The very talented Florent paid my website a very nice compliment, calling it an example of ‘content first’ design.
Recently I also discussed how people use the word minimalist to describe my Scherzo theme. For me, ‘content first’ is a far more useful term, although it does beg the question who wouldn’t put their content first? (I suspect the answer is actually lots of people.)
But… content is often seen as something that’s simply placed into design. The term content encourages this way of thinking; while designing outwards makes more sense than designing the content bucket first, not knowing what this content consists of, what it’s for and who’s reading it makes design more difficult.
In an ideal world the audience will determine what content we design, the prominence of certain elements and our type’s size and weight. We might also consider our tone and select a supportive typeface (or even something ironic), which, in turn, will have an effect on colour, measure, line height etc.
Thinking about what we produce rather than an abstract notion of content should inform a more succesful design.
For that reason I like Julien’s idea of meaning first as it makes us think about real articles, pictures, video etc. rather than a blank commodity. I think I’ll appropriate the term, even if Julien doesn’t agree with my interpretation :-)
> In an ideal world the audience will determine what content we design, the prominence of certain elements and our’s type size and weight. (…)
Going further: in an truly ideal world, it seems to me that only the meaning should determine our act of design. I will quote two young, french and talented graphic designers (not web ones), Formes Vives;
They are the advocates of an activist graphic design, and their works are generally related to cultural or social projects. This quote is just a way of enlightning another way of thinking (in my everyday job, the audience is something I think about precisely, all along the design process).
There are numerous definitions of graphic and web design, and every graphic / web designer can have its own one (or even several ones). To me, the both fields should share the same DNA. Too often, webdesigners – like me – are stuck by the (both perceived and real) complexity of their media, by its technical endeavours and limits. Responsive layouts, @font-face, accessibility, standard HTML/CSS (to quickly cite a few of what ~ fills our minds) should not be an excuse for forgetting our designer’s responsabilities. We’ve got to make sense. We’ve got to manipulate forms, types, pictures and colours in order to make sense.
To end this comment, way too long, a recent tweet from @eyemagazine quoting its own DA : . In other words, agreeing to what you said, the meaning of what is said should determine how it is said.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Julien.
For me, there’s always an audience when there’s design. How can you design anything without a defined audience?
I (think) I understand the political(?) point Formes Vives are making about how audiences can make designers dehumanise (by categorisation) the people using the thing. But that’s a political challenge for designers rather than an argument against audiences per se. Designers need to design for marginalised audiences (on the web that may be the partially sighted, blind, people without access to the latest technology, or for certain cultures — marginalised doesn’t necessarily mean minority).
As you say, in our day-to-day jobs we think about pretty tightly defined audiences all the time, and get bogged down in the technicalities.
Anyway, I admit I’m not sure I’ve understood you fully. Thanks for the comment.
Rhaa… My appalling use of the English language.
I may write about these questions someday, trying to be more comprehensible and exhaustive. I’ll tell you.
Your English is very good — you’re talking about some pretty complex things.
Yes, ping me if you post anything on this :-)
Thanks,
Leon