5 ms·

Websites are not art* They are communication mediums. Either delivering communication effectively to the user, or to let the user communicate effectively with

Websites are not art* They are communication mediums. Either delivering communication effectively to the user, or to let the user communicate effectively with others, or do so bi-directionally. Or they're tools to get work done - maybe even make other art. In all cases functionality is most important - which is not incompatible with aesthetics. Aesthetics and usability are vital too. But it does constrain somewhat the variety of your medium. And that's okay. As LitFan said - it's the same reason cars and smartphones tend to look the same as well. * Except when they are, and when they are they should be appreciated as such and graded as such, and there are such websites, but they are by far the exception.

ardy42 8y ago
> As LitFan said - it's the same reason cars and smartphones tend to look the same as well. I agree, but for a different reason: they're all following the same design fads and/or using the same frameworks, which make certain designs "easier" than others. The content of the fads or the defaults aren't necessarily the most effective or functional for the particular use-case.
ken 8y ago
> Websites are not art* They are communication mediums. I'm not sure what you think "art" is, but art is communication. That's the whole point. That's all it is. As the article (mis-)quotes, "Don't mistake legibility for communication." Writing a text-only webpage isn't somehow opting out of art, any more than a brutalist building is opting out of architecture.
blue4 8y ago
I would tend to agree on those points but I also want to believe that websites are an art form. While content strategy and user experience are now in a pre-thought context rather than an after thought, it obviously is about displaying something useful. But it almost stagnates new ideas from coming to the forefront it leads to us all getting swept into the game of 'creating the same layout,' all sites become a boring shell with different words.
exodust 8y ago
Why is everyone comparing websites with physical objects like cars, phones, laptops, and buildings? As soon as you do that, you've broken whatever conclusion you put forward next... "...and because of the way cement is poured into the foundations of modern office buildings, that's why everyone is using the same website template". Sorry, but you'll need to try a lot harder with your analogies.

ardy42 8y ago

> As LitFan said - it's the same reason cars and smartphones tend to look the same as well. I agree, but for a different reason: they're all following the same design fads and/or using the same frameworks, which make certain designs "easier" than others. The content of the fads or the defaults aren't necessarily the most effective or functional for the particular use-case.

ken 8y ago

> Websites are not art* They are communication mediums. I'm not sure what you think "art" is, but art is communication. That's the whole point. That's all it is. As the article (mis-)quotes, "Don't mistake legibility for communication." Writing a text-only webpage isn't somehow opting out of art, any more than a brutalist building is opting out of architecture.

blue4 8y ago

I would tend to agree on those points but I also want to believe that websites are an art form. While content strategy and user experience are now in a pre-thought context rather than an after thought, it obviously is about displaying something useful. But it almost stagnates new ideas from coming to the forefront it leads to us all getting swept into the game of 'creating the same layout,' all sites become a boring shell with different words.

exodust 8y ago

Why is everyone comparing websites with physical objects like cars, phones, laptops, and buildings? As soon as you do that, you've broken whatever conclusion you put forward next... "...and because of the way cement is poured into the foundations of modern office buildings, that's why everyone is using the same website template". Sorry, but you'll need to try a lot harder with your analogies.