hat you will probably find is a landscape of sameness. Originality seems to have been sucked out of the majority of the internet. Why? Why has the internet so quickly fallen into certain patterns and simple designs? Here are four possible reasons for you to mull over while you drink your tea.

Simmons, Jannace & Stagg

RSS

It is hard to argue against RSS. RSS is the engine driving the hyper-mashup revolution. Average Joes everywhere are using RSS feeds to aggregate only the content that is relevant to them—and there has been much rejoicing. People are using RSS feeds and feed-readers to help them manage the deluge of content produced each day and only reading that which rises to the top. On its surface, all of this is good for the user, but is it the panacea we all think it is? Of course it isn’t.

The visual design of a site is not simply decoration, it is communication. The imagery, layout, and symbolism framing the content is there in a supportive, enriching role. Designers don’t play with colors simply to make something pretty, they use color, texture, typography, and myriad other techniques to enforce, enhance, and contextualize their content. In an RSS reader, all of this effort is rendered moot.

If a new author assumes the majority of her content is going to be read in a feed-reader or through RSS, then she may not take quite as much time working on a relevant visual design for her content, or may simply choose a ready-made template. This author won’t take into account the richness a compelling visual design would add to the entire experience of her site. Thus, her content will be simply that—content.

Indeed, some designers use visual means for content organization. Dave Shea’s most recent redesign, entitled organizes articles around a primary image and color palette. In this way, articles are associated with each other through visual similarity, much like in a magazine. The functionality of this organizational mechanism is unavailable in RSS and lost on the user who never visits his site.

For the user, the drawbacks are not immediately apparent. When a trained designer puts together a website, each and every decision, from the visual details to the information architecture, is selected for a reason. Shea’s musings on design are much more relevant and authoritative when consumed within the confines of his blog than when abstracted into a hermetic feed-reading environment. His site is a living, breathing example of his philosophies, practices, and techniques—the very thing addressed in his content. Yes, the content must be able to stand on its own, but that doesn’t mean content that stands on its own can’t benefit from rich visuals and intelligent organization. The feed-using subscriber has shorted himself the complete experience by reading abstracted content

no matter

the weather took a turn for the worse and they found themselves in the middle of a tough decision: scrap the trip and endure the embarrassment of having turned back despite their expert status, or press on and brave the elements in hopes that the storm would pass. Since each of them had equal say, and nobody wanted to be seen as trying to trump the others, they all continued the trek. This story did not have a happy ending. Several of them lost their lives, simply because they did not choose a leader to make the tough decisions. It is tragically ironic that even though any one of them could have filled that role, a leadership vacuum existed because of mutual respect.

The lesson to be learned here is that selecting a leader is not necessarily a bad thing. However, typically, it manifests itself in one of two ways. Either the most senior people are the only ones who get to make decisions because of their status and clout, or decisions fall to those with lower positions because the issues at hand are not seen as pertinent and worthwhile. The ideal environment is one where people all have something to bring to the table, but a group consensus is reached on who will take ownership of the team effort before a project even starts. This need not be re-negotiated every time, but the important thing is that people know who has governing authority, and that there are not overlapping agendas in the process. One could think of this in terms of professional sports teams. Michael Jordan might have had a superstar shoe deal, but he respected Phil Jackson as the one who was coaching the game. Contrast this with players such as Latrell Sprewell, who attacked his coach, P.J. Carlesimo.

So What?

What does any of this have to do with web development? Quite a bit, actually. The tale of the village stew reflects how big businesses get so tied up in their own IT bureaucracy that their processes become a hindrance instead of an effective governance model. As the ones building websites, we first need to understand the human factors involved before constructing solutions that might not address our problems. In her book Web ReDesign 2.0: Workflow that Works, Kelly Goto offers this advice:

“Clients usually have clear business objectives, but are notorious for not having clear site objectives. And why expect them to? They are neither designers nor web experts. By asking clients the right questions, you guide them into aligning their business objectives with the constantly changing, evolving, and demanding web.”

