» Web 2.0 Can’t the Term Just Die Already? :: Positive Space

Every day as I peruse the Internet looking for the latest design related information and I STILL run across posts talking about web 2.0 Logo’s and page designs. Lets all make a collective web pact that we will not longer subject ourselves or our readers to the pain of this completely misguided term. Elliot Jay Stocks, (http://www.elliotjaystocks.com) has a great set of slides on his page describing how web 2.0 is not a design aesthetic, but actually a type of interaction between websites and users.

I know that by writing this article I am perpetuating the problem, however I think that I am doing to for the right reasons. I have devised a set of rules that will help us achieve the goal of eliminating “web 2.0” from our speech entirely.

Never ever ever ever ever say “web 2.0” in a meeting or in front of a client.
Do not post about “web 2.0” articles or designs (Extra emphasis for sarcasm only) anymore.
Educate your clients, let them know that “web 2.0” is not what they are really looking for.
Destroy the “web 2.0” look, read Elliot’s Presentation from the Future of Web Design Seminar
Stop reflecting logos its lame, yes no exceptions…
Most import of all, be a designer. Don’t settle for some overused set of trends that do not meet the communication needs of 95% of clients. Instead, read the brief, develop a concept, and DESIGN something.

Those of us who are real designers and not just mac monkeys pushing around pixels in photoshop should have no problem doing this. We hold a responsibility to get past this term and its perceived “concept” in order to prevent the web becoming a death trap of shiny buttons and 45 degree angle lines. Don’t get me wrong, each of the items typically thought of as the Web 2.0 style have their own place and can be used effectively, however using ONLY these items is the problem.

12/23

ADD A COMMENT

6 Comments

Amazing Websites the Sixth Installment

Share This Page: Stumble It! // Del.icio.us // Float It! // Digg It! // Reddit

6 Responses to “Web 2.0 Can’t the Term Just Die Already?”

Cory Perry
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am

Interesting read, and I agree with most all you have said. I think the Web 2.0 moniker needs to die. I think that you will soon see web 2.0 companies slowly dissolve as the trend dies off. Most of the web 2.0 apps out there are not a sustainable business model anyway, and will not last in the long term scheme of things.

I also agree that we, as designers, need to continue to push the envelope and quit copying what everyone is doing. I agree that the shiny buttons and reflected logos need to go. It is time to push the designs forward and break out of that style, and it will happen in due time.
Oliver
December 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Great article, thank you!
Brian G
December 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I agree with points 4, 5, and 6, but I can’t agree with 1, 2, and 3.

Like it or not, but Web 2.0 has become a term. Everyone wants the aesthetic of the Digg type sites. Clients like rounded corners, bold font choices, and clean white design. This is a GOOD thing and as designers we should be pleased that our clients are FINALLY seeing things our way, it just took a trend for them to know that it was important.

Web 2.0 can be good or evil, it’s up to us to define it. I choose to think of it as good, it allows people to communicate on a level playing field.
Zinni
December 27th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Thank you everyone for the comments.

I know that what I have listed here is pretty drastic, but by making small changes now, and straying away from all the buzz words, I think we can use the positive aspects of the web 2.0 movement such as the increased sense of design that Brian G talks about to steer our clients in the right direction.

While I have suggested some rather harsh items, I think that if we all start by trying at least one then it will benefit us all. At some point this new found interest in clean design will die and while maybe not as drastic as the dot-com boom a similar trend will follow. How many clone myspace/facebook sites have you seen pop up only to be under supported, poorly user tested, but with a “glossy veneer” of a design. These sites pop up every day and die the next.

Dealing with clients and giving them what they need while not giving them what they want will always be tough, but its a necessary part of the job to be a great designer.

Once again, thank you everyone for the comments I am glad to see that I have inspired some though on the subject.
rob
December 30th, 2007 at 8:14 am

Web 2.0 ‘design’ is about 5% of the whole web 2.0 sphere but still is very real.

Web 2.0 ‘design’ created a standard lowest common denominator that non ‘graphic design’ web designers can aim for. I know a lots of web designers whos web pages have been improved because of the introduction of that term. And that was the point of introducing it in the first place. To collect up visual design elements that have worked over the past 10 years and say “this is web 2.0… this is what were moving forward with”.

Web design isnt graphic design. Were moving towards standards for everything on the web medium so that the website becomes pervasive and ‘content is king’.

although you call yourself a “great designer” above… heres some tips from a web designer to a graphic designer
- I cant read your logo
- Dont render navigation as images. Bad for google and download speed
- Dont render paragraph headers as images
- Google adds are distracting

And from a graphic designer to a graphic designer
- lose the background
- lose the header image
- thers a big block of negative space in center of header image
- spacing between nav elements is uneven

Sorry to be harsh. I just dont see the point of the article.
Zinni
December 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

To Rob:

I just wanted to thank you for your opinion, however I feel that I can clear up a couple of things for you, and also shed some light on my design choices.

First I would just like to state that I do not call myself a great designer, and in fact I still consider myself a student of design. There are numerous great such as Paula Scher, Milton Glaser, Rick Valicenti, and many other that I have not listed that could be considered great, however not me. I suggest that we should be “real” designers and actually meet a clients need, instead of sticking to a group of aesthetic choices.

As far as your concerns regarding my logo, navigation, and paragraph headers & google ads. First we need to realize that I am creating this blog as a reference for designers, and web developers. This is why I am able to make choices that I would not make on a typical commercial project. Also, My logo is purposely “hard to read”, and thanks to you I think I may create a write-up suggesting the design choices leading to the logo. This is due to the fact that I am using a custom font that removes the counters from the letter form. This is done to highlight the “positive space” of the letters.

Secondly the navigation is not a set of images rather the css sliding doors technique which is completely SEO friendly due to the fact the text is still there just not visible. Same goes for my headers which are actually not images but rather text that is replaced by flash and javascript. If you turn off either flash or javascript in your browser you will see the original text. Finally google ads may be distracting, however I have done them in a way that I feel is both non-obtrusive, and beneficial to myself. If this site was a cheap ploy to earn adsense money then I would agree, however I am taking the time to create articles that I feel are well thought through and deserving of whatever minor (and it is) compensation I receive.

I thank you for your comments, but since they read as more of a flame than constructive criticism you will understand if I do not make changes to my design. I do agree that the spacing between the navigation elements are uneven, however that is because they align to the grid. Everything else you suggest would remove the character and artistic direction that I have created if I would choose to follow them.