Then came the comments. Nothing really wrong with any of them, but the whole “layout is not the only thing that should concern you; performance/context/content/blah is also (maybe even more important)” thing is getting very tired. Why? Because nobody is saying those things aren’t important.

Here’s a fact: If the homepage of site [x] is 100kB, then it’s 100kB. If I make that page look decent on several devices via adaptive layout—unless I go overboard—it is still going to be 100kB. Okay, maybe 101kB. It’s either zoom hell or not. So people can complain about that, but unless they’re willing to add to the client’s budget, the extra layout flexibility is (often, not always) a relatively quick readability and usability win. Device-agnosticism should be baked into the design approach anyway. There’s absolutely no harm in it.

So no, do not ignore content strategy and performance. And if you do content strategy, then you’d do well to be thinking about design. Device-agnostic design applies here as well.

Don’t feel bad about doing adaptive layout just because these other things are also important. It’s okay. Really.

I love speaking. Except for a couple of hours beforehand, when I’m so nervous I feel like throwing up. The past few years I’ve done quite a bit of speaking at conferences and events for clients, and that initial nervousness is there every single time. Fortunately the feeling subsides after the first few minutes of the talk.

I tend to talk a lot, and speaking engagements are a way to channel that into something that might inspire someone, teach them something new, or start a discussion. At web design and development conferences, it’s no secret that the speakers learn from the audience in the same way the audience might learn from the speakers. It’s also no secret that the discussions outside of the sessions are at least as interesting and valuable as the sessions themselves.

I’m very excited to be speaking at two mobile-related events this first half of the year: Breaking Development in Dallas and Mobilism in Amsterdam.

Breaking Development will be my first conference talk outside of the Netherlands (and then in the US), which is somewhat ironic, considering that I’m an American expat. I’m absolutely thrilled to speak alongside some of the smartest and most inspiring people in web design and development today at both of these conferences. Just take a look at the lists of speakers:

• Breaking Development speakers
• Mobilism speakers

If you’re interested in designing and developing websites and web apps for mobile (or for anywhere), you might consider attending one of these conferences. Or both, if you really love conferences.

If you do attend, please come over and say hi. Just remember that there’s some risk in doing that right before my talk.

But that’s the thing: we’re talking about bookmarks, the loss of which will hardly leave you living out of a cardboard box. And what happens when bad things happen to Flickr? GMail? Evernote? That site you do all your finances on? Project management and invoicing? Time tracking?

You may back up all your data, which makes the downfall of any of these services less painful. Unless you just keep your original photos on your own computer, but all of your photo metadata was entered on Flickr and you have no backup of that. Poof! But we all know Flickr’s not going anywhere, right? Too many users. Actively developed. Very popular. Cough. It’s the same reason we can depend on YQL (which I still find absolutely brilliant BTW). Yahoo! will give us all at least six months notice if they decide to pull the plug on YQL, which gives us the time to change all of the client work we made utilizing it. And of course our clients will have six months to get a budget to hire us to make the necessary changes.

But what are we complaining about? It’s all free. Having to move our bookmarks is not really a huge problem, but we all seem appalled that large companies care about money. Since when is this an anomaly? Company sees something cool, hopes to make money, buys it, doesn’t make enough money, poof. Here’s a truth for you: most companies only care about your data insofar as this data can help them make money. They have this site and you fill it. You fill it.

A couple of years ago I was on the fence about this. No longer. For a while we’ve posted our data all over the internet on all types of services. These services provide APIs so we can access the data we put into them, so that we can do things with that data. Read that again.

Richard Stallman, in his usual come-out-swinging way, has commented on this before. And I believe he has a point. Our data is our own, and it’s up to us to look after it. But how?

What if we flipped this all on its head? What if we hosted our own data, and provided APIs for all these webapps so that they can use our data? I can imagine that to be a substantially cool use of RDFa/Microformats and whatever metadata/semantic web technologies you prefer. Isn’t one of the points of the semantic web to make decentralized information meaningful, retrievable and mixable?

