If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
My previous post garnered a fair bit of attention and a reasonable amount of response in different channels. Quite a number of common themes and misunderstandings came up, so I thought I’d clarify and respond in one place.
So, first off…
The 4.0
This was meant satirically, but I guess that didn’t come across at all! I guess my previous post was too subtle.
Personally, I think the whole idea of “Web anything.anything” is ridiculous. I thought Web 2.0 was stupid enough (not what’s happened on Web 2.0, but the idea of naming and versioning it as such), and when a close friend started telling me about a Web 3.0 conference at which he was invited to speak, it made go off on one inside my head.
So, the idea of my Web 4.0 manifesto was born. Although I’m very serious about the points I raised, the “4.0″ was intended to mock the technological fetish that drives how we perceive the web.
Of course, I more than realise that everything I put in the manifesto is technologically possible right now, and has been for years. This is the point. Previous “generations” of the web have been seen to be technological steps. I wanted to put forward a creative step in the place of technology.
And for those that skim read:
- The “4.0″ was intended as a satire on the whole “Web x.x” thing. I think it’s ridiculous.
- I know that everything I wrote about is possible with technology we’ve had for years…
- … so the manifesto had nothing to do with technology.
Technology and rich media
Almost without fail, reasons given against this kind of approach were things such as,
- budget
- bandwidth
- using Flash
- etcetera
Why? Why do people think that the only way to make something beautiful, haunting or delightful is to use Flash (or similar), eat up a ton of bandwidth, soak up massive budgets, make people watch intro sequences, etcetera.
It’s rubbish! You can make something stunning with plain images and typography, on zero budget and almost no bandwidth, if you have the imagination. This lock amongst web designs and developers that design/creativity on the web = Flash really depresses me. The post on this blog before the Web 4.0 Manifesto was a rant about that, so I won’t go into it here.
Again, for those that skim,
- Everything I proposed in the manifesto has nothing to do with Flash or rich media.
- You can create something emotional or beautiful on zero budget with zero bandwidth if you have the imagination.
- Stunning design and beauty doesn’t have to be flashy. It can be incredibly simple.
- (Of course, you can use rich media too, if you like!)
It’s nothing new
Of course, I’m well aware that there’s plenty of wonderful stuff out there. Sites that really do delight and amaze (using rich media or otherwise). But it’s a tiny proportion of the web. Tiny. Most people’s browing habits comprise just a few of the web’s tops sites, most of which are, well, pretty badly designed and ugly.
And even the sites that do go that much further still fall far short of where we could be. Good on them for pushing forward, but I think there’s a very long way to go.
Point and purpose
Another point that was brought up fairly often was that the web’s not intended to entertain, it’s intended to be informational. I’d respond in several ways.
First, let us assume that the web should only be 100% informational (this is ridiculous, of course, but bear with me). If that’s the case, it’s still crap compared to what it should be. Most web pages, and especially those that are mainly intended to be informational, are put together with almost no understanding of how people learn or how the brain absorbs information. Plus any even semi-competent teacher will tell you that the way to get a student of any age to learn is to switch them on emotionally.
All that’s one reason why most (nearly all, including this post, I’m sure) is barely skimmed and why traditional, printed media is still so much more valuable (unfortunately).
Second, I disagree that the web has to be completely informational, or even primarily informational, or even mostly informational. It is right now, but why does that have to be the limit of our aspirations.
Third, I don’t even really know where entertainment ends and information begins, and what other categories completely there are, either in between or off to one side. For example, I love to read books, but it doesn’t normally feel like entertainment to me. Nor am I sitting there becoming more informed.
So,
- Just because a site or piece of content is primarily informational doesn’t mean it can’t also be stunningly or evocatively designed. It would probably be even more effective as an informational resource if it was.
- The web does not and should not be primarily informational. It should be a healthy mixture.
- Creating a polar disparity between something being either informational or entertainment seems incredibly simplistic to me. It’s a much wider field.
An interesting correlation…
was that the more techie* someone was, the more likely they were to give a negative response to the manifesto. The standard techie response was along the lines of, “there’s nothing wrong with the web, besides which, it’s all meant to be informational anyway”, whereas the standard response from non-techie seemed to be something more like, “yes, things could be improved a lot, we really should be putting these issues first.”
I think that says a lot. I guess you can draw your own conclusions, but I’m thinking something such as, “the people building the sand box don’t really understand how people want to play with it.”
Well, okay, my couple of dozen responses isn’t exactly a statistically significant sample, so it’s anecdotal. But anyway…
And let me be the first to admit…
That I am a hypocrite. This blog doesn’t exactly have the most amazing design ever (it’s okay, as these things go). Most of my commercial work is fairly standard in design. If I look back over my very early work, it’s not nearly so technically accomplished as my recent stuff (not that that’s technically amazing either), but it’s so much more creative. That’s what getting on for 10 years in commercial web design will do to your creativity, which is why I’m quitting.
And let me also say, these last two posts are obviously, deliberately polemic. Clearly I’m being a bit harsh. But there’s no point speaking softly if you’re making a call to action.
*Note: When I say “techie”, I don’t mean it in a derogatory way at all. It’s just an easy identifier. Most people would call me a techie myself.
Related posts:
- Web 4.0 Manifesto [If you like this post, you might also want to...
- Rich media? I asked a question on LinkedIn* a couple of weeks...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }