Speak Up is run with Six Apart’s 
Milton Glaser’s Dylan poster. Paul Rand’s IBM logo. Paula Scher’s Public Theater posters. Massimo Vignelli’s New York subway map. Kyle Cooper’s Seven opening titles. These are only a few landmark projects of our profession. Design solutions that, in their consistent use as exemplary cases of execution, concept and process, don’t even need to be shown anymore and that, for better or worse, (almost) everyone acknowledges as being seminal works that reflect the goals that graphic design strives for: A visual solution that not only enables, but also transcends, the message to become memorable in the eyes and minds of viewers. Whether these projects are indeed as amazing, relevant and enviable as we have built them up to be is cause for a separate discussion but it’s safe to say that, as far as designs recognized around the profession, there are a certain few that invariably make the list, usually without question. Myself, I could list projects in every category from logos, to annual reports, to magazine covers, to packaging, to typefaces, to opening titles that could be considered landmark projects… But when it comes to web sites, I can’t think of a single www that could be comparable — in gravitas, praise, or memorability — as any of the few projects I just mentioned. Could this be?
Perhaps it’s the short lifespan of the web that hasn’t allowed any specific web site to become a de facto choice for design immortality; but Seven was released in 1995, becoming an instant classic, so age is not quite an issue. Or maybe it’s the perennially ephemeral nature of the web, where web sites can change every year, month or week if desired, rendering the sense of commitment less ominous than that of printed or branded matter. It could also be the giant amount of crap that one has to wade through on the internet, but not much more than the amount of bad logos, brochures or signs found day in and day out. Or maybe I’m just thinking about this the wrong way.
Certainly, web sites are a different breed of design project than any of the above, but the same principles apply: How do you render information in a manner that is understandable, memorable and pleasing to the end user? Whether this happens on a single, large piece of paper, or across 200 smaller pages, or on a glass bottle, or on web browsers around the world should only serve to focus the intent and output of the designer. Yet, when it comes to web design it’s rare that all elements — functionality, clarity of information, and subjective beauty — come together to create a result that is widely admired, recognized or lauded in the same vein as anything resembling the likes of Saul Bass’ AT&T logo, or Susan Kare’s icons for the original Mac OS.
It would be easy to say “well, google.com” and add it to the Great Design canon but, really? Sure, as a search engine it’s not encumbered by the more-is-more malady that plagues Yahoo! or MSN, but aesthetically it is anything but pleasing: A logo made up of primary colors with a bevel and drop shadow, default blue links in Arial, two buttons and a few other sprinkled text links centered on a page. Doesn’t sound like a winner, does it? In its simplicity the statement is more manifesto than design. On the other extrene, information-heavy sites are a thing of beauty in the way they parse all that data, like nytimes.com, but I’m seldom moved or inspired by the design. Even graphic designers’ web sites seem to falter at the challenge — cool, pretty, typographically acute, and then not much else. Micro sites for Nike, Virgin or any other large brand are usually fluffy eye candy, gratifying for a couple of minutes and its biggest compliment is to win one of any interactive awards — and if you’ve tried looking at those on printed magazines like HOW or Print you might as well be looking at drawings made on rice grains.
As a designer who has made half of his livelihood and most of his (limited) notoriety online, I am by no means belittling the work of web designers or the relevance and influence that the discipline has, but as a “traditional” designer, obsessed with what has been done before and how that establishes expectations on the rest of our work, I am really interested in this lack of Pinnaclism (for lack of a better sounding term) in web design. And just to rectify, this is not an argument about print versus web, and the supremacy of one over the other. Rather, an honest question about what makes a great web site and, even more challenging, what web sites could be considered landmarks for our profession?
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Keenan Cummings / BYU’s comment is:
Ohh! The first comment!
I think the web is such an illusive form; commissioned websites, the kind with the budget to put a talented design team behind it, hardly ever get attributed to the designer(s) that create them. Personal and experimental work is often so temporary and evolutionary that it is either gone or imitated or evolved before we notice it. So much of what is on the web is also participatory. We hardly noticed what Myspace was; rather we notice what we, ourselves, can make of it. And finally, in the end, innovative web design is so entirely about function. When the function is intuitive and innovative, we hardly notice it—that is why it is so good. When it is bad, we leave and go somewhere else.
I had a friend that put together a list of "creative project permanence": The higher the barrier to entry, the higher the permanence, or the longer the project is around. A Frank Gehry building will be around, applauded, and remembered much more and much longer than Frank Gehry's blog. (He doesn't have actually have one.) The openness of the internet creates an ever evolving atmosphere where nothing is new for more than 15 minutes.
The question we should ask is not what are the landmark sites, but who are the landmark designers and innovators. And I would be willing to bet that these people are doing much more work outside the traditional scope of the world wide web. A landmark, by nature, must have some level of permanence, or timelessness.
Maybe the lack of Internet Landmarks is why I feel so lost when I log on.
On Oct.30.2007 at 10:25 PM
Keenan Cummings / BYU’s comment is:
Sorry for some sloppy grammar—I was racing for posting pole position.(here and henceforth known as ppp.)
On Oct.30.2007 at 10:29 PM
Dennis’s comment is:
My friend and I discuss this all the time. Is there anything done in interactive design that is actually "timeless"?
On Oct.31.2007 at 12:01 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
I think you raise an interesting question with numerous ways to look at it and find an answer, or find that there isn't one.
The web is extremely young in context to other forms of design media that we encounter. Even Kyle Coopers revolutionary work was able to build off of a century of experiments, developments, and styles seen in film before. I think here might be a good point to start to look why we have not seen anything truly notable from the web in terms of design–not because of the content we look at making up the design, but the medium itself.
When we think of great websites, whose importance is based totally on the users needs, a few of which were mention, we generally look at the wealth of information it gives us. We can search Google to be confronted with a million results, Myspace to keep in touch with avatar friends, and Wiki anything we want to be informed by seemingly credible information.
The common user, I feel it is safe to say, comes to the internet to obtain information (whether it is inspiration, entertainment, or socialization). A users intention to gain information when he surfs the web creates an immediate problem for conceptual sites who wish to create an experience that must be explored over time. Our appetite for instant gratification is satisfied by the ability to click to the next site when we see something that requires too much interpretation.
As mentioned above, the internet is also used for socialization and the sharing of ideas. It is a vehicle for collaboration whose content is melded the users. While a film, logo, or poster can be experienced multiple times in exactly the same way, it is almost impossible to experience a website the same way as there is always pressure for updating. We have control over how we experience on the web every time. What site did we see before the one we are currently on and where will we go next.
The numerous factors when making a site also makes it a hard medium to produce a revolutionary vision. Standardization, or lack of it, creates different experiences for every user based on operating system or browser. It is also a medium restricted by technological advancements that may not meet the creators vision.
So what might make a great website? I think it will be how the design of a website will facilitate the constant input from its users. When an update feels more like a new experience than just an addition to the previous one. The fleeting experience of a website is more like performance–it can bee seen many times but never in the same way.
