At twenty years old, the World Wide Web isn’t exactly new any more, but it’s still at an early stage of what it will develop into. Yet, amazingly, we already have people complaining that ‘it wasn’t like this in my day’.
Specifically, there’s John Naughton, who argues in today’s Observer that Graphic designers are ruining the Web. His argument is that due to designers obsessing over the look of websites, the core content is sacrificed at the hands of bloated webpages that are far larger downloads than they should be. He notes that from 2003 to 2011, the size of the average Web page grew from 93.7kB to over 679kB.
To support his argument, Naughton gives the example of one Googler who maintains an incredibly old-school website.
“I value content more highly than aesthetics. The websites and pages that I like tend to be as underdesigned as they are cognitively loaded. Take for example, the home page of Peter Norvig, who is Google’s director of research. In design terms it would make any graphic designer reach for the sickbag. And yet it’s highly functional, loads in a flash and contains tons of wonderful stuff.”
Admittedly, Naughton confesses that Norvig’s site is as ugly as it is useful, but let’s just see how ugly, in case you didn’t click through to that link…
If you’re under the age of about 25, you probably don’t remember when the Web looked this bad, but in about 1994, all sites resembled this. It was fine at the time, but we moved on, and we learned that Tim Berners-Lee’s creation could be about far more than just text and hyperlinks.
Design isn’t just about bells and whistles
As the Open University’s Professor of the Public Understanding of Technology, and with two books about the Internet under his belt, John Naughton should know better than to argue that graphic design on websites is just about aesthetics – the Web isn’t the “Library of Alexandria on steroids” he suggests it is, it’s grown into a multimedia canvas for human expression.
Through video content, audio clips, tastefully implemented HTML5, heck – even with the much-maligned Flash, we can create Web pages that do far more than offer written content – they can stir our emotions in ways that simply weren’t possible a few years ago. Graphic design is a valid and important part of the overall content.
Think of the Google/Arcade Fire Chrome experiment The Wilderness Downtown, for example – I hate to think how much bandwidth that hogs as it loads, but the sensation of a personalised music video is worth it. It’s not just about these extreme examples, either. Even ‘conventional’ sites’ benefit from attention to design. Here at The Next Web, we convey subtle messages about who we are and our attitude to the world through the way we look. That’s part-and-parcel of the content. Design is a language, and Naughton clearly doesn’t understand it.
That said, he does make one valid point – bloated websites affect accessibility of websites for people on slow connections. However, that’s just down to poor optimisation of web content. Overly large, slow-to-load websites have nothing at all to do with graphic design.
Yes, the Web isn’t what it used to be, and that’s a really good thing. Welcome to the Web Luddites Club, John – I hope there aren’t many more members.



















@livefyre : I guess the line "Graphic designers are evil" doesn't really relate to the current trend of 'User Experience' growing day by day. Only the golden rule of "Optimizing for Online usage" will resolve the issues, than sacrificing the enhancing graphics.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI can see both sides of the argument, but his foam-at-mouth "Graphic designers are evil" headline is unnecessary. The page Naughton mentions isn't just ugly, it's also close to unusable with too much happening at once. There's no flow and colour seems to be used arbitrarily. It doesn't necessarily need graphic design to sort it out, it needs some basic web design, and that won't necessarily make the page large.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI wouldn't call this site "ugly", it's just plain. There were tons of GeoCities sites back in the 1990s that were much much uglier than this, to the extent that it was a pain to just look at them, primarily due to their improper use of colors.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeWhen you have an insane amount of graphics - i.e. the personalized MySpace pages with glitter, digital equivalent of visual diarrhea then it's a nuisance. But without proper spacing, a variety of fonts, images, colors and all the wonderful compositions that we have today, the web would not be as enjoyable or utilitarian.
Graphics reduce the learning curve and functionality of websites and increase the retention of visitors to your site as well.
Just a couple of thoughts.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI think there is a balance to be had somewhere. There are many non-internet businesses who pay for a pretty web presence but never seem to ask themselves fundamental questions like: "Who might find my website & why? What information will they be looking for?". I've lost count of the number of times I've gone looking for basic information, like opening times, and failed to find it. People need to think about content. But they also need to think about design and image. Like many things the extremes - of which Naughton appears to be at one end and I'm sure we could find a suitable atrocious flash flagship for the other - are rarely where you want to be. But they do serve to remind us of the various facets that go into developing a pleasing website. One that is both pleasing to look at and pleasing to use.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThe role of a designer is to make sense out of chaos. Not to to throw glitter and shine everywhere. "Design is a language, and Naughton clearly doesn’t understand it."
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeIt's pretty awesome that I'll be able to tell my son "I'm older than the internet" and it will BLOW his mind!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeMartin, you talk about Bloated site.
TheNextWeb is one of the most bloated I've used. This page alone has over 180 Resources/Scripts needed to load it.
184 requests ❘ 452.79KB transferred ❘ 1.2min (onload: 7.03s, DOMContentLoaded: 2.59s)
Lots of optimizaton that could be done
http://i51.tinypic.com/21azlzr.png
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likethespoilergirl Yes, optimising the site is something we're always working on. We've brought load speeds down significantly of late but will always look to find more ways of boosting performance.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likethespoilergirl "This page alone has over 180 Resources/Scripts needed to load it."
And this caused you to suffer how? So many more important things to worry about than that level of optimization. At this point it's in the realm of ideology and muscle flexing rather than pragmatism.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like