Don't redesign on spec
Reimagining Facebook or Yahoo on sharing sites like Dribbble is fun, but it's not true design, says freelance web designer
I am about to blow your mind with something life has taught me. Are you ready for this… Design is not Art. Yup, you heard that correctly. Design does not equal art. Okay, you can breathe now.
No but seriously: design, by nature, is utilitarian. Design is the “How” of something – How to construct this chair, How to present the information clearly (or, if needed, unclearly), How to convey a mood with the right aesthetics, How to serve the client’s needs. Design has a brief and/or a goal set by the client which it follows and aims to fulfill.
It's all about utility
Art, by nature, is not utilitarian. It does not concern itself with descriptions but leaves its viewer with the option to develop his/her own interpretation of what he/she sees. Art is its own means to an end, it does not solve problems for its viewer and it is without a specific goal. It is a reaction to an observation made by the artist that is sometimes processed through an emotional filter and sometimes remains in pure documentation form.
This is not shocking news: we established this a long time ago. I bring this up because I would like to address something that I see happening over and over again. It is the art of the self initiated redesign. You know, those Facebook redesigns that you see on Behance or that re-imagining of Yahoo on Dribbble.
These are designs that were never contracted by actual companies, done on the designer’s “spare time”. Usually they only address the aesthetics and never really aim to tackle a particular problem the designer may have with the service. Furthermore these designs are not based on the needs, the brief or the end goal of an actual company simply because they are not known to the designer. They look great on the surface, but that’s all.
Know your goals
Now, go back and look at the way I defined art and design. The process of these “redesigns” does not fall in place with the definition of design. They actually fall closer to the definition of art in that it is “…reacting to an observation that is processed through an emotional filter…”
I am not trying to get all anal on definitions. Trust me, I am not that kind of guy. I bring this up because, as a designer but more importantly as a business owner, when I see these “redesigns” I cringe. My potential clients may stumble upon them in the different social networks and assume that design has no real process or thought behind it, a matter of guesswork or taste. That it takes a few hours of a designer’s spare time to create a beautiful site that functions well. Is this the way that we want to promote web design to all our potential clients out there? Is design really a subjective craft created in your spare time?
I cannot envision a site for a company without knowing what their goals are, without communicating and collaborating with my client. For the same reason, I often refuse to do spec work or pitches for prospective clients, because they are essentially asking me to design blindly or to guess. If I were to ignore my client’s needs, I would be envisioning something that abides to my needs and preferences, thus creating a completely new or different product.
Recognise your motives
It is a shame really, because in the time designers spend redesigning a beautiful yet faux mock for someone else’s existing service for free, they could have been creating something real of their own. Maybe they could have even published it and make a buck or two. I mean, if you are going to create fake goals for an existing product, you might as well create real goals for a completely new one.
Now, it is worth mentioning that there are great examples of services that have been re-envisioned: it’s all a matter of what your motive is. If you attempt to call out a specific problem you have and accompany it with your solution and an in-depth article explaining
the reasoning behind the moves, then I applaud you. This never seems like a vanity act, but a simple call out that a designer has with the service he/she loves. They are also usually interesting improvements, and never focused solely on aesthetics.
Art for art's sake?
The “redesigns” that focus on aesthetics and personal taste are the ones we need to be careful about. I can understand why designers create them – they seem like good practice. An opportunity maybe to brush up on one’s Photoshop skills and to flex those creative muscles while at the same time attract some attention on social networks. But to be honest, without real goals I am not really sure that creating faux redesigns is really good design practice to begin with. Heck, creating your own product and setting real goals to it while tackling them in the design is actually the best practice you can get!
Of course, I'm not against you redesigning an existing product in itself. But maybe it would be better to just keep it private and not upload it to the different social circles. If they do end up on Behance or Dribbble, let’s at least remember to call them what they are. They are not redesigns, but artist’s renditions.




11 comments
Comment: 1
Redesigning your site because it just isn't working is one thing - but if it's just for the sake of it why bother?