On Oct.31.2007 at 12:37 AM
Ben’s comment is:
Maybe it would be more appropriate to compare websites to things like TV station identities / on air graphics...have there been timeless on air identities?
On Oct.31.2007 at 12:37 AM
Cal MacKendrick’s comment is:
It might be more appropriate to compare websites to blank sheets of paper. Have there been any timeless blank sheets of paper? Online is a medium, the content may or may not be timeless, but for something to become classic takes time.
The Dylan poster and IBM logo are decades old.
The pixel graphics of k10k will endure.
Firewheel's web 2.0 iconography will also. I'm sure with a little scholarship I could propose other candidates.
I'm also sure that in 2010 a mess of compendia on the subject of "websites that shaped the design world" will be proposed and published.
Randy J. Hunt’s comment is:
I think web "applications" over websites, are really where the web design of this caliber is hiding. Certainly there are more bad ones than good ones, but the great ones are pretty amazing.
37 Signals' applications are top notch and really dig into the inherent capabilities of core web techniques. They get a ton of clarity, usability, functionality and value, in a beautiful yet bell-and-whistle free package.
I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb to suggest that in 20 years we'd look at those apps like we look at Kyle Cooper's Seven titles.
I'd also consider Virb in that playing field.
No website's going to have the mystique or aura of a Paul Rand poster. There is so much built up around the man and his legacy, that even his so-so work we praise (and rightfully so, I believe). Maybe one of the first interactive designers we'll look back on like that is Rob Greenberg. While I personally don't care for much of what they produce, he's been leading a huge team doing things that are consistently ahead of their time for decades.
On Oct.31.2007 at 09:36 AM
graham’s comment is:
my classics might not be yours-and vice versa: and thats sheer wonder and joy (seven? what?)
with web?
plenty (just have a dig around):
wefeelfine.org (and other jonathan harris work-universe for example )
yugop.com (and anything yugo touches just about-trounces pretty much everything)
some of the stuff digglabs is doing
the arcade fire online vid - http://www.beonlineb.com/click_around.html
joshua davis
poke's work
check ars electronica
and on and on . . .
and yes-app stuff like virb
point is-most 'designers' treat web/reactive/generative/space (and film) like print, and they bear little relationship to each other
there is a lot of it out there though-
and there is no end to exploring
Sheepstealer’s comment is:
A landmark is a guiding element within a journey. (To get to my house, drive to Safeway and take a right). It's something recognizable that helps us make decisions about which direction we will go on the next step in the journey.
So what websites out there could be listed that have helped the world make decisions about the direction they are heading?
Amazon - The world was afraid of purchasing things online. Now we're all fine with it. Thanks Amazon.
Yahoo - When the world was faced with a task that required information, we used to go to the library. In the early era of Yahoo we changed. Now we go to the web and type our question into a little search box. Others have perfected this method, but I'd argue that the “world” started doing it with Yahoo.
blog (with a lower-case b) - Not one blog specifically, but the idea of the blog. Because of blog, anyone can find a conversation about any topic, and chime in their two cents.
I think it's really easy to look at landmark design in the world and get tied to the beauty of a design piece. The beauty of the piece is not what made it a landmark. The result of the piece is what makes it a landmark. It just happens that Dylan, IBM, and Public Theatre happen to be beautiful.
On Oct.31.2007 at 10:26 AM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
I thought Keenan's comment was particularly interesting. The Web IS illusive. In many cases we applaud those websites that mimic printed design and poopoo those that look like websites. Is this because the design community (and their clients) is uncomfortable still with what websites essentially are? Do we perceive the web's constraints differently than we would consider the constraints of 4-color process or the size of the page? Interesting stuff to chew on for the day.
C-Lo’s comment is:
I Agree with sheepstealer. Landmarks for the web I don't think are specific sites, but rather different sites that do different things. The search engine, The online community, You can start to say the first ones to use HTML4, OR when we started coining web 2.0. I can point to a bounty of amazing websites that are just beautiful and timeless, but is it a landmark? Is it lost, awash with the trillions of web sites out there? Technology of course has a hand with this. Imagine the first site you went to that used Flash or Shockwave. The first games. The first ascii based picture you saw. Those I believe are the landmarks. When I was a kid there was no true internet. I had a little black book with phone numbers to different BBS's that I made my phone modem call. That's how I got my information. I wanted to know whats up with paint-ball games coming up, call that number. In a sense you can say that was the first blogs. But also remember Blog used to stand for web log. As in a website that just listed a bunch of sites you liked. I digress. I would say sites that are landmarks are ones that really bring something new to the table.
On Oct.31.2007 at 10:52 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
I think it's less a question of the timelessness of specific web applications, and more a question of what constitutes timelessness? Are the IBM logo and Dylan posters good because designers saw them and interacted with them individually, and separately agreed on its worth? Or rather are they the focus and subject of countless compendiums of "the fifty greatest?" Design is subjective, and it takes time and a lot of people noticing to be able to call something timeless. Even the IBM logo hasn't achieved that plane, ask anyone outside an art building who designed that logo and your correct response rate is likely to be between 0-5%. (Asking inside an art building can produce its own set of dismal results.)
As far as the question of web landmarks, I tend to agree with the sentiment that it's far more helpful to think of landmark ideas than to try to come up with monumental delivery systems for those ideas. The search engine (Yahoo, Google), the commerce site (Ebay, Amazon) the social networking site (Myspace, Facebook), the chat program (iChat, AOL, MSN), and the social video site (YouTube) are all landmark ideas with multiple implementations that I think will stand the test of time.
On Oct.31.2007 at 11:01 AM
Jeff Werner’s comment is:
Yugo Nakamura, still a grand master. In the early 2000s (or was it late 90s already?) and his experimental flash work at yugop.com.
On Oct.31.2007 at 11:16 AM
Jer — ee’s comment is:
Amazon and Yahoo are landmark busniesses, not websites. Improved technology not design made it safe for people to shop online and easyer to search for information.
You can have landmark technologies, but not websites.
On Oct.31.2007 at 11:23 AM
Tom M.’s comment is:
I think the current climate of design (both print and electronic) is the real issue here. Using the original arguement, how many landmark print designs have there been in the last 10-15 years that can stand up to, say, Paul Rand or the Dylan poster? And I mean without doing a lot of research. Could it be that today's saturation of designers and visual media and the rate at which styles and techniques evolve make those types of comparisons obsolete? I believe design is looked at much differently today in the sense that even if there are hugely memorable pieces produced, they are immediately topped by the next innovation. Things are happening too quickly for a piece of design to be put in a glass case and admired. And that's good. Keeps everyone on their toes.
On Oct.31.2007 at 01:02 PM
Mike’s comment is:
I don't beleive that a website design can/will ever be timeless. The web grew up with a generation that wanted things "now"...and when they were sick of "now"...they wanted a new "now". Just my opinion.
Can a website design (not an acutally website) become timeless? Never say never. I think it is a great challenge that is waiting to be overcome.
On Oct.31.2007 at 01:09 PM
PaddyC’s comment is:
Tough question.