The mountain-climber tragedy illustrates how small agencies can be hindered by lack of structure. Somewhere in the middle is a solid team model, in which there is just enough of a framework in place to keep people communicating effectively, but not so much paperwork that it keeps anything from really happening. As a general rule, if your web team produces more Word documents than deliverables, then it may be time to re-strategize. On the flip side, if you are just designing and coding all day, but there is no clearly established scope or budget for a project, then you should define those parameters, pronto.

Here are a few pointers:

Do:

1. Choose a project leader who has final authority.
2. Establish scope and budget for the project.
3. Agree upon a timeline for deliverables.
4. Set specific, incremental milestones in the process.
5. Get to know the key stakeholders.
6. Keep the yes-man under control.

Don’t:

1. Be afraid to demand that someone take charge.
2. Give into scope creep unless the client is paying.
3. Shoot from the hip without any timeframe.
4. Start a project with no clear goals defined.
5. Be a loner or isolate yourself.
6. Let a yes-man run the show.

Summary

No matter the size your team, be it an agile design shop or large IT department, it is important to know when to defer to those who are well-versed in a particular area, and equally as imperative to step up and take the initiative for the betterment of the project as a whole. In either situation, check your own motives to make sure that ego or personal agenda is not clouding your judgment. In the business world, projects are unsuccessful not because a group of professionals working together lack anything by way of skill or intelligence, but, more often than not, they simply fail to work well together. In the future, we can hope for more culinary masterpieces and less village stew.

mayor

What’s Cooking

In an ideal world, people would recognize the need to facilitate the best possible solution for the betterment of everyone involved. The last time I checked, though, such altruistic dreamlands existed only within the manufactured confines of overpriced theme parks.

Imagine, if you will, an experienced chef who is hired by the town council to be the chief expert to revitalize the town’s restaurant industry. His mission will be to pull together the disparate area vendors under one unified, standard process for cooking—one that is both intuitive and leads to delicious dishes, while still being flexible enough to handle multiple cuisines. He offers to cook a meal for the city’s residents to gain their confidence and trust as the new head chef. He decides to prepare his famous soup, one which numerous other townships have already enjoyed immensely. Since the weather is pleasant, he opts to cook outdoors so that everyone can enjoy the aroma.

People soon begin to gather in the town square, but to the chef’s surprise they are carrying with them all manner of foods and ingredients. Confused, the chef tries to reassure the populace that he will cook for them, and that they need not trouble themselves with bringing anything else. He quickly learns that the Mayor is second-guessing the decision to hire a chef, and wants to get additional feedback about how the meal should be cooked. He had issued a decree allowing everyone to bring their favorite food to be added to the cauldron. The carefully blended soup quickly turns into a concoction full of random ingredients: lobster, ice cream, macaroni, peanut butter, and pizza, to name a few. The Mayor stands behind his podium nearby, aloof and pleased that the democratic process was going so well. Surely this would be the best meal ever, with so many people’s favorite ingredients taken into consideration.

Despite the chef’s initial protests, the cooking continues. Not wanting to defy the will of the masses during his first major undertaking, he does as the Mayor and the city council have instructed. Before long, it is time to dole out the servings of soup, and everyone eagerly awaits their turn. Spoons ready, they all dig in simultaneously as the mayor proudly gives the order to begin eating. The looks of delight on the faces of the happy citizens quickly turn to disgust, and then to anger. They scowl at one another across the many dinner tables. Townsmen who hate the taste of peanut butter glare at those who supplied it, while those not fond of shellfish make comments about those who brought lobster.

The Mayor himself does not particularly enjoy the meal either, but realizing that he is responsible for allowing everyone an equal say in the process, he is quick to shift blame to the chef for not mixing the ingredients properly. Everyone agrees, and soon the chef is made a scapegoat for not filtering through all of their input and still producing an excellent meal. What kind of chef is he, anyway? Certainly not the type that could revitalize their restaurant industry. And so, after running him out of town, they continue on as they always did—without cooperation or any semblance of taste.