If responsive design is completely turning your process upside down, then your process is wrong

One question I get often at my talks these days is, “How does responsive design change your web design process?” The answer is, “Not much at all.”

I’m not an expert on responsive design practices. My current solutions are not always the most elegant. But learning how these details work is not, nor has ever been, a complete reversal of how I design for the web. 10+ years ago, I learned web design by writing HTML and CSS. I designed in the browser for years before I even knew Photoshop existed. I have always been aware I’m designing objects that will be viewed in different screen resolutions and on different browsers and that pixel perfection doesn’t make much sense in a dynamic environment.

Yes, I now have to adjust my designs for optimization on wildly different device sizes. I have worked on projects where I only produced wireframe assets for mobile views, and it required a longer process than I’m used to with desktop views. I’ve had to work to let go of my lazy, fixed-width layouts and become more confident with fluidity.

But none of this challenged my basic, fundamental way of designing. In fact, it aligns perfectly with it. It’s the natural evolution of the dynamic way I’ve tried to think about creating beautiful, accessible websites from the very beginning.

There is a shift going on with responsive design, but it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with responsive properties in particular. Responsive design has just made it impossible for us to continue to misunderstand or ignore implementation of web design in its intended medium. Frankly, it’s a shift that is long overdue.

Design is not veneer

Every element you add to a design must have a purpose. The purpose may be purely emotive. This is fine. We are, after all, emotional, irrational, unpredictable creatures. But it must have purpose. And that purpose must be a valuable one. Remember, every element you add either contributes to your product being more useful and easier to understand or makes it less useful and more confusing. You should no more be adding visual elements willy nilly to your sites than you should be adding code snippets and components without at least understanding their motivations, purpose, and effects.
A terrific article on the design process in development from Aral Balkin.

We're better at design, and that's not good →

I don’t agree with his conclusions, but I do think he’s hit on something worth discussing here. Sometimes prettiness is a result of good design. Sometimes, and more and more often in the application world, it’s prettiness for prettiness’s sake. And that’s a problem.

I rebooted my “Developers Can’t Design” talk with a brand-new slide deck. Enjoy. As a note, I have fielded many questions from devs about how to find resources to take these principles to the next level. The short answer is: there aren’t many that exist targeted to that perspective. But there should be. I’m working on collecting the ones that do, and also working on creating more. One will be the talk I’m presenting at Codemash in January, which is essentially a sequel to the one linked above and which will go deeper into practical ways to make design look more good.

I rebooted my “Developers Can’t Design” talk with a brand-new slide deck. Enjoy.

As a note, I have fielded many questions from devs about how to find resources to take these principles to the next level. The short answer is: there aren’t many that exist targeted to that perspective. But there should be. I’m working on collecting the ones that do, and also working on creating more. One will be the talk I’m presenting at Codemash in January, which is essentially a sequel to the one linked above and which will go deeper into practical ways to make design look more good.

Skeumorphism is dying →

And good riddance. I’m working on a longform article about this topic so I won’t go into too much rant-y detail, but the news that Apple’s visual software design is prepared to catch up in sophistication to its hardware design is welcome indeed.

The Flat Design Era →

I’m not crazy about referring to this as an “era,” which, to me, makes it sound like a trend that is destined to fade. I don’t think this is the case. I think this is a viable future of the medium. It’s definitely what I prefer to use and make. However, I still have a burning passion for all things Bauhaus and mid-century modern, so maybe my taste for flat design will meet the same respectable but anachronistic fate.

A product is more than an idea, it’s more than a website, and it’s more than a transaction or list of functionalities. A product should provide an experience or service that adds value to someone’s life through fulfilling a need or satisfying a desire. The ultimate question then becomes: who identifies that value? After the executive or stakeholder identifies the initial idea, who in the organization ensures that the product and experience deliver value to the user? Maybe it isn’t the product manager, marketer, technologist, or designer; perhaps what we need is a new role: the product storyteller.

Sarah Doody, “Why We Need Storytellers at the Heart of Product Development”

Dave Wiskus on how design can and should permeate development.

I want everything we do to be beautiful. I don’t give a damn whether the client understands that that’s worth anything, or that the client thinks it’s worth anything, or whether it is worth anything. It’s worth it to me. It’s the way I want to live my life. I want to make beautiful things, even if nobody cares.

Saul Bass, who died 16 years ago today.

(Source: jarrettfuller)

Digital Craft, from Instrument.

I think, “Truth. Effort. Courage.” is a very fine motto.