There are a couple problems with establishing "landmark" pieces of web design. One is that, as mentioned, the web isn't very old. Compared to other design mediums it is a baby. Perhaps too young to have anything of note yet.
But IMO the main problem is one of memory. Web sites, web design, and web technology do not last. They come and go quickly and, what's worse, we don't have a permanent record of them (and no good means - yet - of preserving them). The landmark examples from other design mediums mentioned for comparison are all well known and many times over reproduced. A (general) design student today will be aware of these. A web designer starting out today will have no idea of how the web was when I started (1997). And he will have no way of accessing it. And yes there's the wayback machine but we all know that doesn't really work.
There was memorable work from those heady bubble days. Razorfish, Kioken come to mind. But we've moved on. That work no longer exists to us - it is forgotten. The technology and methods used have been supplanted. You can still learn from Rand's IBM logo. But from those early web sites there would be little to glean save some insight into what not to do today.
On Oct.31.2007 at 01:27 PM
Tan’s comment is:
I sort of agree with Jer-ee, those examples SS cited are innovative business models, not innovative design landmarks.
I should also point out that a landmark is not necessarily timeless. It can be dated almost immediately, and still be a landmark design. The Dylan poster is not timeless, for example.
Design, like architecture, succeeds when form and function work equally well together. I think the same can be said of web.
I agree with Armin, though, that there's a lack of great design examples -- but I do think they exist. Are they landmarks? Perhaps some of them, maybe very few of them.
One that comes to mind right now is the beautiful NYCtoTahitiNonstop.com site, which has since been sold, moved, and dismantled. It was a graceful use of Flash, and a beautiful design.
Another hallmark to me was the 2001 IBM Online Annual Report, done masterfully by VSA. It was well-written, well paced, well-designed.
Most sites are just plain, square buildings with crap inside. Or retail stores that are designed for ease-of-use and to expedite transactions, instead of relishing the experience. So is it any wonder that most e-commerce sites feel similarly pedestrian -- like nameless storefronts in a giant mall?
I think it's a copout to say that websites have technological merits that are separate from their design. While that may be true, that's like saying an ugly building has merits because its plumbing is particularly impressive.
On Oct.31.2007 at 01:46 PM
agrayspace’s comment is:
Landmark does not mean "timeless". There is no such thing. The Dylan poster is not "timeless". But a landmark it is.
http://www.donniedarkofilm.com/
This is the very definition of landmark in the web space. Highly narrative. Lush. Arguably difficult to use. But that was the point. It could only happen on the web. Enhances the offline experience. There are many other but this is one I still site as a prime example today. and its still live. And I bet its traffic numbers are still decent.
But I do think the appropriate focus on usability and functionality will make it harder for landmarks of design to form online. Most landmarks now are functional models rather than impressive graphics. Myspace, International Herald Tribune, etc…
On Oct.31.2007 at 01:57 PM
Tan’s comment is:
Funny, I said the exact same thing right before you did, Rob.
On Oct.31.2007 at 01:59 PM
pnk’s comment is:
This particular issue of Colors magazine always jumps to mind when I'm asked for superlative web design. To me, it's damn durable.
On Oct.31.2007 at 02:01 PM
ben..’s comment is:
I think community based web sites are the most influential as they involve interaction every day.
Two well designed sites that I frequent, are Flickr, and Threadless. I've been visiting threadless for years. The site is continually evolving and the owners of the company frequent the blogs and ask users what they would like to see improved on the site and implement suggestions on the fly. Basically you have one on one interaction.
agrayspace’s comment is:
ha oh shit. I guess I should have read more carefully.
On Oct.31.2007 at 02:47 PM
Laura’s comment is:
Impressions can be long-lasting, even if the site is redesigned every so often.
www.leoburnett.com made a lasting impression on me a while back.
On Oct.31.2007 at 03:34 PM
David E.’s comment is:
I'll probably have web designers flame me for this, but I think that the nature of the web doesn't allow for the creation of anything that is ever going to be remembered as iconic.
For one thing, a website isn't a singlar experience the way a subway map is (I'd choose the British Rail map over Massimo Vignelli's NY map as the iconic design, but that's beside the point). Looking at a website involves looking at the design of the browser window, probably some other open windows on your desktop, the desktop itself, the computer monitor, whatever clutter is on your desk, etc.
And web pages just dont look "iconic." There's nothing bold and graphic about them, like the Dylan poster. Someone with no knowledge of design could look at that poster and understand why it's considered iconic. Only a designer with some knowledge of the limitations of the web can appreciate good web design. In fact, I'm not sure I always appreciate good web design. There are a lot of web designers doing very good work, but I still tend to look at the web as a crude, generally ugly looking thing.
On Oct.31.2007 at 04:54 PM
Jason Santa Maria’s comment is:
I wonder if it's a bit premature to ask where these icons of the medium are. Though you cite some relatively new work above as landmarks, the biggest difference between these and the relatively new work on the web is depth of history. Print and film are both mediums a tremendous amount of history and theory built in to them, providing not just the practitioners, but the layman, the language and understanding to raise these things up to a higher appreciation and acceptance.
The general nature of web design has the pedal to the floor all the time, constantly moving and growing. What was considered new and hot one month, could be totally eclipsed by the next. I really think it's going to be very difficult to pinpoint anything as a milestone in web design until we are in a different place than we are now. There just isn't a time for things to slow down enough to look back for context and to see patterns that may emerge. We need to develop that backlog of history first.
On Oct.31.2007 at 05:19 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:
I would like to nominate, specifically the Metropolitan Museum Website it was designed many years ago (in web years) by Icon Nicholson, and it made a big impact when it came out. If I remember correctly we all went nuts over it, and from what I can tell it hasn't changed in navigation, structure or appearance, although I'm certain content has been added. And what content! This remains one of the most consistently beautiful and easy user experiences on the web. It's extraordinarily useful, entertaining and informative and at the same time it has a distinctive but—dare I say—"classic" look and feel. It was mindblowing when it came out, it's mindblowing today, what more could you ask for?
Oh yeah, there is one more thing you could ask for: a great url. www.met.org it just doesn't get much better than that.
On Oct.31.2007 at 05:39 PM
Armin’s comment is:
Some very interesting points have been brought up so far and, to my relief (in the sense that at least I know I'm not going crazy), not too many actual web sites have been declared winners.
First I wanted to address a snippy remark from Andy Rutledge, who linked to this post earlier: "Wait, did Armin just figure out—and lament—the fact that websites are generally more about conveying information than about artistry "Pinnicalism" or designer superstardom? Had to happen sometime, I guess."
I'm not sure I ever acted in surprise about web sites being more about information, so that bit is misguided; but I wanted to address the notion that "websites are generally more about conveying information than about artistry "Pinnicalism" or designer superstardom". Well, yes, but so is everything else in design: An annual report is about conveying information, a poster is about conveying information, a logo is about conveying information, a package is about conveying information, a piece of collateral is about conveying information. So web sites do not benefit from this singular characteristic. And there are plenty of examples in the above disciplines of design that are about conveying information in a way that is memorable and unique – so why can't web sites strive for it?
