty is the last bit of the design process and only need tweaks to the CSS. You don't have to rely on photoshop or any other graphics package for the page layout.

[mobyme]

Why? If the page has a logical structure all the layout work can be done in the CSS, all you need photoshop for is the images.

Every site should work in a 'text only' form. You can fully test the functionality, accessibility, information flows, completeness of data, navigation and so on. Making the interface look pretty is the last bit of the design process and only need tweaks to the CSS. You don't have to rely on photoshop or any other graphics package for the page layout.

He puts it so much better than I do. Damn!

[CreationCoast]

Every site should work in a 'text only' form. You can fully test the functionality, accessibility, information flows, completeness of data, navigation and so on. Making the interface look pretty is the last bit of the design process and only need tweaks to the CSS. You don't have to rely on photoshop or any other graphics package for the page layout.

Ha ok, I think I'm going to admit defeat in trying to get this across to you! I think we're coming from very different real world experiences. Mine is based on having worked for most of the top London agencies, AKQA, Full Six, EHS Brann, Agency.com to name just a few! - No website would ever get to a developer before being approved from design stage. No client would ever sign off to a site being developed until they'd reviewed at least 3 design routes and decided on one to fine tune further. At this level the client is paying around £600-£800 per day for mine or any other designers time alone, often there can be teams of designers working together for weeks at a time on projects. Developers/coders usually will only work to coding and developing what the designers have produced for them.

[Astaroth]

Have to agree with CreationCoast that every design we have ever been involved in has always been done as a graphic first and HTML/ coded second.

It would actually set major alarm bells ringing to me if anyone started off the creation of the front end of a brochureware site by starting to write the HTML.

All that said, we are a development company and not designers but can certainly take the designs to encode if that is all that is required. Not local to Worcester any more but did live there for 14 years if that's any reassurance ;)

[liams7]

That sets the alarm bells ringing straight away. The coding is the design, the layout is just the eye candy you add on afterwards.

Sorry this doesn't answer you question but it really would be better to start again and do it the right way round:

write the content > construct the wireframe > testing > add the styling (layout) > user testing > publish

What a crazy response.

would you code this first and then put the design on it.

http://www.glowonline.co.uk/portfolio/atg1.jpg

Nope because in the same way you wouldnt build a house with out an architect first.

I think doing design first is going to happen due to marketing.

Anyone who build before design will have real issues if the client doesnt like the way the site handels.

As for answering the question.

Sorry no i dont.

[fisicx]

But the architect sets out the structure of the house, the arrangement of the rooms, the plumbing, electrics, heating and overall design of the building. They don't decide on the colour of the paint, the style of the doors, the bathroom or kitchen fittings and so on.

If you begin with the layout and fix the navigation and position of the call to action how will you know if it's going to work or not? Suppose you begin with the photoshop mockup and build the site only to discover that you need another 3 links in the main navigation or the colours don't convert or the content doesn't fit and any one of a hundred other things then you are going to struggle.

Nothing wrong with using a basic CSS layout with a bit of colour but to fix the page layout and then try to get the content to fit means compromises which could reduce the effectiveness of the site.

The example you gave liams7 would still require the site structure to be decided before the mockup to make sure the customers needs were met. As it is I can see a whole bunch of problems with that layout, not least lack of primary navigation, the poor accessibility and usability and the problems you are going to have with the search engines.

[awebapart.com]

For any website that is more complicated than a small simple static html website, design does come before build.

But in this case, when I say design, I mean overall system design as a whole (requirements analysis leading to solution design, system architecture design, functionality design, marketing/seo research/design, user interface design, database design, back end admin systems, content management systems etc) not just the visual/graphic design of the public facing website.

The public facing visual/graphic design can be merely the tip of the iceberg (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=76533#post587083) in such systems.

Some companies do just take the visual/graphic design approach, and this can sometimes lead to sites which are good on the eye candy but not so good as far as anything else important is concerned, and sites which go over budget, because the rest wasn't considered at the initial design stage. This sometimes happens with companies applying the same techniques they use for creating printed marketing materials as to creating websites, but complex websites are complex pieces of software not pieces of paper, and they should be treated as such.

Not all that glitters is gold (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=129020&page=2#post1016501). They say you can't polish a turd, but unfortunately in the web design world, it is possible to end up with a spray painted gold one.

[liams7]

But the architect sets out the structure of the house, the arrangement of the rooms, the plumbing, electrics, heating and overall design of the building. They don't decide on the colour of the paint, the style of the doors, the bathroom or kitchen fittings and so on.

If you begin with the layout and fix the navigation and position of the call to action how will you know if it's going to work or not? Suppose you begin with the photoshop mockup and build the site only to discover that you need another 3 links in the main navigation or the colours don't convert or the content doesn't fit and any one of a hundred other things then you are going to struggle.

Nothing wrong with using a basic CSS layout with a bit of colour but to fix the page layout and then try to get the content to fit means compromises which could reduce the effectiveness of the site.

The example you gave liams7 would still require the site structure to be decided before the mockup to make sure the customers needs were met. As it is I can see a whole bunch of problems with that layout, not least lack of primary navigation, the poor accessibility and usability and the problems you are going to have with the search engines.

You are talking about paint which would be the brand. A whole different kettle of fish and would be decided before a website is even thought about. We can take it as read that if Tescos are building a store they will be using blue and red in the decoration. However a sites entire style and functionality has to be decided before you touch Zend.

