<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Design on despatches</title><link>https://icle.es/tags/design/</link><description>Recent content in Design on despatches</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:42:17 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://icle.es/tags/design/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Building A Website</title><link>https://icle.es/2009/01/12/building-a-website/</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:39:12 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://icle.es/2009/01/12/building-a-website/</guid><description>&lt;p>Most people would think that building a good website is straightforward and it
was. A few years ago, when the web was still relatively new, it was easy enough
to put together a designer and a developer and you could get a reasonable
website as the end product.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>However, in the modern age of websites, this kind of a websites simply does not
cut the mustard. It is of course adequate, but simply feels a little lacking.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>There are several websites that I have recently come across that excel in
design - they have fantastic design but when it falls down when it comes to
usability or functionality. The websites of some graphic design agencies are
prime examples of this.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>On the other hands, we have highly functional websites with a wide range of
features and functionality. The website might even be attractive but fails
terribly in terms of usability. &lt;a href="http://www.sf.net" title="Sourceforge">sourceforge&lt;/a>
is a very good example of this. I used to use it a lot a few years ago but its
usability has gotten worse in the last few years, not to mention the fact that
it seems to have slowed to a crawl. I still use sourceforge now and again to
look up pieces of software but I don't look forward to it.&lt;/p></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most people would think that building a good website is straightforward and it
was. A few years ago, when the web was still relatively new, it was easy enough
to put together a designer and a developer and you could get a reasonable
website as the end product.</p>
<p>However, in the modern age of websites, this kind of a websites simply does not
cut the mustard. It is of course adequate, but simply feels a little lacking.</p>
<p>There are several websites that I have recently come across that excel in
design - they have fantastic design but when it falls down when it comes to
usability or functionality. The websites of some graphic design agencies are
prime examples of this.</p>
<p>On the other hands, we have highly functional websites with a wide range of
features and functionality. The website might even be attractive but fails
terribly in terms of usability. <a href="http://www.sf.net" title="Sourceforge">sourceforge</a>
is a very good example of this. I used to use it a lot a few years ago but its
usability has gotten worse in the last few years, not to mention the fact that
it seems to have slowed to a crawl. I still use sourceforge now and again to
look up pieces of software but I don't look forward to it.</p>
<p>Then you have the rare gems, that are exceptionally usable and functional.
<a href="http://www.google.co.uk" title="Google">Google</a> is an excellent example of this. Note
however, that the design of google in minimal.</p>
<p>Having worked in the web for numerous years and having used more websites than I
could possibly count, I strongly feel that the medium that is the web is heavily
under-utilised.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.facebook.com" title="Facebook">Facebook</a> is a good example of some of the
good things you can do with web. Things just feel a lot more natural. If you
take the news feed, you can hover over an item to see the menu at the top right
that lets you set your preferences for that particular item.</p>
<p>Same with your wall, hover over an item on your wall, and you see a menu option,
click on it and you get relevant options.</p>
<p>This is a simple and minor thing. However, this brings in the concept of context
and I think that context is largely ignored in all applications. However, it
should be easier and much more useful to have context sensitive commands /
functionality within websites.</p>
<p>Now, If facebook was to take it one step further and allow you to right click
anywhere on a news item and then choose one of the options, that would be even
better - save me from moving the mouse to the menu.</p>
<p>Another excellent thing Facebook has done is provide the ability to comment on
most things that someone does. Social interaction can take a website from zero
to hero in an instant. How can you allow your customers / visitors to interact
with each other. Even better - Can your website integrate with Facebook and
allow your visitors / customers to use the interaction capabilities of Facebook
to drive your site further?</p>]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Design</title><link>https://icle.es/2008/12/12/design/</link><pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:42:37 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://icle.es/2008/12/12/design/</guid><description>&lt;p>Admitting to being a techie - I have often overlooked design. In fact, I have
often explained to (potential) clients, using the analogy of a ferrari that we
make the engine and everything else work while somebody else makes it look
gorgeous. For me, how something looks was largely irrelevant - as long as it
worked well.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>This explains why, for a long time, I used a fairly bland desktop environment.