But back to those on board here...
> Maybe it would be more appropriate to compare websites to things like TV station identities / on air graphics...have there been timeless on air identities
MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, the latest iteration of AMC, even ABC a couple of years back had an engaging and memorable package (the one that was all yellow and black).
> It might be more appropriate to compare websites to blank sheets of paper. Have there been any timeless blank sheets of paper? Online is a medium,...
Hmmm... That's more of a cop out answer. Anything is a blank sheet of paper: Whether it's a 24 x 36 poster, or a an 84-page perfect-bound piece, or a 5 x 5 x 5 box... They are all a medium as much as the web. So, no, I don't buy the blank sheet of paper theory.
> there is a lot of it out there though-
and there is no end to exploring
(Graham, you are alive!). Indeed, I don't question the amount or the necessity to explore and dig -- something I may do too much off. But, I still feel that the There Is So Much Out There! theory is only good to point out the fact there is so much out there that is cool. What makes, or what would make, any of these, say, "legendary"?
> I Agree with sheepstealer. Landmarks for the web I don't think are specific sites, but rather different sites that do different things.
Well, this is like saying that the Mac, OpenType, digital-to-plate pre-press, polymer plates for letterpress are all landmarks. Technology enables design. Things of beauty and of clarity of information are done before and after any of these advancements.
...
My fingers are getting tired. It's been a long day of typing up stuff. More tomorrow.
Thanks to everyone for humoring me so far!
On Oct.31.2007 at 10:19 PM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
There sure are a lot of disparate ideas floating around here and it's difficult to string the logic between them all. That's what passes for an apology for perhaps restating that which was already said.
A web presence is meant to be dynamic. Unlike a bluegrass festival poster or company logo, which is meant to express some degree of singular importance or permanence, most websites strive to do the opposite; create a sense of dynamic change. The value of a website is not in how many people it attracts the first time but rather how many people it attracts a second time. Right?
But then that subverts any notion that design serves a primary role. Instead, any device that delivers a steady stream of fresh content and, preferably, a record of one's visit or contribution. Isn't there a thrill when one of your blog comments gets riffed on by the contributing community? Isn't that sort of what "popular" sites are all about (at least partially)? As a professional designer and illustrator of several decades it's very difficult for me to reconcile that when it comes to the web, function trumps form bigstyle.
I equate sites a bit like parks. A park can be beautiful and uninviting all at once. A park can be ugly but very popular and functional! Which park is better? Which park could be considered a "landmark?"
On Oct.31.2007 at 10:42 PM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
(Incidentally, as one who ALWAYS comes across the better way of phrasing an idea the moment it's posted, I sure would like an "EDIT" button.)
On Oct.31.2007 at 10:44 PM
Kris L.’s comment is:
While you talk about the IBM logo, and the Dylan poster, as landmark, they are landmark to designers. The average American doesn't relate. Within the design field you are talking about what designers find influential to the future of that particular medium.
What we have in web-design is individual's who inspire approaches. People like Jeffrey Zeldman, Eric Meyer, Khoi Vinh, and Dave Shea, just to name a few. Champions of CSS, standards, and grids in web design. These guys may not all be designers but they give designers the inspiration to create future design just as Paul Rand inspired by his work.
Speaking of Dave Shea what about The CSS Zen Garden, arguably one of the most influential websites in modern web-design. While the website has over a hundred versions, (not all beautiful) the impact on showing the possibilities of CSS have made a definite impact on the medium.
Think about how design is evolving. Design is now created to change. Michael Bierut's Saks Fifth Avenue Identity has hundreds of variations. The NYC logo (for good or for bad) was created as a container for future iterations, and so on...
(side note: while I am a big Kyle Cooper fan, when I think landmark and film titles I think Saul Bass.)
On Nov.01.2007 at 12:21 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> While you talk about the IBM logo, and the Dylan poster, as landmark, they are landmark to designers. The average American doesn't relate.
Correct. And on purpose. This discussion is about designers, not the average American.
On Nov.01.2007 at 07:25 AM
Kris L.’s comment is:
>This discussion is about designers, not the average American.
Yes, I understand, I was just using this point to set up the rest of my statement, that the concept of landmark design in today's design world is evolving, in print and on the web, we need to broaden the scope a bit.
On Nov.01.2007 at 09:52 AM
szkat’s comment is:
i think we need to move beyond the dylan poster... :) i second ben's comments of Flickr and Threadless, and if i had to pick only one it would be the latter.
Threadless is elegant, simple, universally loved and easy to use. it's one of the only examples i can think of that's the whole package - amazon, for example, is not beautiful, and doesn't make me feel good using it. it's strictly utilitarian. it's a shop, it's a bazaar.
Meanwhile Threadless is not only a heartfelt corporation, but it takes good things from offline AND online (community, democracy, hipster tees, cash prizes) and applies them deftly to a good idea. they've changed the model of small business and UGC culture and i think they'll be around for years to come. so... my $0.02... i could keep going.
they get my vote for landmark web design!
On Nov.01.2007 at 10:22 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
It hadn't occurred to me until just now that in the opening statement of this post, you referred to the designer first, project second. And I think the answer to the question "where are the landmark websites" is another question: Where are the landmark web designers?
I was talking to one of our web guys on break yesterday about the overall culture differences between his department and mine. He was telling me that when they brainstorm for a project, it isn't about who is in what job title, it's about the idea. Print, in my experience, doesn't work that way. Print designers frequently want to know who you are and what you've done before they want to hear about your ideas. (An aside: I'm sure that there are print design shops that are run more democratically, but on the whole, I don't think they are most of the time.) It leads to a culture of superstardom; you have to be a superstar to do good work, and you have to do good work to become a superstar. Print designers are also far more prone to worship than web designers (again, on the average). I asked the aforementioned web guy to name three or four influential web designers, and he said it doesn't really work that way. There's frequently no one person that can handle all the jobs it takes to do a truly big-name site that would be accessed by the general public, and therefore there's no one person who can claim credit for the idea.
To kind of sum up my stream of consciousness, it's about culture. Web designers don't think like us. They can't, and in a lot of cases, won't. I dunno. Thoughts?
On Nov.01.2007 at 10:59 AM
Kris L.’s comment is:
Threadless is a store and a very niche market. I don't know how much impact it has on the design community at large.
The question is really what constitutes as landmark print design in the last 7 years?
As far as influential web designers. I already made a case for Khoi Vinh, although Armin discounted nytimes.com already. But what about his beautiful A Brief Message.
I think there is a strong case for the guys at Coudal, I mean Armin himself is taking part in their Layer Tennis tomorrow.
What about the guys at A List Apart. Who not only educate, but lead by beautiful simplistic example.
All of these guys are all stripping down the web to it's essentials and working within the confines of the medium, using system fonts, CSS and images, all while teaching the community at large how to follow suit. Try that print designers.