[fisicx]

However a sites entire style and functionality has to be decided before you touch Zend.
Agree about the functionality but not the style. Does it really matter on day one what colour the buttons are or the navigation background? You won't know if the borders, margins, padding, widths or font sizes are right until you begin testing. I don't have a problem with having some mock ups but I would never advocate fixing the layout very early in the design process.

[Astaroth]

What colour the button is may be taking a bit too far but there are plenty of other aspects of design that will make a significant difference in terms of how many columns/ boxes a site will have on each template type. This can frequently be driven by brand guidelines and be immutable.

Ok, you can code an application form assuming you have a full page width only to be later told that their guidelines stipulate there must be a left nav and right brand banner and so you have to fully redesign the form and potentially change the number of steps it is broken into etc. It isnt starting from a blank sheet of paper again but is a significant amount of rework.

There is ultimately some element of chicken and the egg too. Do you create the templates for a "product page" and then create the copy etc to fit in the template in terms of the different zones of the page that have been created (features, options, etc) or do you create all the copies, bullet points etc and then design a template for each different type of product? Whilst both are viable in reality a site needs to have cohesion and having 30 different layouts for the 35 different products is going to start feel fragmented and make it harder for users.

Of cause, go to a large client with a pretty picture that fully fits their guidelines and they will be happy. Go with a list of plain text and unstyled forms etc and you have a serious risk of losing contracts (have seen it happen and that was only because the buttons were the wrong colour)

[Place of design]

Whatever. Argue away. How you approach a job, depends on the job. If you approach each job with the same mindset...

If the OP wants to speak to us, we will be happy to provide references from the forum. We are not based in the area, but we have worked on sites from all over the world

[custardfish]

But the architect sets out the structure of the house, the arrangement of the rooms, the plumbing, electrics, heating and overall design of the building.

This is the equivalent of a sites planning, content plan/write, UI, wireframe, greyscale designs etc.

And surely you would expect an Architect to draw up some plans you can look at first - not randomly start building walls here and there to mimic the layout of the house they have 'in mind'!

Suppose you begin with the photoshop mockup and build the site only to discover that you need another 3 links in the main navigation or the colours don't convert or the content doesn't fit and any one of a hundred other things then you are going to struggle.

Well that's just poor planning. If you start 'designing' a site without the client & users goals, final(ish) content and some basic UI sorted your going to struggle. But surely starting to code/build without any of this in place is even more crazy!

Nothing wrong with using a basic CSS layout with a bit of colour but to fix the page layout and then try to get the content to fit means compromises which could reduce the effectiveness of the site.

Out of interest how do you build this basic CSS layout without any design in place? Do you just guess at what goes where as you do it? Even basic wireframe designs are still designs!

It's also a hell of lot easier and quicker to tweak a design than in would be to redo the css/html layout of a page to reformat for a content change.

The example you gave liams7 would still require the site structure to be decided before the mockup to make sure the customers needs were met. As it is I can see a whole bunch of problems with that layout,

Site structure decided, yes of course - thats just good planning. This has nothing to do with the final design.. they're not mutually exclusive just because you design a visually complex site doesn't mean you haven't planned it! The point is neither design OR build should be started without any planning!

Why do you seem to think those that design a site prior to build start the design without any planning in place?

Looking at that site - it looks really professional - I'd be amazed if they had just jumped in with some final visual layouts without planning/knowing the clients/end users goals etc!

Also your second bit is subjective opinion - and all design is subjective.

I think overall though your underestimating the massive impact good vs bad visual design can have. Not only to image, branding but also to very measurable site metrics and the overall UX etc!

[Place of design]

What if you want a e-commerce store (say magento) visually integrated with a gallery (say Gallery2) and a static site (straight css and HTML) and a blog (say inhouse bespoke)

What if the client has a store and wants a blog integrated... you see my point - real world and ideal wold allways pretty much fall over when multiple systems collide

[fisicx]

This is the equivalent of a sites planning, content plan/write, UI, wireframe, greyscale designs etc.

And surely you would expect an Architect to draw up some plans you can look at first - not randomly start building walls here and there to mimic the layout of the house they have 'in mind'!
I agree, nothing wrong with a rough layout to feed the creative juices but to finalise the laoyut without having planned and prepared and organised the content and navigation isn't a good idea.

Out of interest how do you build this basic CSS layout without any design in place? Do you just guess at what goes where as you do it? Even basic wireframe designs are still designs!
Logiocal page layouts. And I agree thae as wireframe is part of the design process. May arguement is with those who consider the layout to be the design and everything else is just coding.

Site structure decided, yes of course - thats just good planning. This has nothing to do with the final design.. they're not mutually exclusive just because you design a visually complex site doesn't mean you haven't planned it! The point is neither design OR build should be started without any planning!
Agree! That's my whole point - the layout/template/mockup is part of the design process not the start of it. See the opening post in the thread.

I think overall though your underestimating the massive impact good vs bad visual design can have. Not only to image, branding but also to very measurable site metrics and the overall UX etc!
Actually not so sure about this one. Visually stunning sites can get lots of traffic and win lots of praise but this doesn't make then successful. What I find a good UX may not be what you like. Of course a clunky ugly site will fare worse than one that is smooth and simple but people really don't care what shade of blue you use for your borders, if it's the right product and the right price and the site can be trusted then the layout of the page isn't that relevant. Ebay and Amazon being two good examples.