So instead of having our own websites aggregate our own data from other people’s websites, we’ll let other people use the data from our own websites. Photos, meaningfully tagged, can be pulled in by Flickr via our own personal API, if you will. We provide the structured data, Flickr provides the functionality. The sharing. The social. Why not?

Personal publishing platforms like WordPress, Drupal, [your favorite here] could be extended to make use of microformatting, RDF, etc. and provide tools for syndication, as we now do with simple blogposts. Services don’t need to host our data. They only need to do cool things with it. So when I quit service X, or service Y falls the Way of GeoCities, I don’t need to do anything but cancel my account. Or leave it and forget about it. If I change my information, it’s automatically changed on all the services using it. Storage space is up to me. Privacy settings? Totally up to me.

Awesome, providing the host doesn’t go *poof*.

Let’s get to it.

[Disclaimer: As some services die, some of the above links will rot. Make of that what you will.]

[UPDATE: Please also read Jeremy Keith's related post from 2008.]

I’ve been increasingly biting in my reactions to many admittedly fun but practically useless “demos”, “experiments” and other assorted HTML5 and CSS3 nonsense like CSS3 icons. I always get flack for this, and I probably will now.

While these experiments are easily defended—“just wanted to see what was possible”—they are generally non-complex (though they can be tedious; take one look at a CSS3 icon or font). They are, put bluntly, simply a way to show off. And as long as that works, it will continue. But what are these experiments helping, aside from the reputations of those who make them(!)?

Please note that many of these experiments utilize a technique that I and many other art directors and designers have used for ages, which greatly enhances product appeal. It involves simply combining two things you wouldn’t ordinarily expect to be together: CSS and fonts. CSS and icons. HTML and games. Peanut butter and chocolate—Hershey/Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have used this to their advantage for years. And so forth. The first person to build real beer from Javascript will be speaking at conferences for years to come.

I could say more, but Chris Heilmann said it so well, there is no need:

Right now, we are happily thinking we innovate and push the envelope where in reality we are making each other go “Oooohhhh” while a large chunk of the audience that could benefit from our knowledge is stuck with really poor experiences on the web.

If you haven’t, please take a moment to read his article.

Since I spend about 80% of my computer time in Vim and Opera, and since Opera is my primary browser (and e-mail client), using this functionality instead of a separate app works well for me. I don’t notice any difference in speed compared to Notational Velocity; the way they work is similar, but I like Opera’s integration with the browser, Opera Link and e-mail.

For those not familiar with Notes, I tried my hand at making a screencast.

A quick intro to Opera Notes from Stephen Hay on Vimeo.

I didn’t think much about it until Vasilis van Gemert posted about it and Ian published some stats; at that point in time visitors clicked an average of 23 times per visit. 23 times is a lot of clicking, which means some conditioning and expectation are at work.

As pattern-seeking beings, we tend to follow our conditioning. A button must be there for a reason—let’s click it. It says “sit”, therefore the dog will probably sit, won’t it? 23 clicks on average indicates to me that the average user is not considering whether this is just an image or instead some type of interactive movie. 23 clicks indicates bell/salivate. Button/action-expectation.

Let’s say you have javascript disabled, for whatever reason. You fill out a form. You click the submit button, not knowing that in this case the developer has made a javascript-dependent button (this is common). You might say you have encountered a Defiant Dog: something which doesn’t do as it’s told, or doesn’t react according to expectations.

Ian’s fun experiment confirms two things which many of us know but are always worth repeating:

1. When users expect things to happen on our websites, it’s most likely that we have done something to trigger those expectations
2. Users will almost always think it’s their own fault (and may even click 23 times before deciding it’s not)

It’s been said that without expectation, there is no disappointment. While not a new idea, this take-away from the Defiant Dog is still timely, as you’ll notice anytime you see something you think should be clickable but isn’t. Or when a relationship is falsely implied between multiple UI elements.

Managing expectations is a design problem. It’s up to us as web designers to find the defiant dogs in our websites and applications, and get them to sit.

