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 as for Chris.
Hope that helps

 

[matt.chatterley]

I can recommend Kev from MultiLayer Design - 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 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.

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 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. 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)

 

[ORDERED WEB]

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!

 

[ORDERED WEB]

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 and ebay. 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 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 and ebay. 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 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]

[SIZE=-1]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, [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]usability, [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]particular [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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 [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]design, you likely [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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 ([/SIZE][SIZE=-1]including functional page page proofing) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE]

 

[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 system in mind, 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 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 (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 - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar
amazon - computer scientist Jeff Bezos
facebook - computer scientist Mark Zuckerberg
twitter - computer scientist Jack Dorsey
youtube - Chad Hurley (BA in Fine Art), Steve Chen (computer scientist) and Jawed Karim (computer scientist)
yahoo - 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 - 2 computer scientists, Larry Page and Sergey Brin
ebay - computer scientist Pierre Omidyar
amazon - computer scientist Jeff Bezos
facebook - computer scientist Mark Zuckerberg
twitter - computer scientist Jack Dorsey
youtube - Chad Hurley (BA in Fine Art), Steve Chen (computer scientist) and Jawed Karim (computer scientist)
yahoo - 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?)

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