On Nov.01.2007 at 11:21 AM
Tan’s comment is:
Threadless? Honestly? That's what you call a landmark example of web design?? Why? Because it's simple? Because it actually has legible type and clear navigation? Because it's not buried under layers of Flash tricks? And so that somehow makes it a landmark example of good design? Gimme a break.
Just because something is functional, or isn't ugly, doesn't make it beautiful. Or conceptual. Or communicative.
I think the fact that there are designers out there who think this is what defines the pinnacle of web work is rather sad. It's fucking tragic, actually.
I think it's also the root of the problem. People have become so accustomed to settling for poor design online that there's no longer any basis to define what is "good" design.
Threadless??
> Where are the landmark web designers?
This is a chicken vs. egg question that I don't think can be solved. You're suggesting that the reason's there's no good work is because there's no good designers. Well, duh. But both are inseparable problems, are they not?
>Web designers don't think like us. They can't, and in a lot of cases, won't.
This kind of statement is what makes people think print designers are insular and arrogant. I've worked with many talented web designers. Armin is a talented web designer.
Design is design. The medium may change, but the basic fundamentals and aesthetics of design doesn't. "Good" design can be print, film, product, textile, and yes, web.
While web designers may not understand print, and print designers don't understand usability -- the fundamentals of design, concept, and visual communications still applies.
On Nov.01.2007 at 12:51 PM
David E.’s comment is:
Maybe it would be more appropriate to compare websites to things like TV station identities / on air graphics...have there been timeless on air identities
It might be more appropriate to compare websites to blank sheets of paper. Have there been any timeless blank sheets of paper? Online is a medium,...
I was trying to think of an analogy when I made my initial post, but couldn't think of one. The closest thing, I think, would be a newspaper or newsletter – which may also be expertly designed, but never be looked at as a landmark.
Like newsletters and newspapers, websites are more about an invisible structure. While all design conveys information, these things have to convey many disparate pieces of information at once, and may change from day to day.
Designers are really just like everyone else. We tend to remember things that are simple, bold and impactful, with a form that always remains the same.
On Nov.01.2007 at 01:05 PM
darrel’s comment is:
"My friend and I discuss this all the time. Is there anything done in interactive design that is actually "timeless"?"
Google.
As other's have mentioned what makes a web site a landmark has more to do with the interaction design that visual design.
The ones that stick out...Google. Amazon. Craigslist. These are the timeless ones. Ugly? One could argue that. But it's the experience that these sites provide users that has given them their staying power.
On Nov.01.2007 at 02:10 PM
darrel’s comment is:
"I think the fact that there are designers out there who think this is what defines the pinnacle of web work is rather sad. It's fucking tragic, actually."
It's also fucking tragic when there are designers out there who think the pinncale of web work is full screen animated flash sites with background music.
Design isn't beauty. It isn't functionality. Its isn't communication. It isn't usability. It's all of that.
Sometimes one of those aspects of design can trump another depending on the context. Craigslist is ugly. But functionality trumps it. There's been some rather unusable sites mentioned in this list, but their beauty trumps it.
If we're solely debating visual design aesthetics, then fine, but then let's specify that. Otherwise, 'design' can be highly successful, even when ugly.
On Nov.01.2007 at 02:17 PM
Tan’s comment is:
So Darrel -- the yellow pages is a landmark design by your definition, right? What about the ads above urinals in public restrooms? Bus boards should also have a design hall of fame too, right? When they were introduced, they all offered new "experiences" for messaging and communications.
How exactly are the "experiences" of these so-called timeless websites any different than a Sears catalog or any of the examples above? Is it because you use a mouse to flip the pages? Is it because you select buttons instead of pulling items off shelves?
It's absolutely absurd to celebrate pedestrian-designed websites simply because they come wrapped in a new platform package. As Armin said, technology enables design -- no more, no less.
Have your design expectations really sank so low for web design?
On Nov.01.2007 at 02:28 PM
Tan’s comment is:
> But functionality trumps it.
Function has never trumped form to define good design. Historically, it has been the opposite that's been unfortunately true.
Too many web designers tout usability and functionality as justification for poor design and underwhelming concepts and communications. It's happened to the point now that there's an entirely new generation of web design graduates who believe that bullshit and use it as a crutch for shitty design work.
In my book, that's what's fucking tragic.
On Nov.01.2007 at 02:36 PM
darrel’s comment is:
"So Darrel -- the yellow pages is a landmark design by your definition, right?"
The first one probably was. But I guess now we're debating what we all mean my landmark.
(FYI, I love the yellow pages.)
"What about the ads above urinals in public restrooms?"
Sure, that's great design. Very practical location. New venue that hadn't really been explored until recently.
"Bus boards should also have a design hall of fame too, right?"
In the broad sense of 'design', sure, why not?
I have a hunch you keep meaning to say 'graphic design' or even more specifically 'good visual aesthetics', though.
"How exactly are the "experiences" of these so-called timeless websites any different than a Sears catalog or any of the examples above?"
A sears catalog just sits there. You can look at pictures.
Amazon interacts with you. It suggests items for you. It allows you to click one button to have it shipped to you. It gives you instant gratification with MP3 downloads. It allows you to keep a wish list. It integrates with hundreds of other retailers.
It's a fairly impressive piece of experience design.
Yea, kind of tacky looking, though.
"Have your design expectations really sank so low for web design?"
Amazon pleases my primary expectations for an online retailer: Search, Picture, Product Information, Easy purchase. The user reviews and comparisons and related items, etc are all nice bonuses.
It's good design.
I've been to plenty of beautiful looking online stores that either a) didn't even let me purchase or b) made it so difficult that I just didn't bother.
One could argue those sites succeeded at their visual design, but they failed at design in general.
"Function has never trumped form to define good design. Historically, it has been the opposite that's been unfortunately true."
Sure it has.
"Too many web designers tout usability and functionality as justification for poor design"
Usability and functionality *is* design. As is aesthetics, typography, visuals, color, etc.
"entirely new generation of web design graduates who believe that bullshit and use it as a crutch for shitty design work."
There are also new generations of designers who believe that "visuals are everything" bullshit and use it as a crutch for shitty design work.
It goes both ways.
On Nov.01.2007 at 03:08 PM
darrel’s comment is:
Maybe a bar graph would work better at explaining my point.
A web site can have any number of design success measurments: Aesthetics. Usability. Functionality. Typography. Color. Interactivity. Fulfills business requirements. Ease of maintenance, etc.
Let's make simplfy it for this discussion and let's focus on just two items; Aesthetics and Functionality.
Google's bar graph would probably look like this:
Aesthetics:
--
Functionality:
--------------
And, oh...let's see...let's look at whiteonwhite.com (an online retailer I recently wanted to use).
Aesthetics:
--------------
Functionality:
--
(For the sake of this argument, let's pretend whiteonwhite has really amazing aesthetics...they're not that great but we'll pretend).
Both sites get 12 points on my scale. Equal in design. One's certainly better looking, the other certainly provides more valuable functionality.