My desktop itself was just pure black with no wallpaper. Ironically, I would
remove all the icons, so it would be pure black and nothing else.&lt;/p></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Admitting to being a techie - I have often overlooked design. In fact, I have
often explained to (potential) clients, using the analogy of a ferrari that we
make the engine and everything else work while somebody else makes it look
gorgeous. For me, how something looks was largely irrelevant - as long as it
worked well.</p>
<p>This explains why, for a long time, I used a fairly bland desktop environment.
My desktop itself was just pure black with no wallpaper. Ironically, I would
remove all the icons, so it would be pure black and nothing else.</p>
<p>This should have tipped me off on my own desire for design. I thought my desire
for black stemmed from the &ldquo;good old&rdquo; days of DOS when the screen was black and
my love for the linux terminal. As an aside, I used to reconfigure the terminal
windows in X to have a white on black background as well - so much better for
the eyes. In fact, I still don&rsquo;t understand why everyone uses a white background
for terminals and such like. Paper was white because that was easier. There is
really no reason for the screen to be white too&hellip;</p>
<p>Now, this was before I bumped into
<a href="http://www.enlightenment.org/" title="Beauty at your fingertips">Enlightenment</a> (at
this time, it was E16) and to put it bluntly, I was captivated. This was
absolutely gorgeous. Fairly unusable since I was used to
<a href="http://www.gnome.org/" title="The Free Software Desktop Project">GNOME</a> and of course
Microsoft Windows. I thoroughly enjoyed this until it became more of a
distraction&hellip;</p>
<p>I ended up reconfiguring GNOME to be prettier - in fact, I had the Mac OS X
theme for a while which I enjoyed.</p>
<p>I then dabbled with E17 and it was absolutely gorgeous - E16 paled in
comparison. I ran into a bug where some java applications would jump a few
pixels when changing the decorations. This was a real pain since I was
developing a Java application at the time. I spent an entire day trying to &ldquo;fix&rdquo;
this before I realised that it was E17 screwing it up and not my code&hellip; :-(</p>
<p>More recently, I thoroughly enjoyed
<a href="http://compiz.org/" title="A Compositing Window Manager">Compiz</a> with the shaky
windows and such like - I just always wished that I could actually throw a
window and watch the momentum carry it that extra distance.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, this bridged the gap enough to E17 to keep me happy for a little
while.</p>
<p>Last week, I dabbled with E17 again to see if the issue with Java was resolved.
To my surprise E17 had changed more or less completely - it was bridging the gap
between a window manager and a full fledged Desktop environment.</p>
<p>However, there was a problem. It looked like I couldn&rsquo;t get it back to its old
glory of absolutely fantastic graphics without some effort in configuration. One
other issue I ran into was that maximising a screen would fill it up across both
my monitors. Another thing I could configure but then, it all seemed like too
much effort.</p>
<p>E17 gives me the feeling that this is where user interfaces will end up - it
automates so many of the things that makes it quicker to do anything. However,
it still lacks some of the &ldquo;basics&rdquo;.</p>
<p>E17 is a very good example of a UI that tries to conform to what I call the
&ldquo;<a href="https://icle.es/2008/12/12/invisible-interface/" title="Invisible Interface">Invisible Interface</a>&rdquo;
which I will be writing about later.</p>
<p>To bring it all back to now, I found it a hassle to go through all the available
themes for WordPress for the Company Blog as well as my own.</p>
<p>I used to take great pleasure in going through dozens or hundreds of themes and
picking ones that I liked but after doing it a few times (for Firefox,
Thunderbird, my phone, GNOME, GDM and my flat), it gets a bit repetitous.</p>
<p>Now, for a wish. A website that pulls in all the different themes for all over
the world for everything. A one-stop-theme shop. Here, I could go through and
pick a general theme that I liked and download it for all the applications, my
phone(s), mp3 players (and of course, taking it to the next level, all the
gadgets at my flat).</p>
<p>That gives my life more uniformity. Perhaps this is something that Designers
could take on&hellip; Say Hugo Boss, and design something that even matches your
clothes, shoes, hair - everything.</p>
<p>That way, you could have your own unique branding&hellip; and while you are at it
link it into Gravatars and you are also instantly recognisable</p>
<p>Now for the issue of privacy - I think I best leave that for another day.</p>
]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>