Minimalist Web Design

[Tom]

What do you think of the website of the newly appointed architects for the University of Greenwich School of Architecture and Construction, to be built in Stockwell Street Greenwich?
http://www.hparc.com/
Separate comments on the Commodity, Firmness Delight welcome.

[David]

Oh, I'm itching to have a go but I'll let the other's have their say first.

[Tom]

OK, let's remember Mies van der Rohe's famous dictum: "Less is more and ......"

[kae101]

I actually love minimalist websites, they do exactly what they need to do efficiently and without fuss, but I must say, this particular site hasn't executed it very well.

To begin with, my particular browser required me to scroll down to find the navigation keys, thus I spend the first two minutes pressing 'heneghan.peng.architects' wondering why nothing happened. If they had had a bit more 'flow' on the homepage I may have realised that there was more at the bottom!

Typographically I actually rather like it. The use of no capitals is something I have seen used a lot for sites aiming to portray modern design (perhaps as a nod to html markup?) and it helps give the whole site a 'swiss style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Typographic_Style)', including the use of photographs over illustration.

However the photos are clumsily used. Some are amateur shots, some more professional and some design mock ups, losing a feel of consistency within the site that such a bold approach requires to show real confidence in the look it is trying to achieve.

Its also rather annoying that when you click on the side bar to view a project, only tiny pictures appear towards the top which you then have to scroll over to see them enlarged. I again clicked a link without noticing the little pictures appear so thought the large expanse of white space meant the link was broken.

I like what this site has tried to do. Its being bold by being so very white and spacious, which I find rather calming. But I feel it may have done this at the cost of usability and its lack of perfect aesthetic execution leaves this site wanting.

Kerri-Anne

[Tom]

Excellent commentary! On Minimilism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

[philipjcowan]

I find the site somewhat alienating. If I were commissioning an architect for a project, I would not ask this company for the simple reason that the message from its site is: "We will do things our way, and ignore your wishes." I cannot think of a worse message for a commercial organisation to send out.

The problem is that the site is too radical. It usurps the viewer's expectations too much. Things are not where you expect them to be and, like Kerri-Ann (and me), we are left unsure what to do.

Simple is good, but too simple leads to as much complication and confusion as complexity.

The plain white lacks warmth and there is nothing human or welcoming about the home page. There is a nagging sense throughout the exploration of the site that something is being missed, as the site sends out the message "you are really quite stupid aren't you. We on the other hand are clever. You are sure to miss something because you are just dumb that way, but we are not going to lower ourselves to your meagre level, we shall just let you mess around and then go away when you get bored and frustrated."

Meeting the expectations of idiots like me is no doubt a frustration for designers, helping us is considered the epitome of good design, by at least some commentators.

In his book The Design of Everyday Things Donald Norman writes: "Well-designed objects are easy to interpret and understand. They contain visible clues to their operation. Poorly designed objects can be difficult and frustrating to use. They provide no clues – or sometimes false clues. They trap the user and thwart the normal process of interpretation and understanding. Alas, poor design predominates. The result is a world filled with frustration, with objects that cannot be understood, with devices that lead to error."

So, this site suffers two faults, both of which could be correctly quite easily. One, it is leaves the user unsure how to proceed and two, it has an emotional message of exclusion rather than inclusion; it is unfriendly like a waiter who insists that you order everything in perfect French.

A little guidance and a little warmth would lift this site from a bad one to a very good one indeed.

[Stewart]

My very first impression on landing on this site was "oh, there must be something wrong with my browser, I must be missing a plug-in", in fact I left and re-entered a number of times to see if anything else happened! So first impressions were not positive, from a user perspective I was perplexed and then began to feel annoyed.

I am not a commissioning architect or town planner so perhaps this companies user group would react differently but to me this site caused a very negative reaction - I quite simply don't like the design because its self-indulgent, and patronizing in the extreme.

Moving through the 4 themes of business, commodity, firmness and delight.

From a business perspective it is a waste of money and effort, I don't see what such a site would bring a business unless it simply doesn't care what people generally think.

Commodity, the functionality was confusing and the content and information architecture did not add clarity.

Firmness, I noted that the site seemed to be built using tables which seemed surprising given the scarcity of information. The lack of consideration for the general user is echoed in its approach to the visually impaired so at least this theme is consistent. The choice of technology also created a cascading fill down effect of the navigation as it loaded slowly which undermined the highbrow approach and looked amateurish.