[PETTE]

I agree, nothing wrong with a rough layout to feed the creative juices but to finalise the laoyut without having planned and prepared and organised the content and navigation isn't a good idea.


Logiocal page layouts. And I agree thae as wireframe is part of the design process. May arguement is with those who consider the layout to be the design and everything else is just coding.


Agree! That's my whole point - the layout/template/mockup is part of the design process not the start of it. See the opening post in the thread.


Actually not so sure about this one. Visually stunning sites can get lots of traffic and win lots of praise but this doesn't make then successful. What I find a good UX may not be what you like. Of course a clunky ugly site will fare worse than one that is smooth and simple but people really don't care what shade of blue you use for your borders, if it's the right product and the right price and the site can be trusted then the layout of the page isn't that relevant. Ebay and Amazon being two good examples.

Absolutely, people don't really care about the quality of the website appearance. But judging by these two arngren (http://www.arngren.net/) and ebay (http://www.ebay.com). I know where I would rather buy my products. Very clear and logical.

I can't believe how this thread has turned out to be about arguments which are very logical and with only one answer. Judging buy osfes (http://www.osfes.org/) here. I think it's which one of the procedures he used to complete his website. And by that procedure I can't image anyone producing something beyond that quality.

[liams7]

Absolutely, people don't really care about the quality of the website appearance. But judging by these two arngren (http://www.arngren.net/) and ebay (http://www.ebay.com). I know where I would rather buy my products. Very clear and logical.

I can't believe how this thread has turned out to be about arguments which are very logical and with only one answer. Judging buy osfes (http://www.osfes.org/) here. I think it's which one of the procedures he used to complete his website. And by that procedure I can't image anyone producing something beyond that quality.

Are you serious

People dont care about the QUALITY of the website apperance.

*shakes head*

I give up

[custardfish]

..but to finalise the laoyut without having planned and prepared and organised the content and navigation isn't a good idea.

Agree! That's my whole point - the layout/template/mockup is part of the design process not the start of it. See the opening post in the thread.

I don't see anything in the opening post that indicates that the site 'design' didn't go through any planning or mock-up stages.. I guess only the OP knows that for sure.

Actually not so sure about this one. Visually stunning sites can get lots of traffic and win lots of praise but this doesn't make then successful.... ...people really don't care what shade of blue you use for your borders, if it's the right product and the right price and the site can be trusted then the layout of the page isn't that relevant. Ebay and Amazon being two good examples.

'Visually stunning' is different from good effective design, neither Ebay or Amazon or indeed 99% of e-commerce stores need to be 'visually stunning' - just effective. And both of those sites are good, clean fast loading effective designs. And yes only a decent ROI makes 'most' sites successful. Also the 'layout' of the page is massively relevant... this goes back to the wireframing/planning and is likely to have huge impact in the conversion rate of a e-tailer.

But many sites and companies need to create a niche for themselves in competitive markets, and branding, including the website design play very important roles in that. It's also been shown that user WILL pay more for products on sites that they 'think' they can trust over ones they don't. So its not at all always about lowest price.

So how does a site go about creating this 'trust' you mention? Does the visual look of the site, business branding not have a role to play - not at all?

I've halved the bounce rates of sites I've re-designed, using the EXACT same content. Since only the design changed what would you say achieved that?

There a numerous studies that show users make judgements about a sites usefulness within seconds (milliseconds) - what do you think they're basing this on? Its certainly not content as they make judgements too quickly to be able to read text etc.

Its the colours, layout and general 'feel'. All down to the design.

[Astaroth]

Even functionality acceptability is changing.... the dawn of the aggregators has ment people are much more accepting of painful and long forms. At a previous clients we did further A/B testing and where as previously adding an additional 1 question to the quote process would result in a 3-5% drop off rate increase it now only added 0.5-2%

Brand loyalty is still very poor on the web but brand identity/ values etc are still key and are communicated initially by look and feel rather than content or functionality.

[fisicx]

I've halved the bounce rates of sites I've re-designed, using the EXACT same content. Since only the design changed what would you say achieved that?

There a numerous studies that show users make judgements about a sites usefulness within seconds (milliseconds) - what do you think they're basing this on? Its certainly not content as they make judgements too quickly to be able to read text etc.

Its the colours, layout and general 'feel'. All down to the design.
That's exactly my point. You were able to change the layout to reduce bounce rate and hopefully increase conversions. If the site has a logical structure with CSS driven page layouts then this process becomes a doddle. On the other hand if it is a complex page structure exported from a photoshop layout the whole process becomes much more complicated.

This is why the W3C advicates seperating style from content. The site should be perfectly fuctional in a text only browser, the layout is a result of the CSS.

Remember csszengarden?

[CreationCoast]

Wow what a lively thread this has turned into! I don't think the OP expected this to happen, but it's turned into a interesting debate of views here.

I think the thing is, we all 'get' design - whether we acknowledge it or not! Design exists in everything and affects our responses. The purpose of effort in design in a site is to try to illicit the particular response we we want.

I'd never devalue the need for good coding, usability, planning etc. However I think some of our more developer based posters here are devaluing the importance of good design, and the skills we have as web designers that go beyond just making a just pretty view on screen. I think unfortunately this could be a view that compensates where particular design skills and understanding are lacking.

