There has been a recent debate swirling among web designers regarding the lack or even need of a canon of design. The nuances and conversation aren't particularly interesting so I won't cover them again. However, they could be found
here (ALA),
here (Subtraction), and the one that started it
here (Speak Up). The basic premise is this: a print designer questions why there are not many great web sites held up as phenomenal design as there are in print, i.e. why has the genius of print not carried itself over to the web? Khoi Vinh said it, web design is boring.
In return, the web designers create a well-articulated, thoughtful response explaining that the creation is the design. In essence, the engineering and the interface combine to create an organic design that is genius in its own right. Web designers argue that holding the web to the standards of print is futile; the two don't compare and should not be. Great web design is great when compared with poor web design.
I beg to differ.
Truly great design always results from the combination of two things: creativity and skill. The skill is the key, as there are more people with creativity than skill. Skill refers to the specific tool at hand and the designer's ability to master it. The harder the skill to master, the fewer who do, and inevitably fewer phenomenal pieces are created. But, those phenomenal pieces are great. For example, Michelangelo sculpted David from marble, which is an incredibly difficult material to work from. In order to accomplish this, he would have mastered creating sculptures in materials such as wax, clay, wood, and so forth that are cheaper, more pliable, and have an equivalent of the modern "undo" button. The point is, regardless of how creative they are, no hack can create a worthwhile sculpture from marble. In fact, many creative artisans are unqualified; it requires the truly skilled.
The playing field has leveled some in the current age of design, but not entirely. As is pertains to print and web design, there are some parallels to sculpture. Speaking strictly about visual design, changing something as trivial as a color on a finished-and-launched web site, even universally, can be done in seconds with minimal cost and impact on the surrounding elements. To do the same in print is often as expensive as creating the first print(s) and requires disposal of that prior run. The economic cost discourages those who don't have the technical skills to create great press-produced designs. Or at least it makes them practice first.
This isn't to say that all web designers are untrained sloths, only that some are. The rest are frustrated with the tools at hand. So, for the purpose of oversimplification, the two categories of web designers are 1) unskilled hacks and 2) those frustrated by the tools. The first group uses all the tools that Adobe has made available to Windows' users. In many cases they use templates, rules, and all sorts of tricks that make them feel better about creating something 'pretty.' The second group is frustrated that they can't make type run vertically, on an angle, or follow a curve. In fact, they're irritated that they can't even dictate a specific typeface without making it a graphic. For them, the web is still in its infancy; it's boxy, developing, shows potential, but although they can envision design, they can't actually create it.
For the purpose of diplomacy, I should subdivide the second group into further categories. Group 1a are malcontented print designers displeased with the state of the web and either don't venture in or stay on the fringes creating print-like designs while breaking web standards. Group 2b contains Flash designers who combine motion, print design, and control into an embedded object. It's not html, but it is viewable in a browser. It's a good in-between step for these designers, but they sometimes wish they didn't have to live entirely in this world. (Not that that world pays badly, mind you.) Group 2c are css-compliant designers who are skilled with the craft of browser-compliancy, css validation, and standards-based design. In short, they lower the bar enough that great design can be achieved via a checklist. They are good designers, to be sure, and some great, but only when they use graphics or workarounds that aren't truly html (i.e. the good stuff is embedded).
Ultimately, I'm not crying foul on web designer's talent. I do think that there are many, many very talented web designers. (Indeed, many are better print designers than I am.) I am actually protesting the fact that we can't really do on the web what we want. The solution, however, is not to redefine the measure of success to a state of engineering, but to continue to figure out (and force engineers to create) a platform worthy of our skills.
We want our marble.