Delight, I think I've delivered my view on this dimension already.

My recommendation for the designer of this site and the commissioner is get out more and also talk to some users, I think that they may be in for an 'Emperors new clothes' experience.

[Kris M]

I like minimalist websites but I think this might be going a bit far. And I'm not sure what browser you guys are using but the site didn't display correctly in mine. Doesn't really look good for an architecture company does it??

[Tom]

I have spent a lot of time working with architects and, in one or many respects, they tend to be mad. Perhaps this is so of all designers? One minute you think you are talking to one of the most level-headed, sensible, practical people you have ever met. Next minute, you think you are talking to a complete freak of nature.
With regard to the Heneghan and Peng website, I guess the message is 'we will stop at nothing to produce the cleanest and most elegant and economical design possible'. The website has nothing to do with getting work, which is very effectively done by winning competitions. It is all about image-building, I think - but I am a bit mad too.

[David]

The problem for me (there are many but the main one) is that if you are going to create a minimalist site, the detail is absolutely crucial. On the homepage, there is just one item - a string of text. You would expect this to be beautifully rendered but it is not, it's fuzzy:

107

This says to me that these people are more interested in ideas than in delivering a finely crafted product. The whole site is a triumph of concept over substance.

They care nothing for web design. Take a look at the code. Table-based layout with spacer gifs. The site was "designed" in Dreamweaver and presumably in WYSIWYG mode. The designer has considered only the visual aspect of the design and yet it is visually poor.

As a designed product, the site fails on so many levels (usability, accessibility, findability, aesthetics, semantics...) that I find it hard to comprehend why the site is there at all. It would be far better to have a single, well designed page with their contact details.

[Tom]

All fair points - and yet not quite taking account of the fact that websites, like other publications, can serve a range of purposes - which can be both conventional and unconventional. This website serves an unconventional purpose, which I interpret as a statement about one aspect of their design philosophy which, they feel, marks them out from other architectural practices. Wiki does not say much about what this might be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heneghan_Peng There is more about Heneghan and Peng here: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/103/open_15-heneghan-peng.html from which I pick out the following remark. They believe they won the competition which made their name from "The translucent stone façade, which changes from day to night."

[David]

If only their website would change! Poor design isn't unconventional, it's just poor design.

[Tom]

You can't say that a hacksaw is a badly designed tenon saw or that an ape is a badly designed human.

[David]

No, but I can say that this website is a badly designed website.

[Tom]

Since we have a forthcoming discussion of criticism I'll take this a little further by widening the discussion:
- are there any absolute criteria/standards for good web design, or is everything relative?
- what is the status of the web designers' intentions in the assessment of his/her web design?
- is web design purely a matter or personal opinion? (remembering that De gustibus non est disputandum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum

PS I recently came across the comment that http://www.msn.com/ have just moved to a more 'less is more' design, with more white and less clutter, but I can't say it would have struck me and I find the redirect to the uk site patronising. But see:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080101233434/http://www.msn.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/20020124054017/www.msn.com/
And maybe this is their best ever design, from 1996
http://web.archive.org/web/19961022175327/http://msn.com/

[TMORSHED]

It is wierd. I don't see anything when i click the hyperlink what Tom has provided. Am i the only one whi is having problem with this site?

[David]

are there any absolute criteria/standards for good web design, or is everything relative?

For certain aspects of web design there are certainly standards (web standards!). Web sites can be tested against criteria for coding and accessibility. There are also other "agreed" criteria that we should observe such as usability and semantics. However, many visual aspects of web design (other than those that influence usability) are more subjective.

We could liken web design to automotive design where there are certain fundamental technical principles that must be adhered to (a car must be physically sound). There are certain accepted principles that should be adhered to (e.g. indicator lights should be orange). There are cosmetic issues that are subjective (the shape of the bumpers, the colour of the paint).

In all but the superficial cosmetics of design, there are firm underlying principles that are either fundamental or agreed/traditional.

[Tom]

Automotive design is a very interesting and very useful analogy. So I will use it to make my point! One cannot judge a Formula One car by the usability or visual criteria which apply to family cars, and perhaps the Heneghan and Peng website is equally specialized. For a Formula One car, reliability is central but other aspects of road-worthiness (eg fog lights and indicators) are irrelevant.

