Web 2.0 Distracts from Good Design

stevedcc writes "The BBC is running a story about web 2.0 and usability, including comments from Jakob Nielsen stating "Hype about Web 2.0 is making web firms neglect the basics of good design". From the article: "He warned that the rush to make webpages more dynamic often meant users were badly served. Sites peppered with personalization tools were in danger of resembling the 'glossy but useless' sites at the height of the dotcom boom."

Old fashioned

[andy666 (666062)]

I stick to html, since everyone can read it (mostly). And I hand code it, since most of the editors seem to make a real mess of the code, and sometimes I want to change it. Anyone else this old fashioned ?

Re:Old fashioned

[Mouse42 (765369)]

Really? Thats considered old fashion? I figured everyone these days hand coded their HTML with close integration with CSS, because thats the only way you can really ensure a minimal amount of code, cross browser compatibility, good SEO, and ease of updates.

Re:Old fashioned

[cultrhetor (961872)]

Dreamweaver wouldn't be so popular if everyone took this sensible route. I once had to unscrew about 15 pages created by Dreamweaver and Fireworks. It took forever - each page, despite coming from the same "template" was messed up in its own unique way.

Re:Old fashioned

[DittoBox (978894)]

Don't discount Dreamweaver. It's editor is absolutely top-knotch.

Now it's definitely not emacs, eclipse or VI(M) but it's awfully good and has nice auto-complete features. And if used properly it can help you stick to standards better. It also can do direct FTP editing, another big plus for me.

Re:Old fashioned

[slackmaster2000 (820067)]

Agreed. Don't use Dreamweaver-specific features like templates, and never use the WYSIWYG editor. As an overall environment without all this extra crap, it's top-notch. A pretty decent editor with correct hints for HTML, CSS, and PHP, and proper project management that actually expects you to work on files locally, test on a testing server, and then publish to a production server. It's odd how many other packages can't get this right when it's such a painfully simple concept.

Re:Old fashioned

[CastrTroy (595695)]

The point is, is that they don't want to make it possible. By making the resulting html not human readable, they lock you into using their application to edit it. So once you have hundreds of pages developed in dreamweaver, it's very hard to move away from using dreamweaver.

Re:Old fashioned

[mangu (126918)]

Anyone else this old fashioned ?

I also stick to hand-editing html, however I also use a lot of automatically generated html. For instance, when formatting a computer language for syntax emphasis automatic coding not only saves work but makes less errors than hand coding. Also, when creating tables I often use small Perl scripts to insert the data into the html.

But I always cut and paste the result into an html file that I edit by hand. I've never found a WYSIWYG html editor that gives me full control over how my pages will look.

Re:

[Mr. Picklesworth (931427)]

I'm with you. People keep getting me to try Dreamweaver, but I always find myself using the code editor anyway, fixing whatever mess Dreamweaver made then adding my own stuff instead of clicking through their interface. Takes more time to change a value in a style sheet than just typing it, and not nearly everything is listed in their GUI anyway.

All good things in moderation.

[AltGrendel (175092)]

Web 2.0 doubly so.

Seriously, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Some explain this to me?

[zappepcs (820751)]

stevedcc writes "The BBC is running a story about web 2.0 and usability, including comments from Jakob Nielsen stating "Hype about Web 2.0 is making web firms neglect the basics of good design".

What does Web 2.0 have to do with people neglecting the basics of good design? As far as I can tell they have always done that.

From the article: "He warned that the rush to make webpages more dynamic often meant users were badly served. Sites peppered with personalization tools were in danger of resembling the 'glossy but useless' sites at the height of the dotcom boom."

Hmmmm "glossy but useless" ? Is the author talking about all these 'news' sites that are dripping with advertisements interspersed with only a small to modest amount of content? The web sites of today are looking more and more like magazines of yesterday; >60% advertisements and 30% content, where the difference is filled with trying to find the table of contents or the 2nd and 3rd parts of the story buried deeply in the magazine with incorrect page number links to them.

Re:

[Ngarrang (1023425)]

Amen, brother. There were visually-poor web sites long before "Web 2.0" was coined.

Re:Some explain this to me?

[Bogtha (906264)]

What does Web 2.0 have to do with people neglecting the basics of good design? As far as I can tell they have always done that.

It's a story that reoccurs every few years when a new technology comes along. Somebody comes up with a new technique/technology/approach, and gets a lot of attention because it's quite useful. Then the hype engine goes into overdrive, PHBs start putting it on job advertisements, and people get book deals. A multitude of copy & paste monkeys buy the books, get the jobs and apply that technique/technology/approach to everything they see, with no understanding of when it's actually useful. The industry gets flooded with a bunch of one-trick ponies.

This happened with frames, JavaScript, Java, Flash, DHTML, ActiveX, Ajax, and now it's "Web 2.0"'s turn. Eventually, the field will settle down and there won't be quite so many fanboys around — they'll either broaden their skills and get a clue, their business will fail, or they will get fired. And then things will be relatively stable until the next big thing comes along.

So I guess you're right, this is an ongoing problem, but it's still news when the cycle starts again.

Re:Some explain this to me?

[Bogtha (906264)]

This is some BBC guy, their version of good design probably = "Flash and shinny buttons with special effects and blinking links". I actually prefer the basic and simple looks of a basic MoinMoin wiki or a simple blog -- the less flash and crap the better, just the information.

This is Jakob Nielsen, the usability expert who regularly gets flamed for advocating more spartan designs and fewer distracting special effects. You're approximately 100% wrong about what he thinks "good design" is.