Now some folks may decide that aesthetics should be weighted and, as such, the emphasis should always rest there in judging design. I'd say CA/Print/Etc take that model, mainly because they are selling to Graphic Designers.
In the broad sense of design, though, I wouldn't weight any of the axis anymore than any other in general. It's all a matter of context and the specific project at hand.
Not that any of this should ever stop someone from striving to max out the graph in all aspects, of course.
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
You're suggesting that the reason's there's no good work is because there's no good designers.
Well, only incidentally. Actually I'm suggesting that print designers should look more at what they call landmark design. Is it landmark design because it has inherent greatness, or is it great design because Milton Glaser/Paul Rand/Saul Bass did it? Web designers frequently don't have such distinctions because it takes far more than just one person to produce just about any website, unless you're an expert coder and great aesthete to boot (which isn't the standard in my experience). I grant that a relatively simple code (HTML + CSS) is easy enough to handle but even that takes a lot of time and energy, and doesn't lend itself easily to the kind of notoriety that a lot of print designers crave. You're right, Armin is a good web designer, but he didn't build this site alone, nor does he claim sole credit.
Conversely, a single print designer can pretty much handle the amount of technical knowledge to produce a great printed piece as well as handling the aesthetics of said piece. He may or may not have the production knowhow to run a 12-color press, but he can set up the file for the press at least. Even so, it goes back to my point about web design culture vs. print design culture. The print designer claims credit for the piece even though the printer has as great or sometimes greater role in the final product. Web designers in general don't operate that way.
It just takes two very different minds, not that one is more right or wrong. Not to mention that I'm generalizing here, looking more at the trend rather than making a blanket statement. I fully agree that it's possible to be great at both web and print, but it's just not the norm.
On Nov.01.2007 at 10:58 PM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
By the way, Tan, it's good to have you back and raising a little dust around here.
On Nov.01.2007 at 11:02 PM
Daniel Green’s comment is:
(Late to a good brawl. Dang. Some of these points may have been hit on already, so I apologize in advance if I’m swinging at shadows.)
The graphic design landmarks that you’ve mentioned all have the advantage of having a singular iconic quality to them. They all have a visual burr that make them stick to the memory. Even with more complicated graphic landmarks such as annual reports (which I’d argue are not as common as—say—posters), we tend to remember them by an iconic cover design or a clever concept, rather than remembering them as a complete, multi-page document.
In that way, websites seem to be similar to wayfinding systems. Ease of interaction is a key to their success. The whole has to work above and beyond the individual parts. Individual parts may be iconic, but they have to serve the whole. And it’s hard to see the whole all at one time.
There are some landmark wayfinding systems (Lance Wyman and Bill Cannan’s work for the National Zoological Park comes to mind). Even with landmark wayfinding systems, however, there is still some iconic elements that stick in your head. Since most of the design community doesn’t actually get to experience these landmark wayfinding systems -- except through a few photos --we tend to remember a few visual, um...landmarks.
The good news for websites -- no matter how complicated they are to produce -- is that we have landmarks in other complex media such as the cinema. It should only be a matter of time for a few landmarks to rise to the top in web design, as well.
On Nov.02.2007 at 09:10 AM
agrayspace’s comment is:
Tan it's really good to have you back, roughing up the boards.
I feel this discussion starting to touch on a thought I have been contemplating for some time.
That is…
Is the intense speed at which our culture changes, morphs and moves, preventing it from establishing any sort of recognizable zeitgeist.
For much of our history, there have been "movements". Periods of landmark events, actions, and/or ideas that were pervasive in culture and thus their impact is remembered and almost measureable after culture has moved on.
But the duration of those movements has been getting shorter and shorter. During the dark ages, hey used to last century or two. At the turn of the twentieth century they might have lasted a decade. By the sixties they were 5 years max. By the time grunge music or the dot com boom hit (some the last real cultural "movements") they barely lasted a year or two.
This is vastly oversimplified of course. but the idea I am questioning is whether as a culture we are moving too fast to establish "icons" in any medium. Sure their are exceptions, like Google, or the BP identity or even Beirut's Saks identity (time will tell but I am betting it will be remembered for a long time) but I am just getting the feeling that AS A CULTURE we are less susceptible to the idea of an enduring ICONS. The urge to backlash and move on is just too powerful.
And that web design, (a very young medium that is still growing up) and it's lack of ICONS are just casualties of this hyper accelerated madness.
Ultimately I believe this is a good thing. It allows change to happen faster, and provides us with countless opportunities to "trial and error" our way through life.
In exchange for this opportunity for rapid change, perhaps we have sacrificed our reverence.
---------------------------------
As far as this whole UGLY vs. PRETTY argument, i don't get it. Is the ugliness of the Google logo really any different than the ugliness of the Dylan poster. Seriously I am tired to lauding that damn poster. I appreciate it sure, but not any differently or more than I appreciate the morphing nature of the Google identity (unprofessional as it may be, it cemented the flexible identity that we are so obsessed with at the moment).
An idea which starts to scratch at the surface of another HUGE conundrum. What is the role of QUALITY (i.e. Pretty) in SUCCESSFUL design? A role I am beginning to realize might be overemphasized.
---------------------------------
And if ultimately we are talking about ICONS of web design for DESIGNERS, then I would argue that you don't have to look much farther than this here blog. Do you? Really?
On Nov.02.2007 at 11:07 AM
Tan’s comment is:
>it's good to have you back and raising a little dust around here.
Thanks, gents. It feels good to be back.
You guys have been a little too quiet and polite around here it seems.
On Nov.02.2007 at 11:14 AM
graham’s comment is:
fundamentally, if you still think the web has 'pages' and that there is a 'fold' (ever tried folding a monitor?) then you'll never get it.
On Nov.02.2007 at 01:20 PM
Tan’s comment is:
Tell it to someone who cares, Graham.
Why don't you give us some more enlightenment on how to talk about technology -- and what that tells you about what we get and don't get.
The semantics of what to call web "pages" is all you've got?
On Nov.02.2007 at 01:28 PM
darrel’s comment is:
"You guys have been a little too quiet and polite around here it seems."
No kidding. It was nice to feel compelled to post again. Thanks! ;0)
On Nov.02.2007 at 01:48 PM
darrel’s comment is:
I think Graham makes a fair point. We (as in the graphic design world) still like to treat everything as a 'picture'. Part of that is practicality...it's hard to show anything but a screen shot in a design annual, but part of it is just our collective stubbornness.
I think any trained/experience designer (be it a graphic designer, architect, motion graphics creator, etc) can fairly and rightfully judge design aesthetics regardless of the medium. And if that's the sole indicator of 'quality' then all things are equal.
What some of us are arguing is that there's much more to design than the aesthetics. No matter how visually stunning the facade of an office building is, if the HVAC system doesn't work due to poor design, that building just wasn't designed well.
On Nov.02.2007 at 01:51 PM
Tan’s comment is:
Most of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings are structurally deficient -- yet they are unquestionably landmarks of designs.