As a designer I try to plan and account for everything in advance when I create in Photoshop. I understand the implications of my design, all the way through to the functionality and coding requirements, I don't plan to design un-buildable sites.

In fact, our designing can push the boundaries of what we can do in the web, it's partly for this reason we have the advancements in CSS coding, which for all of you depreciating design, you likely very much appreciate.

Additionally I provide a better service for my client, why go to the cost of time in development to proof a format, when as a web designer with understanding I can proof to Photoshop knowing full well my design (including functional page page proofing) is achievable.

It sounds like some of you don't appreciate that we take more than just visual design into account when do our work. The structures that you're advocating can all be visualised before ever needing to be coded, and this is far more efficient.

[Astaroth]

On the other hand if it is a complex page structure exported from a photoshop layout the whole process becomes much more complicated.

This is why the W3C advicates seperating style from content. The site should be perfectly fuctional in a text only browser, the layout is a result of the CSS.
No one is advocating exporting from Photoshop or mixing layout with content.

These two points I would have assumed were a given but still when ever I worked with anyone either as a development company with Astaroth Solutions or as a consultant as myself in the insurance industry the first step in creating U/Is for websites has always started with a design (typically done in Photoshop but not exclusively) and then is hand coded in CSS/ xHTML and then content is added (typically via a CMS) and front end to data capture forms etc built etc

Just because you code to a picture doesnt mean your code has to be of low quality. I would argue that the opposite is generally true as coded right first time (which if the design is signed off it should be) is cleaner than coding once without a design and then itterative changes to try and meet a clients specification afterwards.

[custardfish]

Agree with Dan, I don't think anyone here posting from what has turned into a "design is great" camp ( :) ) have advocated a Photoshop export to tables/HTML website!

Indeed if that was the case from the OP enquiry then no real coding is needed anyway! And as Dan says I would take the fact we're coding a well structured semantic standards driven html & css site as given too.

Like others my experience in the process is (roughly): planning > content > wireframes (visual) > greyscale mock ups > full designs > html & css > php/cms integration > content

Your initial post advocated coding comes prior to anything else, in my experience and my own workflow it comes no where near that! Not unless we're talking complex web based App (and db/wireframe design would still come 1st!) - I don't think this is anything like the case.

As CreationCost say I think a good portion of developers here underestimate the value of designers, and the experience we can bring in terms of how the functionality will work.

I can't really see how anyone can think a website/web app isn't heavily dependent on its design. As far as I can tell 99% of users interact visually - ie your reading, navigating all this with YOUR EYES! So if that's the case then visual design is massively important.

Obviously if your limiting your design based on the needs users who are viewing on a text only browser then I guess thats different!

I think some are just getting confused between 'art' and what 'design' is.

[awebapart.com]

If the person producing the mockups does have an understanding of the client's requirements, the overall solution, and the overall and underlying system, and is also acting as the analyst getting the requirements from the client and coming up with a solution that fits within the client's budget, then all well and good.

But if the person producing the mockups is just drawing anything they want, focusing on the visual/graphic design of the public facing website and disregarding all the other important stuff, then that is not so good.

I've seen a few recurring problems with graphic designers acting as the overall solution designer, designing screen mockups in packages like photoshop:

1. Graphic designers creating designs without any consideration for the features and constraints of the underlying cms or ecommerce to be used, which can make it costly to retrofit the actual system. They might also do so with no discussion whatsoever about the customer's overall ecommerce requirements including backend ecommerce requirements. When a website is designed with no particular underlying (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=85388&page=3) system (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=225013) in mind (http://www.shell-livewire.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16826), it can end up being very costly, because the system then has to be either developed from scratch or developed in a semi-bespoke way, either way development time is expensive, or worse still it forces the use of an inappropriate underlying system because that is the only one that fits in with the visual design, even thought it's not a good solution design fit. This situation also happens with businesses just selecting web templates because they like the 'design', without considering overall website requirements.

2. They add things like Newsletter signup links to the graphic design without any consideration or discussion with the customer about what the newsletter system requirements (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=103792&page=3#post824925) are or what the features should be.

3. Creating photoshop designs that are either impossible web designs, or designs which add to the budget, or designs which diminish the SEO of web sites, or designs which diminish what can be content manageable, or designs which do not convey functionality. For example: using fonts that are not web fonts, using text anti-aliasing that is not present in all browsers, using impractical font sizes, etc, generally designing for the print or image medium (which has no constraints) rather than designing for the web medium (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=337677) (which does have constraints)

[Esk247]

flippin eck..there certainly aint a 'Website Building Standard' is there.

I do it this way: - Pages Required (Home, About, Product), Written Content for Pages, Link it all up in basic HTML to test that its all working, finish off by adding the design last << this bit always takes ages, choosing the correct colours, images, fading or whatever, so i leave it till last, once the structure is built and the website works in html format then you just add the skin.

e.g. what do you want the website to do? not, how do you want it to look.

i could want a website that has a 3d interactive face..but its naff all use to me if i have more products/pages than i can fit on the face. so if you do it from design and colour backwards you end up deleting photoshop images that won't work or dont fit with the text on the page.

[liams7]

flippin eck..there certainly aint a 'Website Building Standard' is there.