Re:Some explain this to me?

[ObiWanKenblowme (718510)]

Despite the constant references to him and his ideas, I think Nielsen is highly overrated. I agree that unnecessary graphic elements can get in the way of your message, but his solution is usually to remove *all* graphic elements and stick with plain dark text on a light background. Good design is about conveying an idea or information cleanly and clearly, and often "making it look pretty" can go a long way toward that goal. More often than not, "usability" seems to just mean "get rid of the images."

I'm to s3cks1 f0r my3

[packetmon (977047)]

You mean I could no longer get a job [infiltrated.net] with my pimped geocities/xoom/fortunecity skills?

Yep.

[Black Parrot (19622)]

He warned that the rush to make webpages more dynamic often meant users were badly served. Sites peppered with personalization tools were in danger of resembling the 'glossy but useless' sites at the height of the dotcom boom.

That was precisely my thought when I saw, side-by-side, the proposed look for a new W2 site vs. our current bland but functional site.

Actually, I thought our current one *looked* better too.

Management 'distracts good design'

[hendridm (302246)]

Of all of the best practices that I've learned as a designer analyst over time, I've come to realize that management (with a bug in their collective bonnets about some new-fangled technology), do a better job of screwing up design and usability than the technology itself.

drop shadows and mouse hovers

[Speare (84249)]

Adding simple fortune-cookie CGI scripts, html tables with round corners, and javascript mouse-hover-active colors doesn't really make a site more useful. Sure, they can add to the mood if everything else is already well thought-out, but they can't save a bad site. That's Web 1.0 gloss.

With the newer sites, there's just as much crap that adds practically nothing. Expandable submenus in sidebars with cute > marks, dynamic community tagging options, dynamic community inbox viewing and sorting, and the ever-present use of rich gradient shading in every header tag. That's Web 2.0 gloss.

Hrm... I seem to have described an awful lot of Slashdot features. Curious.

What I find...

[Otter (3800)]

What I found, first when most of the literate people here split for Multiply, again when I was offered a moderator spot on another 2.0'ish site, and with other sites since, is that there's now an asumption that users are already familiar with all the generic functionality of delic.io.ous, Flickr, Digg and the rest. No one ever explains how to use "tags" or stuff like that -- it's as taken for granted as clicking on hyperlinks.

The makers seem either unaware of or uninterested in users who aren't already knee-deep in their competitors.

Pssh.

[MeanderingMind (884641)]

Sure, blame Web 2.0 for your horribly designed web pages.

The man in the article himself states clearly Web 2.0 is simply the "latest fad". It's simply the most recent in a long stream of red herrings chased by ignorant companies in an attempt to be web savvy.

The root of the problem is that the people who understand web design and make webpages are beholden unto managers, bosses, and other autorities who haven't the faintest idea what a good webpage does or looks like. The web designers bring prototypes, designs and nifty things to these people and get asked stupid questions such as "Is it Web 2.0". They want everything the internet has to offer in their webpage, whether or not it makes any sense for it to be there.

Web 2.0 is another potentially awesome facet of the internet being turned into a collective migraine for web designers.

Web 2.0 == Flash?

[Colonel Angus (752172)]

Sounds like Web 2.0 is just like Flash.

Everyone gets such a hardon trying to come up with new crazy new ways of doing things that have been done the same way since the dawn of the interwebs. They forget that they've been done that way for a reason... they work. People know what to expect. And they find themselves at ease and in a comfortable state when surfing within those parameters.

That's not to say there should be no innovation, but that innovation should make things easier to understand and use, not scare your customers away.

What is Web2.0?

[jb_nizet (98713)]

I've seen two definitions of Web2.0: user-contributed contents, and the use of AJAX/DHTML.

The first characteristic doesn't need any new technology: Slashdot is a good example of a web site containing lots of user-contributed contents, and works for ages. No need for a 2.0 version of the web.

The second one is newer: we already had DHTML, but didn't have XMLHttpRequest. This is where abuse can lead to bad design and bad usability, IMO.
My advices to web developers: just because the content of your web site is dynamic and the site contains some forms doesn't mean you have a web application like GMail! Most of the time, it's just a web site, and should work like a traditional web site: the back button should work, opening pages in new windows or new tabs should work.
Just because you may refresh the body of the page without reloading it entirely doesn't mean you should. Think about why frames are usually avoided when you plan using AJAX: it might cause the same annoyances.

Hmm...

[EinZweiDrei (955497)]

Although people in their late 30s make very different use of the web to those in their teens, Mr Nielsen expects that when those teenagers grow up the time they spend online will diminish.

Yeah...
Just like our parents' generation grew up to watch less television.

Nielsen a sellout

[zakkie (170306)]

Nielsen is a sellout and has no credibility. Shortly after releasing his "Flash is 99% bad" work, Nielsen took money from Macromedia, and suddenly it's not so bad:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html [useit.com]

Usability includes being able to access the content without using proprietary software, Jakob!

Re:

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

These people don't have a single clue about a good website design, they just think "oh that is so awesome I must have it!", so they start swinging wildly at shadows and end up destroying the entire point of the process.

Look at Myspace, these people go "OMG MUSIC ON MY WEBSITE! SO COOL!" but have no damn clue how annoying it is, or how it eats bandwidth and makes their profiles pretty much unusable for Dial up users. But they don't know about this because "ZOMG SO COOL!!!"

See why there is a backlash now? Giv