What's wrong with making aesthetic -- or Form -- be an essential requirement of good design (Function)? If you can make a plunger, but Michael Graves can make one that looks better, then why not acknowledge the better plunger for being better designed?
Of course there's more to good design than aesthetic. But aesthetic is key.
On the other point -- I'm fucking tired of these so-called media digital artists thinking that their shit doesn't stink and that anyone who doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe motion media doesn't "get" it. Like the web is sooo goddamn new or something.
Get over it.
The web is still horribly inept. Streaming media and real-time interactivity is still an unfulfilled promise. Everything is still a facsimile of 3D on a 2D screen. So-called new experiences are still largely limited to archaic interface peripherals like keyboards and mice.
It's all talk so far.
On Nov.02.2007 at 02:16 PM
Tan’s comment is:
Oh, and I've missed you too, Darrel.
On Nov.02.2007 at 02:18 PM
agrayspace’s comment is:
To your point Tan, if the pretty Michael Graves plumber doesn't work for a damn or even marginally "less good" than the ugly one, then it isn't good design. Plain and simple.
How is aesthetics key when performance is compromised? We as designers can officially be labeled douchbags if we actually believe that.
Similar to how Ellen Lupton recounted her frustration with the beautiful but completely unfunctional jasper morrison toaster in her lecture in Denver. The fact that something like that is even considered good design is offensive.
Which opens up another wound, the elitism of aesthetics.
Wait weren't we talking about the web. What I find really interesting is that a discussion about web design has turned into a form vs. function debate.
HMMMM
On Nov.02.2007 at 02:29 PM
Tan’s comment is:
I'm not saying that function isn't also key. I'm simply saying that since design is largely a visual discipline -- you can't dismiss aesthetics.
I think we're arguing over the same point, simply with slightly different emphasis.
On Nov.02.2007 at 02:40 PM
darrel’s comment is:
"Most of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings are structurally deficient -- yet they are unquestionably landmarks of designs."
Agree 100%. They're definitely landmarks of design because of their unique and refined aesthetics. Are they great pieces of design? Many of the original owners of his houses would probably say 'no', as structurally, a lot of it was pretty bad. But they are definitely landmarks.
"What's wrong with making aesthetic -- or Form -- be an essential requirement of good design (Function)?"
Absolutely nothing.
"Of course there's more to good design than aesthetic. But aesthetic is key."
That's the only thing we really disagree on. I'd say aesthetics are *a* key component. Not *the* key component.
Great design would max out all components of design. Good design can maybe max out some but not the other. Bad design would fail in a number of the key components.
My frustration, as a web designer/developer is when projects focus on the visuals too soon. Yes, they are important. But when a project focuses on the visuals, we soon eat up most of the budget on just the aesthetics. Great aesthetics without some actual usable functionality and purpose make for a rather unremarkable product.
Granted, so does great functionality that looks like poop.
BUT, all things being equal, I, as a user of any particular web site would usually prefer a site that accomplishes something useful for me, even if it's ugly, than the prettiest visuals in the world that don't actually give me anything tangible in return.
Wikipedia is rather ugly. But everytime I go there I find information on something I was looking for. I come away happy, even though it maybe wasn't pretty.
I was recently looking at Todd Oldhams' La-Z-Boy products on La-Z-Boy's web site. visually, the site isn't stunning, but you can tell they put effort into it. Unfortunately they couldn't a) tell my how much a product was or b) where I could to to physically look at it. As such, the site left me with nothing tangible at all. Visually I can give it credit. As a total package, however, it failed miserably for my needs and would call it an unsuccessful design.
(Speaking of which, if anyone knows where to see these sofas in the wile outside of Manhattan, let me know!)
Tan’s comment is:
> Wikipedia is rather ugly. But everytime I go there I find information on something I was looking for. I come away happy, even though it maybe wasn't pretty.
I feel the same about eBay, and dozens of other everyday-useful, well-functioning sites. But I don't consider them as landmark models of designs, which goes back to Armin's original point.
This reminds me of another memorable quote. -- from the head of design at Audi.
"It costs just as much to build an ugly car as it does to build a beautiful one. We simply choose to build the beautiful one."
On Nov.02.2007 at 04:17 PM
m. kingsley’s comment is:
Agrayspace,
Your comments about the speed of design or art movements are framed by the cognitive bias of historical position. Movements cannot be accurately measured nor described while one is in them.
Using the hoary "art as mirror" metaphor, the visual culture of a society reflects larger philosophical and cultural trends. And if you subscribe to writers like Oswald Spengler, our culture of willful directedness has been in a protracted decline for over a century. In such an environment, we don't have styles or movements, but tastes. The visual culture, no longer "becoming," presents varieties of ornamentation.
Armin's original thesis also suffers from the same cognitive bias. Every single one of his suggested landmark projects indicate tastes, and are debatable as ideals of graphic design. Each of us has our own panoply of design gods.
Then there's the fearful need to even have an established ideal. If you follow the design blogosphere, it seems that the design press is turning into variations of People Magazine : Proust questionnaires, BFFs, list of design heroes, gold medals, ad nauseum.
So the responses to his question are 1) it's too soon, and 2) why do you need one?
On Nov.02.2007 at 04:27 PM
Tan’s comment is:
So everyone keeps saying that it's too soon..
Why? How long should it take?
And Mark, I don't know if the question is one of need. The question is whether or not they exist.
At the heart of it, this is afterall, an existentialist question of self-determination and choice, n'est pas?
On Nov.02.2007 at 05:04 PM
Tom M.’s comment is:
The quote from Audi's head of design isn't quite congruous with the reality of web design/development. "Beautiful" and "ugly" are much more subjective than "useful" and "functional", so in this case it often *does* cost more to make something beautiful, on top of being functional. Especially when the process gets hung up on aesthetic details that are in no way related to function.
On Nov.02.2007 at 09:39 PM
Tan’s comment is:
Your argument makes no sense, Tom. It sounds like you're suggesting that functional always means ugly, and that to "beautify" something always takes more time when it comes to web design.
There's just so many things wrong and defeatist with that statement -- I don't even know where to begin to respond.
On Nov.02.2007 at 10:26 PM
graham’s comment is:
Heartbreakingly clueless
Try talking about yugop.com for a bit
Might lead somewhere
Tan’s comment is:
Ok, that was fun. A nice little playground, beautiful type, simple interface.
Your point, Graham?
On Nov.03.2007 at 12:08 AM
Unnikrishna Menon Damodaran’s comment is:
Landmark web site is yet to come.
But there are freindly, functional sites
that we always wanted to re-visit on a regular basis.
Code versus design argument is not going to reach anywhere.
Code(functionality, information architecture etc) is design.
But Design is not code! Sigh!
Aslo you will not find landmark or classics here. Check out the link
http://www.webbyawards.com
Tom M.’s comment is:
Tan, I never used the word "always" in my post. It appears you're the one making this defeatist. I love when people imply that a post isn't worth the time to respond. Makes for healthy discussion ;)
I'm not saying that we should ignore aesthetics in web design. It's hugely important to the overall experience, and I'm all for taking the time to make something beautiful and functional. My point is that the Audi quote is not necessarily true for web design. You can achieve beauty on several levels, and it means something different to each and every person. To some, simple and light is beautiful, and you may arrive at that stage sooner than if you are doing something graphically-intensive (just based on the amount of production work alone). So it, in fact, takes longer and is technically more expensive, unless you don't track your expenses.