I do it this way: - Pages Required (Home, About, Product), Written Content for Pages, Link it all up in basic HTML to test that its all working, finish off by adding the design last << this bit always takes ages, choosing the correct colours, images, fading or whatever, so i leave it till last, once the structure is built and the website works in html format then you just add the skin.

e.g. what do you want the website to do? not, how do you want it to look.

i could want a website that has a 3d interactive face..but its naff all use to me if i have more products/pages than i can fit on the face. so if you do it from design and colour backwards you end up deleting photoshop images that won't work or dont fit with the text on the page.

So how would you go about building a content managed website.

I think there are two big things being missed here.

1 - A website is a marketing tool. In the same way that traditional marketing would be 'concepted' first so should a website.

2 - Design is NOT just pretty pictures - Design is about communication. This could be communicating the benefits of a business or simply how to easily find their phone number. Therefore to be a good web designer you need to understand how people think and how people use a website.

I think we could compare a website designed by a good webdesigner then built by a good programmer next to one that has just been built by a programmer and see quite a difference.

[fisicx]

I think we could compare a website designed by a good webdesigner then built by a good programmer next to one that has just been built by a programmer and see quite a difference.
Can you define 'webdesigner' as there seems to be a difference of opinion.

I regard a webdesigner as the one who manages the design process. They may do the work themselves or employ graphic designers, programmers, usabiliy consultants, market researchers, SEO/SEM specialists and so on.

Part of design is the communication aspect I agree but an equally large part is the functionality of the product.

My central argument is that the layout of a webpage should not be so rigid that it can't be easily changed if the site fails to perform as required. Have the photshop mock-up but don't use it until the wireframe is constructed and the site has gone throuhg initial testing. You then take the mock-up and style the page using CSS. If all the divs are already in place then this really is a doddle.

[liams7]

That wasn't your central argument. Otherwise you would agree that the design would have to be sorted before the programming is started. It's alot easier to change things in illustrator than redo the programming.

Let me define what I mean by designer:
Someone who considers the purpose of the website (ie generate leads or perhaps convert prospects). They will take this brief along with research of the market, the client base and the companies proposition and find a solution. Using this they will make sure that the website achieves this. The actual way they do this will depend on the particular project.
It could be through a 'visually stunning' design or a practical and easy-to-navigate layout. Also a GOOD designer will be able to think through more than 2 dimensions. For instance how does the user interact with the information. Perhaps it's about the user creating the information and the website reacting to it. In short it is creating a website that is focused on the user and the clients expectations and NOT "lets put a div here because I think so".

This is the difference between a website that is designed to succeed rather than simply physically work.

Now - before the programmers start complaining, it doesn't matter how good the design and concept is if the guys who are building it are incompetent. The programmers are equally as important as the designers - They are like a house of cards. One leans on the other.

Notice I speak about designers and programmers as two different people. This is because I don't think you can truly excel in both fields. A designer must have a good comprehension of what the code does and the coder must have an eye for the nuances of a good design. However I think it's a rare or non-existent thing to have both in one person. There will be a compromise for both.

Can I also point out that this way of working really isn't my opinion or just the way we do it. It is the right way. Any expert will tell you so. All successful market leading websites are created in this way.

[willitbe]

Whatever happened to Glen Cooley.

He would have sorted it out!

[fisicx]

That wasn't your central argument. Otherwise you would agree that the design would have to be sorted before the programming is started. It's alot easier to change things in illustrator than redo the programming.
Why does the layout of the page have to be sorted before programming begins? Agree with all your other comments but surely the layout of the page needs to be flexible enough to cope with user testing. In any case why illustrator? Surely illustrator just provides the mock up, it's the CSS where the styling is applied.

It's only when you have completed the wireframe and checked the information flows that you can be sure the site structure is suitable. Until that point you won't really be able to get the layout a little closer.

And if you are relying on illustrator or some other package for the layout, does this mean any change reguires a new template? Wouldn't it be easier to just tweak the CSS to make the changes. Moving a nav bar from left to right for example just means change in float:left to float:right.

Please note that I'm not saying you can't give the client a few ideas about possible layouts on day one, it's just that I can't see how you can finalise a theme until you have constructed the wireframe to to check the navigation system works and the information flows are logical (I luurve loriet ipsum).

[awebapart.com]

Notice I speak about designers and programmers as two different people. This is because I don't think you can truly excel in both fields.

Can I also point out that this way of working really isn't my opinion or just the way we do it. It is the right way. Any expert will tell you so. All successful market leading websites are created in this way.
You reckon? Let's take a look at who created the most successful market leading websites/companies and see what their backgrounds are...

google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay) - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar
amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com) - computer scientist Jeff Bezos
facebook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) - computer scientist Mark Zuckerberg
twitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) - computer scientist Jack Dorsey
youtube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube) - Chad Hurley (BA in Fine Art), Steve Chen (computer scientist) and Jawed Karim (computer scientist)
yahoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21) - electrical engineer Jerry Yang and computer engineer David Filo
...

[Tej]

You reckon? Let's take a look at who created the most successful market leading websites/companies and see what their backgrounds are...

google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay) - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar
amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com) - computer scientist Jeff Bezos
facebook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) - computer scientist Mark Zuckerberg
twitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) - computer scientist Jack Dorsey
youtube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube) - Chad Hurley (BA in Fine Art), Steve Chen (computer scientist) and Jawed Karim (computer scientist)
yahoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21) - electrical engineer Jerry Yang and computer engineer David Filo
...

Guess that proves it.

