Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Braille beneath the skirts. I was talking to my mum today about technology. It was a really interesting discussion. She was saying that there is a woman at her company who absolutely refuses to learn how to use a computer, even though it's a critical component of her job. Basically, this woman was wanting something to be typed out for her. She went around and asked everyone she could find until the manager simply told her that she'd have to do it herself. In response, she commented that she'd take the document home and have her son type it up. Not only was she afraid of making the effort to understand the computer in any way, but she actively avoided even the most basic computing tasks. My mother is not all that different to most people of her generation, in the sense that she has also generally had a fear of technology. It has always seemed too confusing and complex. But due to her job, she has been forced to learn various commercial applications - so she was literally dropped in at the deep end. She is certainly learning, but sometimes it's still a struggle for her. Unlike me (or any of you reading this now), she hasn't had the benefit of years of learning and progression. When talking to someone like that and when looking at the world from that point of view, it's amazing how much younger people take technology for granted. Those of us who are in web design are a great example. It's only been within recent years that there has been a strong fusion of both programming and graphic design on the web. I've mentioned this in a previous post, about the CSS movement. But I think, in general terms, there is more of an understanding today (particularly by those who are professionally involved in web development) that web sites can't just be the domain of the programmer; like any other tool or product or service, they need to be created with the end user in mind. Although there are some basic web fundamentals that have remained the same over the years (in terms of design), so much has changed. And the interesting thing is that as time has gone by, many different professional design philosophies have evolved. Let me give you a simple example: navigation menus. Traditionally it's true that most web sites will display some kind of navigation menu on the left hand side of the page. Usually, the menu is vertically aligned (as opposed to being spread horizontally across a page). I think that a lot of people who have made sites in the past have done this almost unconsciously. But there are two key reasons for it. One of them is simply that most people in the world (particularly the English-speaking world) read from left-to-right, top-to-bottom. Therefore, if the menu is sitting on the left, it is in a more prominent position by default. The column-based design is also something that many do unconsciously, but it too has a foundation. When you read a paragraph of text, your eyes move from left-to-right and then down to the next row of text. Various graphics studies suggest that if a row of text is too long (ie: over a certain number of characters), readers will tend to "drop" a row. This means, basically, that if a row of text is too long, you are more likely to start reading that same row again, rather than moving down to the next one. In other words, the amount of characters in a row of text has a direct impact on both the comfort with which people read as well as their ability to comprehend text. This is why newspapers and magazines are divided into columns. You would think, then, that all sites should probably stick to this system in order to maintain the most readable design. But there are some designers who feel that, by deliberately "breaking the rules", far more impact can be made. For instance, there are people who very deliberately place a site's navigation menu on the right side of the page. This is done largely because we often expect it to be on the left. But because it's on the right, it causes an immediate and deliberate jarring effect - this causes us to look around the page a little more and to (ostensibly) pay more attention to design details as a result. It makes page-skimming tougher, but it also tends to ensure that there's a greater chance of someone staying around a bit longer as well. This also reminds me of a design debate that was occurring in the 1980's around magazine publication. Of course, there is always a tendency to go for something very deliberate and elegant, with a more subtractive design (ie: only adding components that make sense, without confusing the reader with unnecessary imagery). However, some designers said that the opposite effect may be better - creating a page that is deliberately complicated. Why do that? Because, as some have said, it deliberately confuses the eye. And that confusion causes the reader to look at the page for a much longer period of time, as they try to decipher what's going on. In other words, "visual interest" is put above "immediate clarity". People may not immediately understand what it's all about, but the design will spark their curiosity and they will therefore spend more time looking at it. So, as web development is evolving, designers are increasingly coming to the forefront. There is an expectation that programmers have some basic notion of useability and design, but there is a far greater expectation that professional graphic designers understand technology and are able to handle programming themselves. As design becomes the most critical component of web development, designers are moving to the forefront all the time. There was once a time where a couple of people would build a business site and it would be treated as largely unimportant. Now you have companies spending millions on focus groups, who's job may only relate to relevant