A portion of what we do as web designers involves arranging elements horizontally or vertically on the screen. As of yet, CSS lacks a suitable mechanism for this task. Enter CSS3 Flexible Box Module (“Flexbox” for short).

Flexbox is one of three W3C draft specs (as of this writing) dealing with general layout issues and has its strengths and weaknesses compared to the other two. But as it has already been implemented in Firefox (and I predict there is a good chance it will be implemented in Safari in some form), you might want to play around with it. Even if it doesn’t get implemented in anything other than Firefox, some of the principles regarding flexible available space have already been injected into the other modules. Plus, it’s pretty fun.

The draft describes Flexbox as:

[...] a CSS box model optimized for interface design. It provides an additional layout system alongside the ones already in CSS. [CSS21] In this new box model, the children of a box are laid out either horizontally or vertically, and unused space can be assigned to a particular child or distributed among the children by assignment of “flex” to the children that should expand. Nesting of these boxes (horizontal inside vertical, or vertical inside horizontal) can be used to build layouts in two dimensions. This model is based on the box model in the XUL user-interface language used for the user interface of many Mozilla-based applications (such as Firefox).

This is pretty clear. It implies two important things:

1. No more abusing floats, and no more getting abused by floats
2. We can create true flexible layouts, and the browser will do the calculations for us

Basically, Flexbox is a small part of XUL ported to CSS. Cool as it may be, I remain of the opinion that the power of Flexbox is in the layout of things like UI components (think forms and toolbars and such) rather than in general page layout. So let’s not get carried away and make Flexbox the new float. For general page layout, we need a true grid-based model; I’ll come back to that in the near future. For now, let’s dive in.

Flexbox gives us a new value for the display property (the box value), and eight new properties:

• box-orient
• box-flex
• box-align
• box-direction
• box-flex-group
• box-lines
• box-ordinal-group
• box-pack

Today, we’ll ease into this and just focus on box-orient and box-flex, and tackle the other properties in Part 2.

Let’s say we have three paragraphs, each of which introduces one of three product lines for a client website. Our designer has determined that these teaser paragraphs are to be placed adjacent to one another along a horizontal axis, essentially forming three columns.

<div id="products">
    <p id="phones">First child</p>
    <p id="computers">Second child</p>
    <p id="fast-cars">Third child</p>
</div>

How would you currently tackle this? Most, without thinking, would simply float these paragraphs, perhaps adding overflow:hidden; to the parent in order to clear the floats. Nothing very special. But we could also do it quite easily with Flexbox:

#products { 
    display: box;
    box-orient: horizontal;
    }

In the above code, we’re simply telling the parent to behave according to this (flex)box model, and to lay out all its children along the horizontal axis. No floats. Yay.

box-orient accepts four values, but two of them are important for all intents and purposes: horizontal and vertical. Self-explanatory.

The widths of the children remain as specified (or their inherent width if not specified). This means that if the total widths of all the children is less than the total width of the parent, we’ll get something like this:

But what if you wanted paragraphs one and two to have specific widths and paragraph three to adjust itself depending on the available space within the parent? Flexbox to the rescue:

#products { 
    display: box;
    box-orient: horizontal;
    }
    #fast-cars {
        box-flex: 1;
        }

Here, we’re telling the last child to become flexible, and to take up available space. Since we’ve only allocated space to one element, it will take up all of the available space:

Note that the element only becomes flexible along the orientation axis of the box; in this case the element becomes flexible horizontally.

The value for box-flex is relative. So if we were to make the second and third children flexible:

#products { 
    display: box;
    box-orient: horizontal;
    }
    #computers {
        box-flex: 1;
        }
    #fast-cars {
        box-flex: 1;
        }

These would each take up the same amount of available space, in fact dividing the available space equally between them.

Should we give the last child box-flex: 3;, then it would take three times as much available space as the second child.

Check out the demo (this will only work in Firefox) or download the demo source code (.zip-file, 1kB).

