I enjoyed Dave Shea’s comments at 24 ways. These were some problems I was working through on my site last week. I originally had a light tan as a border, The darker color seems to both frame and focus the content much better (is that what framing does?)

This week I find Luke Wroblewski‘s opening paragraph extremely thought provoking. He writes:

The World Wide Web is awash with sterile design solutions. Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell, Microsoft, and countless others are virtually indistinguishable from each other (similar layout, similar color scheme). Though one might say that this uniformity makes web browsing easier by virtue of a standardized interface, the reality is such sites create mundane experiences for their users and fail to make a positive connection with their audience.

I have been thinking quite a bit about the similarity that is often found on websites. Sometimes, it seems like there is a bit of groupthink going on, and I think that might be part of the story. There becomes an understanding of how people tend to use the internet, some articles and maybe books are written, and it becomes a de facto standard on the web. This can obviously be useful at times, e.g. comprehending that screens are much more difficult to read from than paper, and so interesting textual colors might make for a tedious and/or painful user experience.

But I imagine there is more. We talk a good deal about the collaborative nature of the web. There seems to be a culture of sharing as well. We peruse the web and everywhere are aspects of design that attract us. Oh, I like that nav bar. And that organizational structure is clarifying. Wow, those colors go together really well! And so on.

This seems at first glance a little antithetical to the creative process, but I think in fact its indicative of something else. While creative acts often are products of individual work, they almost always derive from other works. Often, the best of them borrow less or more aptly hide their sources. But plenty of inspiring creations have been made reusing and refining other material (see Marcel Duchamp for one of my personal favorites). The web has opened up the world of publishing to many not simply by making it possible for people to present material. But the tools and science of the trade are now on full display. With a pages source code always available, it becomes possible to extract and reproduce elements of design, and I think the proliferation of similar design trends evidences this.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Often it contributes to ease of use and comprehension. But I think as we enter the design world it bears remembering that we should be critical and questioning of what we encounter, and willing to make choices that might buck trends if they seem reasonable to us. For what we see might not always be what we see.

powered by performancing firefox

Share This

Footnotes present a frustrating problem of presentation on the web. A traditional, bottom–of–the–page footnote is not technically possible since a webpage has little similarity to the pages of a book which are of a specific, rather than interminable size. The tendency seems toward adopting an endnote approach on the web, placing all notation at the very end of the work, sometimes using links so a reader might flip back and forth between the text and notation.

However, this method is in conflict with the original intention and utility of footnotes. And perhaps given the technical differences between web publishing and printed texts, the spirit of notation might deserve greater emphasis when fashioning a web design. In “Where Have All the Footnotes Gone?,” Gertrude Himmelfarb discussed the technical and semantic aspects of endnotes and footnotes. Himmelfarb pointed at the necessity of notation for scholarly work—it is the only way an author can identify how and with what materials their argument is being constructed. However, among her conclusions, she also posited:

But scholars, who love footnotes (some are known to read only the footnotes), and who continue to make up the bulk of the readers, are sorely inconvenienced. Instead of dropping their eyes to the bottom of the page to find the source of a quotation (and, if they are lucky, an acerbic comment by the author) and returning to the text without skipping a beat, they are now obliged to turn to the back of the book, thus interrupting their reading of the text and losing their place to boot—indeed, losing their place twice over, for in order to locate the endnote they have first to turn back the pages of the text itself to find the chapter number, which will then guide them to the page at the back containing the endnotes for that chapter.

So, while the efficacy of notation lies in its information, its presentation also affects when and how readers utilize this information. In this vein, having notes in the same physical place as the related text seems central to the spirit of notation, and much more convenient (and hence functional) for the reader.

How to transform this style to the web presents a major challenge as the articles reviewed this week indicate. This is not from lack of effort, however, as Piggin and Petrick both offer a multitude of options. Unfortunately most of them do not meet the stipulation that the notation be conveniently presented alongside the text.

There seems to be a strong attraction the various types of pop–up devices available, whether they appear in a sidebar or otherwise. However, these seem to have a major drawback not mentioned by the authors. Both the pop-up and linked sidenote relegate the note to a fate worse than than the end of the work—invisibility. It looks nice and slick, but becomes too easy to completely ignore, and removes the opportunity for serendipitous discovery during quick reads. Part of the style of a footnote is to emphasize their relevance and present tangential material in a convenient format. These methods fail in this regard, as many readers might find the constant clicking tedious.

In sifting through the options, the persistent sidenote or offset and demarcated note, as Piggin mentions seem like excellent alternatives. While this use of the sidenote looks attractive, as Petrik mentions, there is the possibility of text overlap (Piggin notes that he “faked” his page using tables—it is not possible to render with CSS). The interleaved or interlinear notes also meet the requirement of convenient presentation. In heavily annotated texts, it seems possible the interleaved notes might become overly distracting, though Piggin feels “Interleaving is best suited to substantial footnotes.” These options seems to be the most consistent with the utility and spirit of footnotes. They function on the screen the way a footnote does on the page.

Reconceiving webpages themselves offers another alternative. Replicating a paginated style, as used by Piggin could possibly ease these problems. But this style is somewhat unsettling when encountered on the web. Much of this truly is a matter of recognition. Scholars who have grown used to the endnote in texts likely don’t suffer from some of Himmelfarb’s complaints, and might even see footnotes as strange (especially when, as they often do, they fill the pages more than the main text does).

Maybe the print option really is best. But as monitors are constantly improving, and students become more accustomed to reading online, it seems more a band-aid than a solution. Furthermore, there will be an expectation that one will be able to read this on a variety of devices from a desktop to a phone. But it seems that in any proposed solution the notions of presence and convenience should remain paramount concerns.

(These thoughts are continued in my comment on Jenny’s blog.

Share This

Luke Wroblewski’s equation of brand with personality seems a questionable analogy. Personalities are full of complexities and contradictions, can change on a whim and be held in check. Brands, on the other hand, strive for simplicity and consistency. This is not to say branding is not ever useful, but with regard to human endeavors it seems a limiting concept at best. If you are interested in selling yourself to the internet audience, then branding is likely a worthwhile approach. A site through in which you might attempt to represent more than a few of your personality characteristics seemingly would contain a variety of looks and feels. The first approach seems akin to wearing the same clothes everyday, which is fine for some.

As I mentioned on Laura’s blog design is important, but it can’t be everything. More to the point the idea of design combined with branding becomes an easily abused model(for example companies like BP claiming environmental stewardship). Design, visual appeal, ease of use are all important, but I think if we are ultimately helping promote surface over depth and appeal over content, we are benefitting those who hope to use design to manipulate rather than serve.

Share This