A little over a year ago, I wrote on the short-sightedness of the visual style which had been named after the technology it had been associated with – Web 2.0. As predicted, the masses have begun to tire of the current trend. Additionally, designers are beginning to write about their dissatisfaction towards the Web 2.0 visual trend and are proposing alternatives to it. As the visual style attributed Web 2.0 wains, we are inevitably going to see the rise of another all but arbitrary visual style take its place which will be adopted by the design masses without a second thought.
A recent article suggests by using elements which are the exact opposite of the stereotypical Web 2.0 style, we will ensure that our designs remain fresh. While I appreciate the author’s intent, it is the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The next hot style, whatever it may end up being, will most likely be all but contextually irrelevant for the majority of sites it is applied to. Fluff will prevail again and we will be right back where we are right now in two or three years time. To a varying degree, this will happen – defeatist as it may sound.
Make no mistake, trends of visual styles are important to observe and stay abreast of. Seeing what other designers are doing can help you branch out and explore different types of visual execution. They are neither things to blindly follow or blindly avoid. So to suggest certain styles to use in order to move away from another style is truly missing the point. The reason why we have collectively grown tired of the Web 2.0 style is because those visual elements have been overused with little to no consideration to the subject they are applied to. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Web 2.0 style. The problem is people rode the horse until it died and now they are blaming the horse.
The irony of all of this is that the visual style of a design is almost always the most superficial and subsequently least valuable piece of the puzzle. Folks are spending the most time on what will give them the least return in the long run. Of course, there are very few substantive tutorials on the internet on how to improve your process or how to come up with better concepts. In contrast, there are countless tutorials on how use Photoshop to make “glossy” buttons. Process and conceptual thinking takes time, creativity, hard work, hard work and hard work. There are no shortcuts, no step-by-step list to follow in order to achieve desired results. Overused visual styles are a sign that enough designers have decided not to go that route…
There will always be a segment of the population that would rather go the easy route by letting other designers do the creative heavy lifting for them and then pick up the scraps. Why do I think this? Because it is easier – much easier – to follow the current style than to try to come up with your own (if that is even possible in its purest sense). And why would anyone even be interested in spending the time to foster one’s own style when some paying customers “only want it to look good”? Mimicking the latest trend will definitely give you the best bang for the buck for clients who do not care about the product they offer and consumers who do not care about the product they purchase. Sadly, there are plenty of lazy people, which allow lazy businesses to stay in business which allow lazy designers to continue to create uninspired work.
This style-hunting phenomenon has always been around and always will. My hope is that the web design community will increasingly understand that visual styles are absolutely useless on their own. The time spent trying to emulate another individual’s work could be used towards much more rewarding tasks. Designing in order to not follow a specific style is just as bad as designing in order to follow a specific style. The truly exceptional work is always ahead of styles and subsequently influences trends and style afterward. If you are simply following a trend, you can be assured that you have already missed the boat.
12 Comments
Spot on!!! Your critique extends far beyond just graphic / web design. My current research project explores the potential role of web-based systems to enable the customisation of textile products – your analysis of trends describes the fashion industry perfectly.
Hah! Quoting ‘Some Random Dude’ in my Contextual Review will be a laugh!!!
That’s hilarious. I would love to see the look on people’s faces as you explain that you cite that one of your sources is from some random dude. ;)
One of the best articles I have recently read.
Thanks Inguna, I’m flattered.
Fantastic response to a deplorable original article.
But say, how’d you make that badge? Can you post a tutorial? I’d like to make my own then destroy it with some grunge fonts.
Thanks Sean. :)
I guess I’m going to have to write a tutorial on the top 10 ways to find tutorials on how to make Web 2.0 badges. ;) Sadly, I think this would be found strangely useful for many more people than we think…
So is your idea of a perfect world somewhere where each and every “creative” task is purely original? I would suggest that, whilst perhaps ostensibly better, this is both unattainable and undesirable. How would the unique be defined if there were no norm? Isn’t there always going to be a space for the hum-drum, run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road that we complain about? Won’t truly creative individuals exist regardless (and perhaps in response to) a sheep-like copycat, trend-following middle ground?
I wouldn’t worry your self about the fact that others can’t use their energy in creative ways. Your task is to lead by example. You won’t ever convert others by just giving them a bit of reason and logic.
No, my idea of a perfect world is where people think for themselves. If folks put serious consideration into a concept and come to a contemporary style, that’s absolutely fine. All I hope for is some genuine thought.
As I said in the article, there are always be this segment of the population in any vocation, all I tried to do is show the fallacy of it – people can decide to do what they wish from there.
Personally, I think we need to rely more on reason and logic to communicate ideas than we presently do. Ultimately, strong design is rooted in strong conceptual thinking. Therefore, I find the exchange of thoughts just as important to designers as the creation of a finished work.