Without even considering the other six properties, there are lots of possibilities here. Although I am not in favor of using this module for page layout, it can be done, as you can see in the demo.

We’ll get back to the other properties at a later date. In the meantime, if you want to play around with this, why not? It will only work in Firefox work in Firefox and (newer) webkit browsers; just prefix the display value and properties with -moz- or -webkit- respectively:

• display: -moz-box;
• -moz-box-orient
• -moz-box-flex
• display: -webkit-box;
• -webkit-box-orient
• -webkit-box-flex

Please be advised: this is meant to be a surface-level introduction to a draft spec. At the time of this writing, most people won’t find this applicable to anything outside of experimentation. There is, however, value in learning about the content of somewhat lesser-known working drafts, if only to be able to compare one to another.

Enjoy!

A Gentle Introduction to CSS3 Flexible Box Module (Part 1) by Stephen Hay is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

On content

Content is important. After all, it’s content people who come up with job titles like Content Strategist, which pretty much means One Who Thinks About Content. Which content, for whom, when, where, why, how… It’s absolutely necessary, because clients don’t do it. Not at the level that it should be done.

Paul Rand, one of the most well-respected designers this world has seen, called design “a method of putting form and content together”. If you would agree with this statement (as I do), you can infer the role of the designer as the one who must successfully combine two components: form and content (the designer will first busy herself with the form component). These two are not mutually exclusive. They are separate components which share a common goal and should be developed on a parallel track to one another. This, however, does not mean that they should be reviewed by the client together at every stage.

On clients

Two quick facts about clients:

1. Many don’t know what they want, and when they do, they don’t know how to communicate it
2. Many lack the imagination to “see through” design sketches

These are the reasons we are hired in the first place. But these two facts have paved a dangerous path across the lawn of the creative process. An alarming number of web professionals today seem to advocate making preliminary deliverables mimic the finished product– the more accurate, the better.

This is, well, stupid.

It’s not stupid if don’t track your hours. It’s not stupid if you don’t care if or how much you are paid for your work. It isn’t stupid if you don’t mind doing twice as much work for nothing. Your clients will love you for it, and you’ll be doomed to continue doing it for the rest of your career.

On designing in the browser

When Andy Clarke first started talking about “designing in the browser”, I thought it was a great idea. Then people started misinterpreting this to mean “executing the creative process in the browser”. If Andy really designed in the browser, his designs would be shit. What he was of course referring to was the execution of a design idea in the browser as opposed to a tool like Photoshop, which doesn’t communicate Web Things the way a browser does. He strives for more realism in his deliverables. He’s simply working based on the two Client Truths listed above. And if you’ve ever done designs in Photoshop, you’ll know that applying client changes to those documents is akin to cutting off your own fingers one knuckle at at time. HTML is much easier.

That said, there is certainly a place for Photoshop sketches. It’s possible to put together a quick visual impression of a website in far less time than it would take to work out in HTML. I’m referring to the basic idea of a website, an impression of the design language, intended to gauge if we are on the write track before spending many more hours mocking things up in HTML, which is, in fact, templating. I am not referring to creating finished static design visuals. These are the bane of the web designer’s existence, and should be avoided at all costs. If you really understand your client’s needs, that means you’ve done your homework, and you’ve actually designed before the browser. Otherwise: baby steps.

On communication

Imagine that your job was to drive your client somewhere. They aren’t quite sure where they want to go, but a lot of sun would be nice. And perhaps water. You could drive them to California, but once they hear about Florida, they might prefer that and demand that you drive them there (at your cost, because you’re the one who chose to go ahead and drive to California).

A better way would be to communicate with the client, asking them if they prefer dry heat or humidity, surfing or Spring Break parties, earthquakes or hurricanes. Based on this information, you could show and tell about both places, help them weigh the pros and cons, and help them in their decision. Then drive. Only then.

Making websites is a process. Creativity is a process. Pacing and leading clients is a process. You’re not going to eliminate frustration by trying to come up with real content, a polished design and working browser functionality on the first go. You will lose money, though, and perhaps your sanity.