One needs to change their title from Web designer/programmer .to

Computer Scientist.... to be a real success

( Whatever that means.. is that a qualification?):D:D

( Please don't slate me.. I have no idea what you guys are ta;lking about.. but it all sounds very interesting)

[liams7]

You reckon? Let's take a look at who created the most successful market leading websites/companies and see what their backgrounds are...

google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay) - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar
amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com) - computer scientist Jeff Bezos
facebook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) - computer scientist Mark Zuckerberg
twitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) - computer scientist Jack Dorsey
youtube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube) - Chad Hurley (BA in Fine Art), Steve Chen (computer scientist) and Jawed Karim (computer scientist)
yahoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo%21) - electrical engineer Jerry Yang and computer engineer David Filo
...

They are the MDs - Do you doubt that Google employ interface designers, graphic designers and many more? Also these are organisations who are purely online, their brands come from what the websites do rather than the websites upholding the brands - I don't think these example are relevant.

[awebapart.com]

Computer Scientist....

( Whatever that means.. is that a qualification?)
It means that they were interested in software development, computer programming, technical systems, computers etc and chose to study some form of a Computer Science degree at University.

It also means that just one of their skills is programming, and their other skills would be the other skills required to create a good computer-based solution to a problem, including communication, problem analysis, solution design, an understanding of the technical environment, programming, testing, etc.

Unfortunately all of these skills required to create a good computer-based solution are often wrongly classed as 'programming', and the people behind the systems are also often wrongly classed as 'programmers', which then leads to them being wrongly pigeon-holed (stereotyped, classified) as having just one skill, 'programming', when in fact the good ones have multiple skills.

Personally I do not like the term programmer, I prefer the term software developer (http://www.ericsink.com/No_Programmers.html).

[liams7]

Why does the layout of the page have to be sorted before programming begins? Agree with all your other comments but surely the layout of the page needs to be flexible enough to cope with user testing. In any case why illustrator? Surely illustrator just provides the mock up, it's the CSS where the styling is applied.
I would suggest that if you find that your design needs completely reworking after a user tests it then there is fundamentally something wrong in the first place. Also the basics can be tested off a mockup. Remember that a fullsized website that is built bespoke will take about 3-4 months to code. To then need to redo this is daft.


It's only when you have completed the wireframe and checked the information flows that you can be sure the site structure is suitable. Until that point you won't really be able to get the layout a little closer.

Why in earth couldn't you see this working on a mockup?
[/QUOTE]
And if you are relying on illustrator or some other package for the layout, does this mean any change reguires a new template? Wouldn't it be easier to just tweak the CSS to make the changes. Moving a nav bar from left to right for example just means change in float:left to float:right.
[/QUOTE]

To move an element on illustrator requires a click and a drag. For any thing more complicated than a standard 'header and column' layout then coding the changes would need much, much more work.


Please note that I'm not saying you can't give the client a few ideas about possible layouts on day one, it's just that I can't see how you can finalise a theme until you have constructed the wireframe to to check the navigation system works and the information flows are logical (I luurve loriet ipsum).

I'm saying that you can connect two on screen mockups in your head which is easier. Also remember that on modern CMS's pages are dynamic any way and can be moved at any point. Do you consider the only important element on a site the menu?

[custardfish]

You reckon? Let's take a look at who created the most successful market leading websites/companies and see what their backgrounds are...

google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay) - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar

That's due to basic logistics of building a web site/app more than anything. ie 2 coders can create a fully working site -no matter how poorly designed- on their own - immediately grabbing a userbase. All designers can do is nice screen shots that sit on their own computer that do nothing and go nowhere.

That doesn't however mean design is pointless.

A lone builder can knock you up a house on his own but you wouldn't argue architects are pointless or not needed would you?

Also most of this argument depends on the type website in question.

For a complex web based app, early builds alongside wireframe designs etc are vital but for the vast majority of sites they're really not.

And unless your layout is VERY basic changing the css/html compared to wireframe layouts -whatever the software- is much more time consuming. I can literally change 90% of a wireframes layout structure, placement, font types, sizes etc etc in 5-10 mins.

And by greyscreens/wireframes I mean something like:

http://www.tryjuly.com/images/thefindbuzz_v2.0_wireframes_homeA.gif

http://vectortuts.s3.amazonaws.com/tuts/207_iPhone_App/final_full.png

Essentially though why work in a non-visual way on something that is inherently visual by nature? Its non logical.

[custardfish]

My central argument is that the layout of a webpage should not be so rigid that it can't be easily changed if the site fails to perform as required. Have the photshop mock-up but don't use it until the wireframe is constructed and the site has gone throuhg initial testing. You then take the mock-up and style the page using CSS. If all the divs are already in place then this really is a doddle.

As already mentioned that wasn't your initial arguement at all. And also ANY site that is well coded, in semantic html should to a certain extent be totally re-skinable via css etc.

Obviously the more complex the design the more work but that doesn't mean its not possible. And again just because a site is designed well doesn't mean it can't be coded well too! Your essential arguement seems to be design and build very simple, basic looking websites ('non-rigid') as making anything more complex is harder work to do/and change!

You yourself mentioned Zen Garden (http://www.csszengarden.com/) - do you think the sites on here are just imagined or complexly planned and designed in photoshop/fireworks etc prior to the CSS styling work needed? Each design to me looks 'rigid' - and I would guess if you where delivered them as a photoshop file you would say that too... but good underlying semantic html (as it should be) means its just a fair bit of work to style and re-style.