Let me make it clear – I don’t disagree with what you have to say.
But let’s look at that phrase “…if folks put serious consideration into a concept and come to a contemporary style…”. OK, let’s imagine someone really thinks about what they’re doing, to the level that you think they’re capable of. Is there EVER a need for something to be “just like everything else” when you have really thought about it? I’d guess that those situation are very rare. Most enterprises of whatever kind hope to stand out in some way.
When you say that you hope for genuine thought, I think that actually translates as (and I’m only saying this cos I know I’m incredibly guilty of it) “genuine thought, as long as it’s along the same lines of reasoning as I adhere to”. Some people just (for whatever reason – but generally a culmination of environmental and experiential effects) aren’t equipped to make the decisions and conceptual leaps that “genuine thought” requires. Sure, someone could help the process. And yes, maybe we should all be trying to make everyone capable of it, but at the end of the day we have to deal with what the situation is now. We don’t want people to think for themselves – that kind of thing leads to the **** that the human existence has experienced over the last few thousand years. We want people to think beyond themselves. Reason and logic provide a fantastic language for discussion amongst those who understand it, but at the end of the day pure, original thought comes from an awareness of one’s own intellect. I guess I’m just saying that the good will out, and so will the rubbish.
I might sound argumentative, but I just think that if you want to do things differently, you do it yourself. Things do change.
Hey prioritypie, thanks for the response.
Actually, I think there are many things that should be just like everything else, or at least very close. Interface paradigms are a perfect example – to deviate from tried-and-true interaction models can be very problematic in many scenarios. Could you imagine if cars all had different forms of control? Instead of the steering wheel being the way to drive, Honda uses a joystick and Toyota uses a trackball? That would be a nightmare. :)
In terms of thinking for themselves and thinking beyond themselves, I actually think the two are very closely related. This is getting somewhat philosophical, but I feel those who don’t think for themselves are ultimately letting someone think for them. Many times, people that want to think for you are doing so to benefit themselves. I think that has a lot to do with “****” that we have experienced for so long. Wars/violent conflict are perpetuated because the masses do not take a step back and see the obvious – it rarely, if ever, benefits anyone except the few people orchestrating it.
I actually appreciate your thoughts on this as the last thing I would want is for people to just blindly agree. I also think we need to walk the walk – I certainly am trying – but I think we need to (loudly) talk the talk as well.
It is incredibly interesting that design thought at one of the most basic levels (in this case visual style), inevitably leads to the concept of problem solving of these much larger scales (global issues).
I believe that metaphor is a great way to solve complex problems and your post, as well as the discussion, is setting the stage to analyze the lack of unique thought process that exists. On the small scale (forecasting web trends) this lack of individuality is a bit more trivial, but on the large scale it is a serious problem. Regarding one of the most well documented problems of our time (global warming), if critical thinking was more widely practiced in general populations then this new economy that is in its first stages of development would be much more likely to be in its adolescence or teenage years. If more people had thought about the problem when it was first discovered then we may not be in the situation that we are in today.
I think that I would disagree with both of you (somerandomdude and prioritypie) that ‘thinking for yourself’ is a bad thing and it leads to problems. Under certain circumstances thinking for your personal benefit can make for dangerous situations. Currently, our economy creates one of those circumstances and individual gain is often found through shortcuts and controlling the minions that aren’t thinking for themselves. Purportedly, If our economy shifts to one that could be sustainable, then individual thought would be mutually beneficial.
So, what can catalyze this shift? Well I would suggest that it could start by activating peoples brains. Making people ask questions. Visual style is a canvas for this to happen.
This question: ‘How would the unique be defined if there were no norm?’ can be answered by: The uniqueness of a design comes out of analyzing all of the parts of the objective of the design and creating something that addresses them. Uniqueness is not about being different from the norm, it is about being an individual, and if things were made with more individuality then they would maybe provoke the audience to put more thought into what they were looking at. Hopefully, this thought process at the most basic scale would become applied to all media and maybe, then, it could help to solve some of the problems that we are facing.
Merely speculative, but ideas are what lead to change. Great post. It is really nice to see that the discussion isn’t just a pissing match as it seems so many are.
Interesting discussion. This look — the look and feel of “Web 2.0″ — is an aesthetic painted by the culture of sharing.
It is glossy, friendly, sensational, and in no way provocative. I think you can find it’s root in the idea of sharing as well, and sharing inevitably leads to building, which is where this will go. People will evolve this style, flesh it out to fill needs until it is as ubiquitous like Helvetica (if it isn’t already). I blame Photoshop’s toolset.
As long as companies are run by risk adverse mouth-breathers, web 2.0 will reign. If a style is going to transplant web 2.0, it’s going to have to at least be just as plug-and-play as this one.