[Sigia-l] the lesser importance of home pages -> moresplashpagefun?

[Christopher Fahey]

>> I think that, however, without changing 
>> the content of the page or the 
> concept behind it,
> 
> Which is what a Designer does.
>
>> the typography and layout can probably 
>> be improved under the care of a 
>> more skilled graphic designer.
>
> Which is what a beautician does.
>
> In other words, once a "design by testing" 
> advocate manages to frame the central 
> problem as one of the efficacy of visual 
> arrangement, thereby putting strategy, 
> structure, architecture and (even selection 
> of) content beyond the purview of the 
> designer, then, yes, we can quibble on 
> the fringes. Personally, I'm not interested 
> in arguments where the designer's role is 
> framed as somehow orthogonal to usability. 

You seem to have mistaken me for a designer-basher. Allow me to correct you.

First, your use of the term "beautician" to describe the things that I said
a graphic designer *can* do is ridiculous (and yes, I used the term "graphic
designer"). Just because I say that a person who has been trained at graphic
design is *capable* of improving typography and layout doesn't mean that I
am relegating such a person to have no role in usability. Quite an illogical
leap you've made there.

In fact, it sounds to me like maybe you're the one denigrating the things
that are taught in graphic design schools, like you're suggesting that the
art directors of magazines newspapers and books, the designers of logos and
fonts, the people who translate statistics and concepts into illustrations
and charts and diagrams, are now and always have been "beauticians" because
they weren't involved in the strategy, structure, architecture and (even
selection of) content. You're implying that a designer's job is orthogonal
to optical scannability, the function of color, the cultural and social uses
of symbols and shapes, the ineffable but real qualities of visual elegance
and harmony, and a hundred other things that are important to the field of
graphic design. It's like you're saying that design equals usability, but
design does NOT include graphic design (maybe this is going a little far,
but it's the same kind of (il)logical leap you made with the "beautician"
crack).

One can *conceptually* separate graphic design from strategy, structure,
architecture and (even selection of) content without *actually* denying a
graphic designer a role in those tasks. And even if one did actually deny a
graphic designer a role in all of those tasks, it wouldn't by a long stretch
remove them from a critical role in improving a site's usability.

Tufte's books are filled from end to end by excellent work by graphic
designers (including Tufte) who, in many cases, probably had almost zero say
in strategy, structure, architecture, or content, but managed to construct
powerful examples of efficient and usable visual communication. 


The generalized use of the term "designer" (without "graphic" in front of
it) to describe people with a graphic design background and training was
intended to point out that they can and should play an important role in
things beyond graphic design. That was and is a good thing. The side effect
of removing the "graphic", I fear, is that it lets Ziya go so far out there
in empowering "designers" that he neglects to give due respect to the
as-important "graphic" part. 

Finally, I never wrote that the "central problem" with McMaster was visual
efficacy. I said that visual design was certainly a problem that still
existed with the page (one that any decent graphic designer would notice in
a heartbeat and would have a lot to say about), but I didn't have a beef
with the site's core strategy (which, as far as either of us knows, may have
been fully conceived by a the kind of professional "designer" who beleives
that the follow-through, the typography and layout, is the job for a
"beautician", not a "designer", and thus beneath him or her. Which is why
the McMaster site looks a little shoddy).

Cheers,
-Cf