colour schemes and appropriate fonts. There is an understanding that design is ultimately what makes or breaks a web site, because design is the element that specifically deals with the end user experience. In my own case, it is very easy for me to design something that I like - or even something that my age group likes. With a bit of work and some thought, it's not very difficult to make something that I'm personally happy to look at. But the real challenge lies in creating something that many other people will use, particularly those who are not in my age group or who's tastes are like my own. It reminds me of something that the editor of Design Graphics magazine said when he visited my class last year. He said "When you show your design to a client, do not ask 'do you like it?' Instead, ask 'does it work?'" I felt that this was an important point. I'm sure there are plenty of people at Nintendo who would not enjoy playing Mario Party, for example - perhaps even some of the people on the design team itself. But what matters is whether or not their target audience likes it and whether or not it's suitable for them. I am certain that pretty much everyone who is reading this right now has enough knowledge of the Internet to know how to use this site or most others. The fact that you're even here of your own accord demonstrates that. But my question to you is simple: how do you design a site for someone who has never used the Internet? If you assume that they know nothing about Internet convention, I think you will find that it makes design so much more difficult. On the other hand, in some ways, it does make things a bit easier, because you can start from a blank slate. At the very least, thinking in this way while designing a site is certainly a very interesting approach. I really recommend it to anyone who wants to challenge themselves in a new way - especially if you have become bored or tired with web design. Aaryanna: Thank you for the hug. ^_^ I feel terrible for what's happened to SunfallE. The plagiarism is really just another thing on top of it. I must say, though, I am very encouraged by her attitude through the whole thing. Remaining so optimistic and pleasant throughout such an ordeal is very admirable. I'm sure you will enjoy your DS, especially now that there are quite a few really great games to play on it. Hopefully we can race together on Mario Kart sometime! Sammy: A community of Finnish teens? Hah! I have noticed things like that as the site has grown. It's funny to think that at one stage, I knew every person who had registered on myOtaku. But now...250,000...trying to picture that many individual people is mindboggling. I will certainly be happy when we reach a million. I'm sure something has to happen at that time...maybe Microsoft will offer a large bag of cash to buy us or something, heheh. CosmicSailor: Oh I agree with you, I mean...I can't imagine that I could tolerate music that loud all the time. As I said, loud music is great, but not to the point where you are severely damaging your ears as a result. Afterall, I'd rather enjoy music for a long time than go deaf tomorrow and never be able to enjoy it again. I liked your sunburn message, haha. Considering that I live in Australia - which has the highest rates of sunburn/skin-cancer on the planet - I can tell you that I've been through many lectures and lessons about the subject. But of course - and as with anything - it's about knowing what you're dealing with and being reasonable. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to frequently tan myself so that I get sick with skin cancer. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to miss out on so many things because I'm worried about sunburn. As always, it's about balance and being sensible. RaR: Your face got stepped on? Wow. I don't like mosh pits at all, personally. Something about being in a group of sweaty people who are trying to either bruise me or feel me up just doesn't appeal to me. Although I suppose it does depend on the mosh pit; I'm sure most of them aren't terribly bad. Funny thing is, I used to never really tan. I think that's just because I never actually stopped my skin from peeling after a burn. But this time, I tanned very nicely. So I'm hoping to extend that tan to places beyond my arms in the near future. As for PSP/DS, I think it really depends what you are looking for. For games, DS is really the no-brainer choice right now. But obviously PSP has the media functionality on its side, which is something that you may or may not really use. My suggestion is to get the DS now and to wait until the PSP's price has dropped in the future. The benefit is that by that stage, you'll probably have a better selection of PSP games and you'll have the benefit of several firmware upgrades and stuff. By that time all of your media management on PSP should be a lot easier and you'll have some games that will really take advantage of the system. Alan: I think the main thing is that we might be making different distinctions here, haha. When I talk about stuff working, I'm talking about it in a graphic design sense and not an art sense. Basically, everything on that page is designed in a really deliberate way (hierarchy of images, positioning of elements and so on). However, because it's an in-development design, it's been necessary to get that stuff in place before I start adding any aesthetic flourishes. So, to answer your comment a bit more directly, you'll find that the final design will carry some added visual flourishes. But the layout (as far as logged out users is concerned) is absolutely locked down and finalized at the moment. But still, I don't expect it to carry very much imagery at all (other than a finalized header image and icons). It's got to be fast, clean and easy to use.

Comments (9)