There’s a reason for storyboards. But wait, shouldn’t Pixar just go ahead and build and render the complete movie so that the studio execs can see how it will really look?. Then, if they like it, it’s done! Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

There’s a reason that advertising teams consist of an art director and a copywriter: design and content. They’re bed buddies. But these teams pitch ideas, and then work them out. That’s why we have wireframes. That’s why we have Photoshop. That’s why we have Lorem Ipsum. And that’s why we have, most importantly, good old pencil and paper.

On balance

Here’s what I think: some web professionals want to focus more on deliverables than on people. But guess what: it’s all about people. We need to help our clients along and communicate with them. If you want good deliverables the first time around, the answer is not to use “real” content and a design which is in fact finished HTML/CSS/Javascript in a real browser. The answer is to ask focused questions, discover the pressing problems, to introduce your client to your potential solutions to those problems. Give them tidbits: here’s an impression of how the site could look visually. Here are some things you might want to consider concerning your content. Work your way up to real content in a real browser. When done right, that point can come quickly.

It’s too much to show a client all these things at once in the very beginning. There are too many factors, and it’s impossible to tell which factors will influence their opinions at that moment, which makes revision a nightmare at best. Of course content and form should each be developed with the other in mind. But consider presenting separately at first. Yes, that could mean that Lorem Ipsum is an option. That could mean that Photoshop is an option. That could mean that a sketch on a napkin, with a good, old-fashioned explanation of how things work, is an option. When you know enough, put form and content together.

On bed buddies

And forget the content versus design war. They need each other. In the words of Paul Rand, “when form predominates, meaning is blunted. but when content predominates, interest lags.”

It’s for this reason that Eend and Cinnamon have spent a lot of time putting together a workshop which we feel will help clients, their project leads and/or managers to get the best out of the web shops they hire. The two-day workshop has been designed to expose clients to the potential success factors and pitfalls on their side of the project, and to give them the tools to use this knowledge to their advantage. The entire project process from bidding to post-launch evaluation will be examined. We’ve got great speakers with very high-level, client-side web project (management) expertise, as well as a few on the development side for a well-rounded whole.

Grip—or rather Grip2009, as this first workshop is called—will be held on November 17 and 18, 2009, at the very posh (no, not that POSH) Grand Hotel Karel V in Utrecht, The Netherlands.

While there are plenty of workshops and conferences for developers on building better sites, there is little practical information for clients on how to ensure a successful web project. We’re excited about Grip2009. We hope it will give clients the tools they need to engage with their web contractors like never before.

Unfortunately, this first edition of Grip will be completely in Dutch. We haven’t ruled out an international (English) event for the near future.

For any Dutch readers, here’s the press release (feel free to distribute):

BEGIN PERSBERICHT —

Grip2009 – Tweedaagse workshop voor webprojectleiders

Op 17 en 18 november 2009 wordt in Grand Hotel Karel V te Utrecht een tweedaagse workshop voor opdrachtgevers van webprojecten gegeven: Grip2009. Het programma is samengesteld door ervaren internetprofessionals en levert, naast nuttige tips, bruikbare kennis en vaardigheden uit de praktijk om grip te krijgen op webprojecten. De nieuwe workshop, die dit jaar voor het eerst wordt gegeven, richt zich op opdrachtgevers die hun internetprojecten beter willen begeleiden.

Voor opdrachtgevers van webprojecten bij het bedrijfsleven, not-for-profit-organisaties en de overheid is er momenteel weinig concrete en in de praktijk bewezen informatie beschikbaar hoe deze projecten tot een succes zijn te maken. Dat verandert met de komst van Grip2009. De workshop is bij uitstek geschikt voor mensen die aan klantzijde betrokken zijn bij de inkoop, de ontwikkeling en het beheer van internetprojecten, of mensen die een carrièrestap overwegen in deze richting.

