tallon — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:23:42 +0000

Come to think of it, you're right. I've never heard "visual" designer in terms of web design until this thread. Perhaps a better term could be used...

Megan — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:11:23 +0000

Actually, I don't think this is a really common term (????) so that wouldn't really matter. I don't know - have you ever heard "visual designer" used in place of "web designer"??? The latter would be the more common term AFAIK. "Visual designer" also doesn't specify the media.

tallon — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:06:41 +0000

But if there is no such thing as a purely "visual" designer, than wouldn't it not matter? If "visual designer" is the only term used to describe the only kind of visual designer (which includes much more than just visual aspects of design) then wouldn't it be more of an issue to get the true definition out there rather than create a new one that not enough people will accept anyway?

Megan — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:25:53 +0000

Arguing with myself now - so, if visual design is art, then is there really such thing as a visual designer? Because true design is never just about visuals, there can be no such thing as a purely "visual" designer. A "visual designer" would more accurately be desribed as an artist.

Megan — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:20:53 +0000

JeevesBond wrote: But then you said:
Now I thought (note past tense there) that you were taking issue with the article and that Molly Holzschlag is wrong to label people in this manner. Am now thinking that perhaps you mean designers should be thinking more about accessibility, useability, and the overall "experience." Fair enough, I would absolutely agree with that.

Well, yeah, I was taking issue with use of the word "visual" to describe designers in that context. Because it doesn't take into account all of the other things that a designer considers. She mentioned Zeldman as an example of the SAVD - great example of a designer who concentrates a lot on usability and accessibliity to the point where he doesn't really talk that much about the visuals, it's more about the functionality.

Oh, and I don't think she meant to "label people in this manner". Probably just used the word for lack of a better option and didn't think too deeply about the implications.

Edit: direct quote from Molly's original post > " These people are designing with standards in mind - creating beautiful sites for the screen, working toward achieving accessible sites, examining usability and human factors, and very possibly beginning or already designing for alternative devices and media types."

Visual just isn't the right word to describe this and she did clarify in the body of the text. So really, I'm raising a fuss about one little word. Maybe others are thinking about visual in the same way you are - as encompassng all of these other things that would fall outside of the strict definition that I'm thinking about.

Megan — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:14:27 +0000

No, no, not at all. You're putting words in my mouth again - I never said that it wasn't important for things to be visually attractive - just that it's not the only focus of a designer and therefore "visual" is an overly simplistic term for design. In most cases it is assumed that the designer's job is to "make it look good" and that's it. That part is assumed, and of course it is a valid and important part of the job. It just often recieves too much emphasis while other aspects of the job are given second rate consideration or no consideration at all.

Just last week I was reading a discussion on a graphic design blog complaining about how clients don't understand why designers insist on using small font sizes. These are the graphic designers who only care about what their type looks like - they don't even care if people can actually read it or not. Fashion is really bad for this too - you see all kinds of supposedly great looking clothes on models or even in stores that would never work on a normal human body.

In your case of the billboard design the designer IS considering usability, readability etc. etc. - what the user is thinking and doing when they see the ad. This is what design is really about and it's not purely visual. The same would apply to a fashion designer who uses normally sized fit models, or an interior designer who considers the lifestyle and usability needs of the client.

I'm trying to think of a form of design that would be purely visual. There's a line here between design and art. If it is purely visual, wouldn't it qualify as art rather than design?

JeevesBond — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:05:25 +0000

Megan wrote: That's the classic OSVD mindset where the appearance is the only thing that matters.

But then you said:

Megan wrote: Actually, I take issue with the V in SAVD.

Now I thought (note past tense there) that you were taking issue with the article and that Molly Holzschlag is wrong to label people in this manner. Am now thinking that perhaps you mean designers should be thinking more about accessibility, useability, and the overall "experience." Fair enough, I would absolutely agree with that.

But I also think that you're not giving designers of other media enough credit in the work they do. A print designer making a poster should think about the mindset of the person looking at the poster, the sorts of locations it'll be in, the size of the thing and how readily it needs to draw attention. A billboard is designed to be instantly readable, whilst the cover of a book holds much information. This is due to the designer taking into account what the user is thinking and doing, not only what they are seeing.

So, after all that waffle, comes the next question: Is the designer above only doing things that are visual and is any type of design purely visual?

Megan — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:14:23 +0000

When I visit a website, I look at it with my eyes, true. I see all the page elements, I see the text. But when I'm reading, I'm not just reading with my eyes. I'm processing information with my brain, which makes visual too simplistic a term. I'm also moving my mouse around, clicking, typing etc. with my hands. So, yes, you are designing only what the user sees but you have to take into account what they are thinking and what they are doing. The word "visual" isn't comprehensive enough. That's what I'm taking issue with - it doesn't cover the broad range of things that designers have to consider.

And yet, I think some people do think of it this way. That's the classic OSVD mindset where the appearance is the only thing that matters.

JeevesBond — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:01:02 +0000

Megan wrote: You're not just looking at it, you're interacting with it, experiencing it, reading, understanding, thinking, making decisions, doing something.

But what part of the "user experience" in the current format of the web is not visual? I need an example to understand your point as, unless the user has a disability, there is nothing other than visual feedback on the web. You might wish to mention sound, but I know your opinion is the same as mine - waste of bandwidth.

Matt I don't think you fall into the CCWD category as you're willing to learn - I'm presuming this category is for people who believe they know more than they actually do.

Busy — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:34:05 +0000

I don't really fit any of those so I'll make my own one up
I'm a LSNEDWP - Learn something new every day web pupil

If I could wish for my life to be perfect, it would be tempting but I would have to decline, for life would no longer teach me anything.
---Allyson Jones

Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.
---Sir Winston Churchill

The web is my master, therefore i am it's pupil
--- me