Comment: 2
I understand this is an opinion piece, but you don't get to define Design and Art for everyone else. If those definitions are the limited viewpoints that you want to conduct yourself and your business with, obviously it's not my place to tell you otherwise. But, the question I have to ask is, what is the benefit of putting up this wall between Art and Design?
Humans have been practicing Art for thousands and thousands of years. Art has been used to communicate, to clarify, to invoke emotion, to…reach an endless number of ends. Here's another definition of art; "the creation of beautiful or significant things" Isn't that always a business goal? Now, again the question, why in the world are you seemingly in such a rush to remove such a vibrant, long-lasting form of human expression from Design? Doesn't something with such established history and maturity only add to the quality and strength of Design?
"[Art]…does not solve problems for its viewer and it is without a specific goal."
I vehemently say you are incorrect. You cannot generalize thousands of years of Art to push your point of view. If an artist aims to achieve a specific goal then he will; draw, paint, sculpt, play, record, dance, act, photograph, et al. in a specific way in an attempt to make the viewer react in a certain way. He will use knowledge he has of the intended audience, his own life experiences and maybe direct or indirect feedback from others to achieve that. How does this not fit how we design for the web?
"…we established this a long time ago."
You should speak for yourself here. I disagree. This argument is obviously still very open for discussion.
"Usually they only address the aesthetics and never really aim to tackle a particular problem…"
Is that to say that low-quality aesthetics are not a problem? People judge books by their cover. Who wants to use ugly things? Humans are engrained with a want and need for beautiful things; our clothes, cars, surroundings, mates and on and on. Poor aesthetics can definitely be a problem. Aesthetics are a part of user experience, they are a part of design, not a separate entity.
"My potential clients may stumble upon them in the different social networks and assume…"
This is straw man argument. If not, you need to work on educating your clients. Web Design is still a young craft, part of our job right now is to show people that there is a difference between "spare-time" design and legitimate, business/life/world changing design. Also, what type of clients will you possibly have that both A) are idling surfing Dribbble and Behance and B) Do not understand the time and experience that great design requires?! I don't buy it.
What happens if we take your logic from the last quote and put it in other places? How about food/restaurants? People can buy ingredients at the store and make a steak dinner in their own kitchens. They can make this meal cheaper than they can go to a fancy steakhouse and order it prepared by an experienced chef. Does this fact keep people from going out to eat? No. When people want a certain quality of food, they seek quality through experience. Clients may not understand this about design yet, in time, with help from us, they will.
"…maybe it would be better to just keep it private…"
"artist's renditions" I think that's fair. What about a different name, how about "personal design opinion pieces." Well, if we're going to start asking people to keep their "personal design opinion pieces" private maybe we should start asking them to keep other opinion pieces private as well, maybe we can start with opinion articles on web design blogs.
Comment: 3
I like the analogy that design is the "How" of things. Some of those "How" questions, however have different solutions depending on the provider. Two equally skilled designers may (most likely will) have different answers to: How to present the information clearly, How to convey a mood, How to serve the client’s needs, etc.
Sure, there are metrics to test the success of say, a website design in converting visitors, but I don't think there's a designer out there who would describe their job as simply "implementing sales funnels". Design is utilitarian, but it isn't ONLY utilitarian.
There IS something artistic about design - there's room for interpretation and subjectivity, even when working with the most detailed client brief. A "perfect" design doesn't exist - at least not one that everyone agrees is "perfect" - and if for this reason alone I believe there must be some room for Art in Design.
I agree, let's call it what it is. Let's not mistake aesthetics for analytics, mood for metrics, nor rendition for redesign - but let's also not forget that design is nothing if not a synthesis of art and function.
