Another great post. Web design doesn’t have to be pretty if it works for users. Also, I’d argue that page flow is a critical component of web design as well.

Note I’m not discounting graphic design – it’s a crucial part of the user experience but it’s distinct from web design

I didn’t disagree with everything you wrote. Most of it I agree with — Yes, the functionality, usability, interaction design, technology, business model, etc, have way more to do with the success of a web site, and have more diverse and fundamental design challenges, than the graphic design part of a site’s overall experience.

I just don’t think that you were giving Armin’s fundamental argument any respect. Clearly you are a “form follows function” kinda guy. Moreover, you are a strategic thinker whose professional purview includes many issues of design, graphic being one of them. I’m sure you do, as you say, have respect for graphic design, but maybe not enough to let graphic designers talk about design without reminding them that their work is just a minor, incidental piece of the overall web design picture.

I’m sure Steve Jobs doesn’t lose sleep about his company’s logo, but every few years he does think very hard about it. And he makes damn sure every day that his company’s graphic design discipline is excellent across the board. He may say that design is how something works, but he also makes sure that crummy graphic designers don’t get to work at Apple.

Like Jobs and Apple, some of us want it all — good form, good function.

Maybe we simply need to ask people who specialize in graphic design on the web to use the term “graphic design on the web” instead of “web design” — in the same way that “interaction designers” don’t claim exclusive ownership of the term “web design”. Then the term “web design” can truly have the broad, holistic definition Joshua is using.

I thought also it might be a good point to remind everyone that for the vast, vast majority of people, “design” means “interior design” or “fashion design”. So it’s all kind of quibbling over terminology, really.

Form follows function and function follows form both have their places in most fields, including web design. Truly great websites maintain a balance, and that is what I think website design should be judged on.

When “design” is applied to a broad catagory, such as websites, cars, even interiors, you can’t ignore form or function when judging it. Who cares if your living room looks amazing if you can’t walk through it? or if your car is the coolest thing on the block, but is so uncomfortable you don’t drive it? or your website looks so incredible that everyone wants to see it, but half the links give you 404 errors? Would any of those be good “design” in the general sense?

Not in my opinion.

I have argued a similar point to Armin’s at the 2006 EuroIA summit (http://www.viddler.com/explore/avanderkrogt/videos/1/), provoking some strong reactions as well.
My point is (also) that in comparing functionally equal sites, the prettier one is better. Just like Apple’s white iPod earbuds are more appealing (and therefore better selling) than the competitions black. I really think there is room for ‘non-functional’ elements in a design without hampering the usability. In this respect, I would hope to see more inclusion of (new media) art in general websites.
In addition, I think websites(-designers) should be more ambitious and at least aim for creating a landmark/webmark. This doesn’t mean sticking to a certain design, but actually preparing for evolution from the start. I think organizations would make a far greater and lasting impression if their online presence would develop over the years following a predetermined style/concept (which could be the canonical web design we’re looking for) instead of overhauling their websites every 2-3 years, without honoring their online past.

“I’m sure you do, as you say, have respect for graphic design, but maybe not enough to let graphic designers talk about design without reminding them that their work is just a minor, incidental piece of the overall web design picture.”

Christoperh, I’m sorry if it appeared that I didn’t want graphic designers to talk about design on the web. That wasn’t my intention.

I was trying to answer Armin’s question of what *web designers* think is canonical. Part of how I did that was to refute his criteria for judgment…and that, I think, is what the argument should be about: the criteria by which we judge design on the web. I argue that it’s necessarily different than the criteria by which graphic designers judge their medium.

I argue that it’s necessarily different than the criteria by which graphic designers judge their medium.

Graphic designer do have a slightly better knowledge base to judge designs (alignment, design in general, etcetera). The adaptation from print to web is not that difficult to come accross.

For example, product designers I believe have the best knowledge base. They have to make it look good but has to be a usable product as well.

I think this page gives lie to the original argument.
http://www.lab404.com/dan/
the problem is the web OVERWRITES its art. rarely is anything kept. we forget too quickly, but if you visit the site, which was originally intended to inspire, you’ll see clearly that there have been a number of canonical designs that not only stand out, but have inspired many many imitators.

Good point, Christina. That’s definitely part of the problem. (even Amazon’s tabs are gone…!)