I asked a question on LinkedIn* a couple of weeks ago, the answers to which started me off on a long, ranty chain of thought in my head.
Most of the answers were very good (a few were just okay or didn’t really respond to the question), so there was no problem there. My thoughts were really triggered by how the answers showed how limited people’s thinking is around web design and technology.
I’ll explain…
In the original question, I asked what people would expect from a CMS over and above the ‘ordinary’. I also pitched Renaissance as being focused towards designers or artists, due to its flexibility and therefore creative potential. There was no single answer that triggered me, it was more a general feeling that welled up inside my head.
It had many aspects, but boiled down to pretty much, “people seem to think that being design-orientated in a CMS means being able to stick a Flash file into a template“.
Okay, that sounds harsh
Well, at the time, my feelings were quite harsh.
One part of it was a mini-rant in my head about how people talk about ‘rich media’. Now, I have no problem at all with rich media. It’s important, and it’s a great way to communicate (especially as people don’t like reading from their computer screens, me included).
But it struck me that the phrase is a little bit disingenuous. Why? Basically, because rich media essentially means Flash**. Whether you’re talking about video, audio, interactive tools, browser games or whatever, in nearly all cases they’re delivered with Flash (or a very similar and ideologically equivalent format). So when people say that a CMS must be able to handle ‘rich media’, why don’t they just say it needs to be able to handle Flash? It seems more honest to me.
Okay, that was the starting point of my feeling (and don’t worry, I’m not anti-rich media or anti-Flash, and, ranting aside, I do really know there are other ways to deliver rich media). But the thought onto which it led was rather more interesting.
It was, “do people really equate design and art on the web with putting content into a template?”
From the state of the web at the moment, I’m guessing that the answer is ‘yes‘, which I think is terribly sad. People seem to be so wrapped up in what the technology can offer that they’ve forgotten to be creative with it.
Anyone can point a video camera at themselves, record something and stick it on YouTube or a blog (whether it’s valuable content or not). Anyone can write a top ten list or install the latest theme onto WordPress. Not everyone can create beautiful typography, balance line and space or create engaging, interactive interfaces. So we’re stuck with a header, a sidebar and a footer.
Let’s face it—the level of creative innovation and experimentation on the web is an embarrassment compared to what was being done in graphic design and typography even 50 years ago, let alone more recently. It feels as though the soul’s been sucked out and replaced with a fetish for ‘content’, technology and ubiquitisation. More of the same.
A call for something different
Here’s the thing—statistically, out of all the web sites possible, in terms of design, the current web represents a tiny percentage of a percentage. As in 0.000001%, or something such as that. Now, of course, out of the remaining percentage, the vast, vast majority of possible web sites would be unusable—they’d just be random gibberish.
But that leaves an awful lot of viable possibilities. Billions of possibilities. Hundreds of billions of them. So why do we settle for so little, such a tiny niche, such a pale shadow of what we could have?
That’s a rhetorical questions, of course
There are plenty of reasons (some of them are even good).
The afore-noted democratisation of technology, giving the means to create to those who are not trained to create (which is both a good and a bad thing).
The fact that users are so overloaded with information that they have no time or patience for anything interesting or different (everything should be interesting and different!)
The fact that, in large part, the design that is done is driven by developers, not designers.
The fact that most people, even creative people, are afraid to lead, and instead follow the same well-trod paths.
The blinkered thinking that leads to the attitude that the best a CMS can offer in terms of design is being able to work with Flash and having some nice-looking templates available for it.
So where does CMS design come in?
There is great design out there on the web. Really great. Really different design too, really innovative stuff, sites that really challenge convention. They’re out there in the far corners of the design scene (you might see a few of the ideas that are there now in a few years, once they’ve filtered through to the mainstream, suitably watered down).
But here’s the thing,
- they’re not blogs
- they’re not CMS driven (or are driven by custom CMSs)
- they’re mostly Flash sites (I hate to say it)
- they’re not web 2.0 branded
- they’re mostly not commercial
- they’re mostly created by designers-cum-developers, rather than vice versa
Technology as a force against creativity
Many moons ago, before I’d started developing Renaissance, a friend of mine asked me to put together a web site for her. I suggested making it CMS driven. She was hysterically in opposition. She said, in no uncertain terms, that, “all CMS driven web sites are boring and ugly.” She wouldn’t hear otherwise.
