Here are my thoughts on this subject. Often times during my design process I am faced with the problem of the client focusing too much on the “look” of the design rather than the way in which the content is presented or furthermore, functions.

Let’s take a typical process example. I present a client with a rough comp of the site, a visual comp in jpeg form let’s say. The client is pleased and signs off on the comp so I proceed to development. (shortened version of the process).

Now we fall upon a review of the site. The client while at home views the working draft in the latest version of Firefox, things look wonderful to them. However they then decide to grab a quick look later that day, this time viewing it on IE 6 at the office. Interestingly the button on the check out page seems to have shifted 2px to the right when compared to FF and certainly does match the design visual first presented. Oddly this is now of primary concern and we will spend the better part of the day fixing it.

Ok more than likely an easy fix, but here is the point. While that might be an annoyance to them, most of their end-users will never know the difference. What the client should be focusing on are things like how inviting is the button based on placement, color etc. How much sense does it make and will it lead the end-user to click or can it be done better. Secondly they should be focusing on what happens when the button is clicked. Is the next step logical or is it confusing. Can step 1 and step 2 be combined to make this process easier and thus more inviting.

In my opinion these are the types of problems that design should be concerned with solving, but unfortunately we are now concentrating on that pixel instead.

How does the original visual comp influence this behavior? By presenting the client with the visual representation of the site we are encouraging them to focus on the look of the site from the get go.

Unfortunately this is not the way the web works, it is a living working machine that will be viewed by hundreds of different users of varying technical skill and understanding, on hundreds of combinations of software and hardware making it near impossible to truly accommodate the same visual experience in each. Thus the focus should be on the interactive experience.

That is not to say that the “look” of the site is not important to certain degree. The aesthetics should play a role in the overall design itself, but they should just make sense. They should work cohesively with the architecture of the site to lead the end user to complete the process with little thought.

Take for instance a well designed home. You may see it and say Wow look at all of those beautiful windows! or Wow, so modern looking, I love it. But if you where to dissect it further you might gain a better understanding of why the architect choose to design the house with so many windows on this particular side of the building. Possible energy reasons, lighting etc. Things that will lead to the way the home is used and interacted with. These intricacies or more technical aspects of the design are what will come to matter in the daily life of the home owner after the initial awe has sunk in. The home owner is the end user in this case.

How do we go about alleviating this problem. It’s certainly going to depend on several factors both on a per business case and per project case. Things like current work process, type of business, type of client and even project budget are going to play key factors in how you approach it.

Overall I think there needs to be a stronger communication of how things work rather than how they look leading the client to focus more on the important aspects of the site.

The concept of skipping Photoshop and going straight to development has certainly been discussed.

Or perhaps you explore a way in which you continue to present the client with design visuals in more of a diagram format explaining the interaction more deeply.

Perhaps a meshing of wireframe with visual comp that truly explains interaction on the site. What happens when you click here.

I think there are a lot of possible approaches to solving these issues and it is going to have to start with allowing yourself to break free of some of your current thoughts and processes. It is also going to rely heavily on the education of clients. Preaching the importance of on site interaction and end user intuition and how they relate to achieving the true goals of the design project.

Stay tuned, there is a follow on article in the works.

Sure it might seem crazy to openly draw attention to the fact that I believe I produced less than acceptable work with this redesign, but I am open to admitting my mistakes.

First things first. I am a firm believer in re-align rather than redesign. I threw that out the window on this one. The following is a critique of the most recent redesign of Papertree Design, while I don’t believe it is a total failure I do feel that it is less than successful in execution.

Overall cause for this unrest. I believe there is one major reason behind why I view this most recent redesign as less than successful. In an attempt to stick with my usual minimal style I simply went overboard, in this case minimal without proper execution. It was rushed. I failed to to give thought to the future of Papertree Design and myself as a freelancer/business owner.

In this case I was designing with a certain style as the driving force, rather than a problem/solution as the driving force.

The cause led to the following reasons for my critique. While the idea was thought out the execution was rushed. I felt it was time for a change, busy with client work I decided that this change was going to have to be executed quickly. Bottom line not enough planning behind the execution and too rushed to get it done and launched. Ideally I should have held on to what I had and went ahead with proper planning, even if an already busy schedule meant pushing this project further into the future.

Where I made mistakes.

What we do is clear and prevalent. What I would like the end user to focus on and where I would like to point I believe is also clear and prevalent. The navigation is well put.

But… the site lacks life and personality, there is no feeling behind the message,. While the work being presented and the client list or even the writing contained within may give the client reason to consider working with us, the presentation of the whole package lacks the personality that is going to help us to win over the competition. While minimal can speak volumes if executed correctly, in this case it does not, it becomes unimpressive.

Branding. It lacks proper branding and message.

Focus. While I proceeded to draw attention to many of the areas I have been working to maneuver in to the brand I lost focus of some of what I believe to be key elements in a clients decision to work with Papertree.

Ok I will stop there before I get overly critical. These I believe are the major reasons for my feelings of displeasure towards the current design. It is not total failure and overall it is after all still performing, however it is not performing as I envisioned.

Needless to say the phrase “back to the drawing board” applies here and things are already underway. The plan is to re-align based on the previous version of the site returning things to normal. Perhaps no one will notice, like we were out to lunch.