Material Honesty on the Web

A truly great article on A List Apart: Material Honesty on the Web – A List Apart

Reading this, I was nodding so vigorously my glasses fell off. I could have written this. I have written parts of it, over and over, here and on other lists. So important to know your materials and let them express their inner nature before you start working hard to make them look like something they are not.

Read it, learn it.

Walter


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I understand the gist of the article, but it brings up a peeve I have with “elite” web site designers. I find their sites dull and boring.

All the so-called clean coded sites have little appeal to me and I don’t think any of our clients would have gone for those looks.

Neil Peart of the band Rush once said, K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid) can sometimes lead to L.O.V.E (leave out virtually everything). Those site wind up being a white page with either little text or a long page of text with not much else on it.

I understand I don’t code so I can’t appreciate clean code and fast loading sites (how fast is fast?). I know if I learned enough code I can make some amazing sites, but for those of us who can’t, we’re going to use Photoshop, Illustrator and Freeway to make our sites have some zing as well as functionality.

Responsive sites have now brought the coders back in control again (not that they were ever NOT in control) because responsive sites can’t be done without adding code. Or, in a few instances, templates.

So, I agree with the article to a point, but I disagree, as well. It sounds like another elitist coder telling everyone who uses Photoshop, “You’re doing it wrong.”

End rant…

Bob


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I’m not sure I would go that far. I believe the lesson here is “you’ve got a beautiful piece of burled walnut – why the heck are you painting it with glossy black enamel rather than letting the grain show?”. The materials you use are an important part of the art you create. When you reach for Photoshop to make a Web design, you are getting out the Krylon and covering up the actual elements of the Web, without giving them a chance to be what they really are. That doesn’t have to be boring. It just cries out for a chance to be honest.

Walter

On Mar 26, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Robert B wrote:

So, I agree with the article to a point, but I disagree, as well. It sounds like another elitist coder telling everyone who uses Photoshop, “You’re doing it wrong.”


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thing is, since when has images not been part of the web?

I can see that an online TV station does not need to look like a TV with maybe a remote and active buttons to replicate a real world function and look. However a businesses or product website often does need to look visually not dissimilar from their real world counterpart.

David

On 26 Mar 2013, at 21:35, Walter Lee Davis email@hidden wrote:

I’m not sure I would go that far. I believe the lesson here is “you’ve got a beautiful piece of burled walnut – why the heck are you painting it with glossy black enamel rather than letting the grain show?”. The materials you use are an important part of the art you create. When you reach for Photoshop to make a Web design, you are getting out the Krylon and covering up the actual elements of the Web, without giving them a chance to be what they really are. That doesn’t have to be boring. It just cries out for a chance to be honest.

Walter

On Mar 26, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Robert B wrote:

So, I agree with the article to a point, but I disagree, as well. It sounds like another elitist coder telling everyone who uses Photoshop, “You’re doing it wrong.”


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

You’re missing my point. I don’t believe that images should not be used on the Web, but that you shouldn’t replace text with images, or HTML structure that has semantic meaning with tables or images, just because you haven’t figured out how to make the layout you want with CSS. It means that if you strip out the CSS, you should still have a structure that means something. Because you start from the materials, and what they can do natively, you don’t have to go back and SEO your site – it starts there and layers on the decoration. You also don’t need to go back and “retinafy” your site, because even the glossy gradients and translucent colors are made out of HTML.

Walter

On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:43 AM, David Owen wrote:

Thing is, since when has images not been part of the web?

I can see that an online TV station does not need to look like a TV with maybe a remote and active buttons to replicate a real world function and look. However a businesses or product website often does need to look visually not dissimilar from their real world counterpart.

David

On 26 Mar 2013, at 21:35, Walter Lee Davis email@hidden wrote:

I’m not sure I would go that far. I believe the lesson here is “you’ve got a beautiful piece of burled walnut – why the heck are you painting it with glossy black enamel rather than letting the grain show?”. The materials you use are an important part of the art you create. When you reach for Photoshop to make a Web design, you are getting out the Krylon and covering up the actual elements of the Web, without giving them a chance to be what they really are. That doesn’t have to be boring. It just cries out for a chance to be honest.

Walter

On Mar 26, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Robert B wrote:

So, I agree with the article to a point, but I disagree, as well. It sounds like another elitist coder telling everyone who uses Photoshop, “You’re doing it wrong.”


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

walter, i agree - concerning the current time. what have you been able to do without the abilities CSS and HTML5 (and googlefonts etc.) now offers with modern browsers? working with tables and images have been the only way, to create web-design, which doesn’t mean it’s not honest.
i appreciate the new possibilities and a structure that means something, if i have the choice - and, of course, its always better to be honest, even if our customers it often evaluate differently …

dieter

On 27 Mar 2013, 3:05 pm, waltd wrote:

You’re missing my point. I don’t believe that images should not be used on the Web, but that you shouldn’t replace text with images, or HTML structure that has semantic meaning with tables or images, just because you haven’t figured out how to make the layout you want with CSS. It means that if you strip out the CSS, you should still have a structure that means something. Because you start from the materials, and what they can do natively, you don’t have to go back and SEO your site – it starts there and layers on the decoration. You also don’t need to go back and “retinafy” your site, because even the glossy gradients and translucent colors are made out of HTML.

Walter


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options