I thought that was nonsensical. I developed plenty of creative, innovative web sites at the time (much more so than I do now, although they were less technically polished), and I didn’t see why putting a CMS behind a web site should make any difference to how it looked or what it could do.
I know better now. I’ve come to realise that most CMSs and similar packages act as a force against creativity and innovation.
Yes, you could take, say, Joomla!, and get it to do something completely different from it, but it’s hard, and you need to think. It’s much easier to follow the path laid out for you. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of CMSs are built by people with little or no consideration for real design (through no fault of their own), and you have a recipe for tedium. We have great content shoehorned into the same old boring templates (and I’m sure there’s a vicious cycle to be had somewhere between the design and the content too).
Why?
Okay, that’s another rhetorical one. I think we know why, and we don’t need to go further into that here.
But I also think it doesn’t have to be the case. Technology can be a force in favour of creativity if we wanted it to be (in sectors, it already is, especially music). In nearly all creative areas, for better or worse, technology limits, guides, leads, pushes or instructs us (even if it’s just the technology behind oil paints or a draft man’s pencil).
So, on the web, we really need to do better.
Of course, I’m not saying everyone, or indeed many, people have the time, knowledge, ability, patience, money or even need to create sites such as,
I’m not even saying that everyone should have all those things or that they should create sites such as those.
What I am saying is that web technology, if it’s going to lead, should lead people to be more creative, not less. Even if it’s just to help people consider the options before plumping for something standard, instead of making a beeline for it. I’m saying that for people who do set out to do something different, the technology should be there to open doors, not close them.
When I started working on Renaissance, I thought it was well behind the curve of what was possible. I was always struggling to add more flexibility, to let people do more with it. I now realise, somewhat belatedly, that even towards the beginning it was already a lot more flexible than almost everything else out there (at least the more common packages). Want a different template or different CSS on every page? Check. Want to display the same content on different pages but in completely different ways? Check. Want completely different types of content loadable into the same content area? Check. Want random loading? Check. Want to make a completely standard web site? Check.
(Caveat: Renaissance doesn’t do a lot of other things as well as other products do them, and it doesn’t do nearly as much as I want it to do in terms of flexibility yet either. I’m not trying to boast.)
Wrapping up
I’ve got nothing against rich media, on-line video, content, blogs, template driven web sites or any of that stuff. They’re all valuable and they all have their places. They possibly need to be the majority of everything on the web.
What I am saying is that the people who make web sites (whether they be content producers or web designers) should think a lot more widely than they do now. That the people who create web technology (from blogging platforms and CMSs to mobile devices and syndication protocols) should think about creativity and design first and the technology second. That the first question should be, “how can I do this differently?” rather than, “where can I download themes for WordPress?”
That the web should become more human.
There. That’s that.
And if you think that was bad…
You just wait for my Web 4.0 manifesto ;).
*Complete side note: I know a lot people tend to ignore LinkedIn, but the Q&A section is actually very useful, both for having questions answered and for meeting new people****.
**I know there is a proper definition of rich media that doesn’t equate it with Flash, and that it’s possible to deliver some forms of rich media without Flash, but I’m talking about the vast generality.
***These sites may not be to your taste. They’re not even all to my taste, I’m just making a point. Sorry they’re all Flash too, I couldn’t dig out any non-Flash examples.
****Meeting new people = human-speak for ‘networking’ ;).
Related posts:
- Web 4.0 Follow-up My previous post garnered a fair bit of attention and...
- Web 4.0 Manifesto [If you like this post, you might also want to...
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
R. Patel 11.20.08 at 12:57 am
I think that Flash is awesome, regardless of how it is viewed by SEO and what not. Unique designs are also a must. Good read.
R. Patel’s last blog post..A Quality Blog
Adeline 11.22.08 at 12:21 am
I agree. The current trends favour useability over creativity, and the sacrifice is that things have become a bit boring. There are obviously advantages - now pretty much anyone can make themselves a pleasant enough looking website, and most of what you come across is user friendly. I think the trouble comes when people who should know better find themselves sucked into the trends rather than branching out and continuing to experiment.