And its pretty obvious looking though the designs that the vast changes in visual appearance, structure and layout make such huge changes to each different sites userbility ANY prior 'testing' on the basic html/css layout is completely and utterly voided by the overlaying final designs in place.

So for instance look at:

http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/199/199.css&page=1
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/202/202.css&page=1
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/203/203.css&page=1

The end user experience on each of these is dictated entirely by the design, putting together an early html/css version with standard left/right columns and top menu would have been utterly utterly pointless from a 'testing'/userbility point of view.

[awebapart.com]

They are the MDs - Do you doubt that Google employ interface designers, graphic designers and many more?
When they started they probably did most of this themselves. The first google logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo) was designed by computer scientist co-founder Sergei Brinn using GIMP, and their first google doodle was designed by both co-founders.

Have a look at the original sites (google, ebay, amazon, etc) on the 'way back machine' at www.archive.org (http://www.archive.org) . Some of the sites are no oil paintings now, and you can tell they are not heavily influenced by what a graphic design agency would produce.

Of course companies like Google might employ these job types now. With their money they could probably employ one person to blow on their cup of coffee when it is too hot, and a different person to blow on their cup of tea when it is too hot.

But the guy Google use for a lot of their daily changing logos, Dennis Hwang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hwang), is in fact one of their webmasters who also programs, and he has said in past interviews (http://www.logoogle.com/dennishwang.htm):

"It's very important to me that I can work both technically and artistically. Google is a perfect place to do that. It allows me to have a programming job while letting me express myself artistically, with the added bonus of having my work be seen by tens of millions of people in a single day."

[custardfish]

But the guy Google use for a lot of their daily changing logos, Dennis Hwang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hwang), is in fact one of their webmasters who also programs, and he has said in past interviews (http://www.logoogle.com/dennishwang.htm):"

Their head designer quit a while back:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/23/douglas_bowman_quits_google/

[liams7]

That's due to basic logistics of building a web site/app more than anything. ie 2 coders can create a fully working site -no matter how poorly designed- on their own - immediately grabbing a userbase. All designers can do is nice screen shots that sit on their own computer that do nothing and go nowhere.

That doesn't however mean design is pointless.

A lone builder can knock you up a house on his own but you wouldn't argue architects are pointless or not needed would you?

Also most of this argument depends on the type website in question.

For a complex web based app, early builds alongside wireframe designs etc are vital but for the vast majority of sites they're really not.

And unless your layout is VERY basic changing the css/html compared to wireframe layouts -whatever the software- is much more time consuming. I can literally change 90% of a wireframes layout structure, placement, font types, sizes etc etc in 5-10 mins.

And by greyscreens/wireframes I mean something like:

http://www.tryjuly.com/images/thefindbuzz_v2.0_wireframes_homeA.gif

http://vectortuts.s3.amazonaws.com/tuts/207_iPhone_App/final_full.png

Essentially though why work in a non-visual way on something that is inherently visual by nature? Its non logical.

This is really a good answer.

Perhaps a better analogy is if the people who built google where building a car. They designed a new engine then they needed a designer to design the car to put it in.

[awebapart.com]

Let's take a look at who created the most successful market leading websites/companies and see what their backgrounds are...

google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google) - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebay) - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar
...

That's due to basic logistics of building a web site/app more than anything. ie 2 coders can create a fully working site -no matter how poorly designed- on their own - immediately grabbing a userbase.
Google was not poorly designed, it was well designed, well software architected where it mattered, in its functionality, its system architecture, its software architecture, the design of its algorithms and the relevant results and ads it returned, and its fit for purpose. That's how it overtook the other search engines. Google was well designed by 2 computer scientists, because as good computer scientists they weren't just coders they were solution designers.

That doesn't however mean design is pointless.

A lone builder can knock you up a house on his own but you wouldn't argue architects are pointless or not needed would you?
Design, as in overall solution and system design is important. Again, with the people behind google, they weren't just the equivalent of builders (coders), they were computer scientists who knew how to design and create innovative solutions, architect systems and software, as well as write code. They were the architects too.

[custardfish]

Perhaps a better analogy is if the people who built google where building a car. They designed a new engine then they needed a designer to design the car to put it in.

Through human history most inventions out the block are delivered by engineers, (builders not dreamers) - however after the early stages the user interaction, refinements to userbility etc are then very much designer lead.

We all interact on a visual level, with everything around us, every day, all the time.

To see progress look at how visually basic the 'engineer' delivered early OS where, which progressed to text based OS. Just like early text based web sites.

But after much and continued refinement we now interacted with OS on a visually plane - and they're much much easier to use as a result.

I don't see the web any different, 10 years ago - all text based. Now sites interact with users in a complex multi-visual way.

A lot of the latest css/html (and future) standards are and will be heavily driven by the visual needs of end users.

Essentially to down play the role of design is to massively underestimate the role it plays in the needs of the vast majority of end users.

[liams7]

Through human history most inventions out the block are delivered by engineers, (builders not dreamers) - however after the early stages the user interaction, refinements to userbility etc are then very much designer lead.

We all interact on a visual level, with everything around us, every day, all the time.

To see progress look at how visually basic the 'engineer' delivered early OS where, which progressed to text based OS. Just like early text based web sites.

But after much and continued refinement we now interacted with OS on a visually plane - and they're much much easier to use as a result.