That is all I'm trying to say. The quote is kind of a nebulous, self-important one, kind of like Dyson's "I just think things should work properly". Duh...
On Nov.03.2007 at 10:24 AM
Tan’s comment is:
Fair enough, Tom.
And I didn't say your post wasn't worth a reply -- I just simply didn't know where to begin.
I'll puts some thoughts later today in response. But for now, I'm waiting for another short little snide remark about how clueless we all are from Graham.
Plus, I've got a soccer game for my daughter to go to. It's a busy day.
On Nov.03.2007 at 12:39 PM
Tom M.’s comment is:
Tan, I appreciate your ability to both give and take in these "give and take" discussions. Because likewise, I know where you are coming from, and I admire your passion, to boot. No harm meant at all. And I did misconstrue your "don't know where to begin" comment. Sorry :)
And regarding our brief impasse, I admire Audi for making beauty a standard feature of their product, along with innovation and function. It's kind of a perfect storm, they roll it all into one.
On Nov.03.2007 at 01:56 PM
Nathan Derksen’s comment is:
Sorry, I'm late to this discussion, but I thought that as a professional web designer/developer/architect for 9 years, I would chime in.
I find it interesting here how web design is put side-by-side with print design. Designing for one is entirely different than designing for another. The thought, taken from the print world, is that people come to the web to find information. That thinking mistakes the Web as a read-only medium, which at one point was the case, but certainly is not now. When designing a web site, we don't think of people as coming for information, we think of the broader case of people coming to perform a task. That task might happen to be to find information, but equally likely it might be to purchase an item, to print out a boarding pass, to upload photos to their Flickr account, or to communicate with others over a blog or forum.
That brings me to what constitutes design on the Web. We have visual design, we have information design, but because this is an interactive medium, we also have interaction design. Tools such as Flash and Ajax are now in designer's arsenals, and allow for considerable improvements in usability as well as range of expression. In my opinion, the best uses of these technologies are the ones where you can't tell they are there, they just get the job done. The "best designed" web sites then are the ones that are both aesthetically pleasing or interesting, and that allow individuals to achieve their goals with a minimum of effort.
I know that others will see design on the Web differently, and that's ok. I just thought I would add a dimension to the discussion.
On Nov.04.2007 at 04:07 AM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:
I'll bite, Armin.
Why? Its attractive, it does something print design could never do, and it satisfies my voyeuristic needs. Those are some arbitrary values I assign to websites I like.
I'm fully expecting flaming (and by all means, feel free, I'm sure this site is rife with problems from another designer's standpoint)—but I have never really loved the Bob Dylan poster, and identities do nothing for me personally, designed by Paul Rand or not—so perhaps we can all just agree to the complete subjectivity of this "canon"-making process.
On Nov.04.2007 at 04:56 AM
Su’s comment is:
Does nobody see an inherent bias(whether intended is irrelevant) to the initial question here that fed directly into the discussion?
Has anybody though to ask this in a web-centric forum rather than one that while situated on the web, is still print/traditional/whatever-focused?
On Nov.04.2007 at 05:35 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Su, you are somewhat right about the bias or discipline preferences. However, that's why I've also been bringing up things like identity, packaging or movie titles -- both disciplines that as a print designer are mostly alien to me, as the production and technology behind them are different from those of print. So, even if the web (also as Nathan above notes) is different in how it functions or how it gets done, the principles of design still apply: Information + functionality + production + aesthetics + a few other variable things. These apply to anything from a Sears catalog, to a bottle of wine, to the interactive guide of your cable provider, to an e-commerce site. Excusing web sites from the same criteria simply because it's a "changing" medium seems too easy.
> So the responses to his question are 1) it's too soon, and 2) why do you need one?
One decade is too soon? I think it's very viable to look at the last ten years of web design and figure out what works and what doesn't and establish some clear representatives of what constitutes some of the best work. And if we were to arrive at something like "Yugop.com and Amazon.com are the best", then that's fine.
And why do we need one? Well, we don't, just as much as we don't need any more "Best Magazine Covers of all Time" but as ways to measure what designers think could possibly be the most relevant web sites is an interesting exercise that, if done right, could be revealing, retrospective and even therapeutic. Web design has grown at such a frantic pace that a little reflection might not be a bad idea.
On Nov.04.2007 at 08:51 AM
Joe Clark’s comment is:
When you say landmark, clearly you mean “able to be photographed and reproduced in some canonical textbook,” presumably (co)authored by Steven Heller.
You can take a screenshot if you want, but Web sites are experiences, not artifacts. And they have a lot of invisible components, like markup, which are no less important for being out of sight most of the time, as I’ve been trying to explain to Armin Vit for years now.
On Nov.04.2007 at 11:52 AM
Su’s comment is:
(Well, that took longer than I expected it to.)
Armin: Your response is fine for the context it's in, but go back and also think about the first part of my comment more literally: You said "where are" the landmark sites, not "what are."
There's an important shift of implication there, that was reflected in the discussion rapidly ignoring the actual question and switching over to questioning the validity of the medium at worst, or trying(and necessarily failing) to define it at best, never mind that the question was also heavily couched in comparison to other media. And the reason I said it was irrelevant whether you intended to do it or not is that I'm not delusional enough to think it wouldn't have happened eventually anyway.
You must be able to get at someone who runs a more web-centered forum of some sort. Ask them to pose this question there in isolation(ie, not referencing this discussion) and see what happens.
It might also be interesting(or terrifying) to see how they respond to a question about what they think important print pieces are. Small bet on how many comments it takes for someone to say magazines will be gone within 5/10 years?
Overall, while I can think of some sites that have been important, I side with the people who think it's still too soon to formulate a proper list.
The ugly/pretty thread I find interesting because when you go back far enough, you're barely looking for anything most of you would likely feel comfortable calling "design." Some of the sites I'd put up for consideration(which is separate from me liking them) were absolutely hideous from any sort of visual approach, and unusable from any sort of functional approach, but still important for fucking with the limited possibilities of the time. Potatoland and Entropy8 were actively trying to crash your browser with bizarre Javascript. jodi.org was ugly, meaningless, and irritating until you viewed source and saw the ASCII art hydrogen bomb. Bianca's Smut Shack(shut up) was never—and still isn't—anything to look at except it was one of the first to embrace the idea of a web site being a "place" to move around in. It actually ended up being referenced in a book on information architecture.
And nobody ever knew what the hell to make of Dextro.
darrel’s comment is:
"Your argument makes no sense, Tom. It sounds like you're suggesting that functional always means ugly, and that to "beautify" something always takes more time when it comes to web design."
Not, Tom's makes a lot of sense from the pragmatic standpoint of clients a