On minimalist web design, see this collection of sites: http://minimalexhibit.com/ Personally, I would describe them as simple and plain but not minimalist, with the possible exception of http://traviskochel.com/

The graphic designers have a better appreciation of minimalism http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=graphic%20design%20minimalism&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

On minimalism as an art movement see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

[David]

One cannot judge a Formula One car by the usability or visual criteria which apply to family cars...

No, but in both cases there are strict rules governing how the cars are designed and built. Different rules, but rules non the less.

If we consider Architects websites to be a sub-set of websites, as F1 cars are a sub-set of all cars, then we might by research discover the non-agreed criteria upon which their design is based. There is no specific set of rules for Architects websites but I would argue that there is less of a distinction between those and other websites than there is between F1 and production cars. Further, F1 cars are not designed to be driven by the average person, they are driven by experts. Should an architect's website be designed only for experts?

[Tom]

Yes. But there are architects and architects. Some do bread and butter work on house conversions. Others, like Heneghan and Peng, specialize in winning design competitions. For the very purest example of minimalism in website design have a look at the Herzog & de Meuron website. Since they designed the Tate Modern, they obviously have a deep understanding of Minimalism and they have won many other competitions.

[philipjcowan]

Surely the central issue at stake here is that design should fulfill function. Most of us hate the website. Is this its function? Maybe. Perhaps it is to say, 'we are superior to you because we design websites which confuse feeble, unimportant people like you'.

I cannot deny that this is an attractive trait to some. I am not surprised that they designed The Tate. The place reeks of that attitude.

In that sense, the website is successful, but don't expect me to approve as the underlying values are so at odds with my own.

As an aside, contemporary British art finally lost any shred of my appreciation at last year's RA Summer Exhibition This did it for me when I visited the show (http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=raid-on-obscene-eminart&method=full&objectid=20599967&siteid=93463-name_page.html), having somehow missed the pre-publicity.

The link being, of course, that the purpose of the art is simply to outrage general sensibilities which entrenches the notion of the superior artist being above the the little people. It is disgusting notion and this website professes it without words.

In short, not only do I dislike this website, I morally disapprove of it.

[Tom]

Sorry if I caused confusion: Herzog and de Meuron designed the Tate Modern. Heneghan and Peng are designing a new School of Architecture for the University of Greenwich. Both firms excel in minimalist web design.

Sorry, also, if I am beginning to seem like a barrister presenting an argument he does not 'necessarily' believe in. But the 'purpose of art' is not to 'simply to outrage general sensibilities'. Nor is it to produce 'beauty'. At its most general, I would say that the 'purpose' of art is to reveal the nature of the world, through words, images, sounds etc. It therefore follows that if the world is outrageous, as in many respects it is, then art must be outrageous, as in many respects it is. Macbeth put it like this:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[philipjcowan]

Don't confuse Shakespeare's characters with Shakespeare. Harry Lime in The Third Man is a nihlist, like MacBeth, but that does not make the author of the novella and screenplay, Graham Greene, a nihlist. Indeed, he was a Catholic.

To talk about the purpose of art is like talking about the purpose of the combustion engine. What it is 'for' is very much in our hands, regardless of what the creator originally intended.

Similarly, the World Wide Web cannot be restricted by what its creator wanted of it. It is what it is, a thing of beauty or Frankenstein's monster.

Ambiguity, disorentation and lack of warmth are choices made by the web designers for this site. My accusation is that the designers have chosen to appear cool and exclusive. I simply find this objectionable. I may be wrong, maybe they are just poor designers.

[Tom]

Graham Greene was only a 'sort of' Catholic and claimed to have forgotten why he converted (I think his wife talked him into it).
'Cool and exclusive' is an excellent description of the HP website - but could not this phrase also apply to the famous Sony style and now to the Apple style? I guess you meant 'exclusive' with a negative connotation but it is often used with a positive connotation and, in this sense, I think you have hit the nail right bang on the head regarding HP's ambitions. Ditto re their UoG clients: they want a building that is as exclusive as a luxury hotel and proclaims to the world: we are a high quality outfit AND we welcome everyone to apply: many are called and few are chosen etc etc. 'The Laban Centre ain't got nowt on us' - even though it was designed by the masters of minimalist web design.