I don't see the web any different, 10 years ago - all text based. Now sites interact with users in a complex multi-visual way.

A lot of the latest css/html (and future) standards are and will be heavily driven by the visual needs of end users.

Essentially to down play the role of design is to massively underestimate the role it plays in the needs of the vast majority of end users.

Fantastic to talk to someone who really knows their stuff! :)

[custardfish]

Google was not poorly designed, it was well designed, well software architected where it mattered, in its functionality, its system architecture, its software architecture, the design of its algorithms and the relevant results and ads it returned, and its fit for purpose..

I meant poorly designed from the visual, end user perspective...

Also you seem to be arguing for me here, my point is things need designing prior to -just- building!

But there's a big differnce to the type of 'design' you talk about above and visual end user 'gloss' design I thought we were talking about.

[custardfish]

Fantastic to talk to someone who really knows their stuff! :)

LOL - well we agree with each other - that's definitely my preferred definition of "knows their stuff" too!

Nice new site btw... although I couldn't be bothered to click on all the home page reveal dots - do I win anything if I do?

[liams7]

LOL - well we agree with each other - that's definitely my preferred definition of "knows their stuff" too!

Nice new site btw... although I couldn't be bothered to click on all the home page reveal dots - do I win anything if I do?

It's not actually possible to clear them. The more you get rid of the quicker they come back.

It might be a fun idea to make it possible to beat it and reward the player with something.

[fisicx]

We all interact on a visual level, with everything around us, every day, all the time.
I quite agree (although hearing is a far more responsive sense) but there is more than just visual stimulus.

In the high street a shop window display will often catch one's eye. You may stop and pause to consider the merits of entering the shop weighing up if the products meet your needs or not.

A website does exactly the same. You get about two seconds of 'blink then think' after which the visitor has already decided whether to stay or leave. The layout of the information combined with the quality of that information is the decidning factor but this can be thrown away if the navigation is poor or subsequent pages don't deliver on the promise.

So whilst an inital layout may serve to keep the client happy it's not until testing that you can be sure it is going to work.

I use a lot of science research in my work and use arXiv.org. The interface is very simple becauyse it suits the users. A doctor looking for medical information doesn't need lots of interactivity neither does someone looking for allergy information. would google or wikipedia be any better is there was lots of technology happening?

I'm sure that technologial advanges will make for richer browsing but I can recall many innovations that have been thrust upon us but have now faded away.

Remember the little chain of stars that followed your mouse pointer around.... Or <blink>

I actually think we are all singing from the same songsheet, it just the words we are using.

[custardfish]

I quite agree (although hearing is a far more responsive sense) but there is more than just visual stimulus.

In the high street a shop window display will often catch one's eye. You may stop and pause to consider the merits of entering the shop weighing up if the products meet your needs or not.

A website does exactly the same. You get about two seconds of 'blink then think' after which the visitor has already decided whether to stay or leave. The layout of the information combined with the quality of that information is the decidning factor but this can be thrown away if the navigation is poor or subsequent pages don't deliver on the promise.

So whilst an inital layout may serve to keep the client happy it's not until testing that you can be sure it is going to work.

Not sure how much of our hearing sense people use whilst navigating websites but anyway...

Your sort of right, although it's largely though as under 2sec... ie 200ms etc. Which is nothing to do with content and ALL about visual loook and layout.

BUT and this is the big one - whatever that 1st visual based impression is it makes a huge differences to the sites perceived userbility.. Essentially its the halo effect, people like to think they make good judgements. So if there initial <2sec impression is 'hey this website looks great' they'll forgive any problems with userbility.

Likewise if they think it looks poor not only only they likely to leave but they'll back up that initial judgement by thinking the sites hard to use etc.

Essentially they're much more likely to forgive -any- problems on a site that looked good over one they thought didn't.

Also you keep mentioning poor navigation, that's surely down to planning the content a good site map and decent naming conventions - rather than final UI.

I mean unless your doing some crazy Flash thing how wrong can you go with a basic menu these days?

Also with the shop thing, look around you, look in your kitchen cupboards, clothes in wardrobe etc - how much of what we buy is based on looks alone? How many of us buy the 127 different brands of Tea to test and buy our favourite over the one that "catches our eye"! Even if you just buy the brand, whats that based on? Shop brand, the same.

As Liam said previously Brand power is all about image and so if your creating a web presence for LOTS of business, clients that's what it boils down to - and some basic css, layout and navigation just doesn't cut it.

[fisicx]

So if there initial <2sec impression is 'hey this website looks great' they'll forgive any problems with userbility.
I've seen the opposite, people mught begin the navigation process to find a product or service but if the UX is poor they won't convert no matter how swish the thing looks. You will get the YES clients but unlikely to convert the MAYBE-YES and the MAYBE-NO have already left the building.
Also you keep mentioning poor navigation, that's surely down to planning the content a good site map and decent naming conventions - rather than final UI.

I mean unless your doing some crazy Flash thing how wrong can you go with a basic menu these days?
You can go very wrong. What may be a visual feast may in fact get overlooked by your users. But if you have the ability to change the position, size and colour of a menu system can test the UX. I've seem a font size increase of 2px double conversions, even removing a border had a positive impact. Which brings me back to my opening points. You need to be able to change colours, positions and seperations to test the site. This comes after the development process. Use the photoshop/illustrator mock-up to keep the client happy but use the user testing to find out which bits work and which bits don't.