Comment: 4
But this is besides the point. I didn't mean to get in to this debate. Yes aesthetics are a problem. I would love to have a nice looking Yahoo. You are right, people judge the book by it's cover. I am sure that most of the previous generation have computer-phobia because of the lack of aesthetics in the old Internet and OSs. Heck, I am an aesthetic designer, i make things purty (or at least try to). I am definitely not trying to undermine that aspect of design. But if you start moving things around without knowing why they were there in the first place, because you think it's cool, is... well... At least give a good explanation for it.
Imagine I, on my spare time, redesigned the empire state building, but with the top 30 floors including the point, horizontally making the building a reverse L. This obviously cannot be created in real life. But it's cool! Now, imagine not only me, but many other architects would do the same with other buildings. Creating unrealistic buildings based on personal opinions, how cool they look, and present them as redesigns. Now, they need to re-educate their clients that this does not really work in reality. Great. Imagine also they would do that with, say, cars. They would at least call them "concept" cars right? They are never suggestions but artist's ideas and renditions and they are presented as such.
Because we do not present ideas like that, and actually think they are real redesigns, well... This in turn puts more work on my side to re educate my clients that think. 1) design doesn't abide specific goals or reality. 2) design takes 2 hours of the designers spare time.
You know that whole client from hell thing, make my logo bigger and that button pink? This is essentially what you are doing when you redesign on spec. Not abiding to goals and working on personal opinion alone. If you are ok with that, you have no right to complain when a client tells you to make that text flicker.
Also, i am talking from experience. The problem is, that potential clients DO surf Behance and Dribbble. Not sure why you would think otherwise. A few have even showed/discussed faux redesigns of certain services on Behance and Dribbble with me. These networks are not only for designers. Heck I heard of people that get the majority of their work from them! I wouldn't have written an article about this, if that weren't the case.
Your last paragraph I will ignore. When you calm down, grab Darren and let's chat about this over beers ;p
Comment: 5
Comment: 6
We are not saying art and design cannot live harmoniously but surely you have to admit that some of the most successful sites out there are not exactly the most aesthetic?? facebook, amazon - not exactly the sistine chapel are they.
I think what Yaron was really trying to get across was the fact that there are a lot of people out there making decisions about their websites purely from the point of view of lets make it prettier I dont like the colour etc without worrying about the functional effect.
To paraphrase one of my favourite characters Dr Ian Malcolm in Jurrasic Park…
“Yeah, but your developers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Personally I think content is king, theres no reason why the design has to be purely functional and not pleasing to the eye, but at the end of the day we visit website s(on the whole) for information, if we cant find that information (read "or product") because the designer has hidden it under a funky button shaped like a hamster (ok I know random) then whats the point?
Just my 2 peneth.
Comment: 7
Comment: 8
There are very good reasons for a redesign though. If nothing else, ergonomics is the primary reason for design in the first place. Redesigning your site or application to improve the user experience, improving the focus of the pages, improving the positioning and location of items to make it quicker and easier for users to use. This type of design should be objective and quantified using tools for analysis.
Some art and aesthetics does fall into the scope of a redesign in a small way and that is holding a users interest adding some character to an application, but it is a minor part of the redesign process.
So I agree and disagree with Yaron, design is not always utilitarian, art can be a tool of design but it is not design nor is design art, the core reason for a redesign should always be the ergonomics and usability of the application and should be backed up and evaluated using metrics. To use aesthetics and beautification as the primary reason for a redesign... There is a reason why you end up having to do it in your spare time...
Comment: 9
Comment: 10
Most people envisage art as relating to what could better be defined as fine art.
However if we can define web design as applied art, then I think that resolves a large part of the confusion;
i.e.:
"Applied art is the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. Whereas fine arts serve as intellectual stimulation to the viewer or academic sensibilities, the applied arts incorporate design and creative ideals to objects of utility, such as a cup, magazine or decorative park bench. There is considerable overlap between the field and that of the decorative arts; to some extent they are alternative terms." Wikipedia.
So to a better definition of web design as an applied art, with considerable overlap between 'art' and 'design.'
Comment: 11
But yeah, if it's just to point out how ugly some websites are, anyone can do that. Doesn't mean anyone should ;)