Er zijn maximaal 60 plaatsen beschikbaar voor dit unieke evenement. Snelle beslissers kunnen tot 16 oktober profiteren van een flinke korting. Meer informatie vindt u op: www.grip2009.nl

EINDE PERSBERICHT —

As I mentioned last week, I’m redesigning this website, which for non-colorblind visitors is the pukey–green monstrosity before you. The color combination has been a joy to me, watching people dry–heave and reach for their feed readers while they still had the chance. But those days are numbered. I consider it quite unacceptable to be creative director of a reputable web design firm and not have a personal site which shows the same amount of thought and effort that goes into client work.

I’ll be putting my money where my mouth is, and using the same process I’ve evangelized for years and use for clients all the time. The Design Funnel is nothing new; many designers follow similar processes. I claim no patented process. It’s simply a (traditional?) process which I’d like to see more designers utilize, especially in this age of jumping–right–into–Photoshop, but also for those who don’t sketch before designing in the browser. It’s about thinking through before doing. It’s about design instead of decoration, which is so prevalent on today’s Web. This site is an example of decoration, and that shows. And that’s a pity.

Step one is defining values and goals. Defining the problem isn’t enough (and defining possible solutions at this point borders on evil—if you’re a designer, you know that a lot of clients tend to do this). My problem is pretty much stated in the second paragraph. But what’s important to me? Let’s not worry about formulating at this stage. This stage is about aggregation. To do this, I’ll answer some of the questions I ask my own clients.

What do I want (the site) to communicate, show, tell or do?

I work hard, with a talented team, for some awesome clients, many of whom are very happy with our work. Client work is nevertheless sprinkled with compromise and factors such as existing brain–dead branding by brain–dead design firms. This is actually the hallmark of good designers: working within constraints. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. It also doesn’t mean the end result will fit your personal taste.

The Haystack should fit my personal taste. It should be what I feel is appropriate design, and I want to design it myself. It should demonstrate my ability as a designer and art director, and should adapt to the content I choose to publish. It should not overpower the content, nor should it be mere decoration for the content. It should be pleasurable to visit and read (okay, calmly, slowly, place the feed reader on the ground and kick it over to me).

It should be an online repository for all thoughts, ideas, discoveries, code, images, sketches and anything else I’d like to share publicly. It should be technically adaptable to my usual flurries of endless ideas, re-evaluation and mind–changing. It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s…

For whom?

I’ll be writing and posting about things for which I have a passion, and that means mostly design and web development, art, technology and any combination thereof. Therefore the audience will be (and is) industry creatives, developers and perhaps a few societal misfits and some very nice people. Oh yeah—some family and friends who will get here by clicking on the little blue E.

Any branding guidelines or creative considerations?

No brand. But the site should make a mark by being recognizable. Creatively, I’d like to be able to tailor the design of posts and pages to the content. Being able to art direct my own posts will be one of the biggest advantages to the redesign. Jason Santa Maria does this fantastically; he’s chosen not to let his CMS determine his design possibilities. The new site should allow me to art direct the full design of a post: type, color, layout and imagery.

It should be standards–compliant. It should be accessible. It should uphold basic usability principles, but I’m giving myself some space on that one. Usability purists, simply turn off CSS completely, thank you.

Technical considerations?

• Write it in HTML5, just for the challenge of getting the design I want using a moving target. I will, however, think twice about using vague so-called “semantic” elements like <aside>.
• Use as much CSS3 as possible. Not necessarily the decorative stuff like border-radius et. al., but really cool stuff like media queries and the tastier selectors.
• Use Drupal, because I’ve got 2+ years experience with it, and it will allow me the flexibility I want in implementing a design. Plus, it is quite awesome.

Next steps

Reading through this, I realize that if a client had sent this to me as their wish list, I would’ve had a conniption fit at the office. It’s a good thing I know what I mean by all of the above. Now that I’ve got it typed out, though, it’s enough to get the ideas flowing. We’ll cover it and let it simmer for a while.

And then it will be time to start sketching.