Interesting article, thanks.

popurls.com // popular today…

story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

great read!

I don’t agree, that is very far from the truth. Design comes side by side with content. This article is generalizing something that is not an one fit for all situation and therefore being biased.

It all depends on the task at hand. Designing for content is different than designing for entertainment. Take art galleries, photography and movie sites for example, words doesn’t matter as much as what you see, it is all about eye candy. Now take a look at online newspapers, portals like digg and search engines like google, it is all about information, readability and functionality.

- Web design in not dictated by content, is dictated by goals.
- Content and design should work in harmony, if one influences the other that is defined on a case by case basis.
- Ineffectiveness affects content just as much, as poorly written words can put you to sleep, if they are wrapped in a nice decoration you might just keep your reader awake.

Nice article though.

Nice article. I’d love to see you expand on the lead-up to content: Understanding brand, recognition, positioning, intended audience, and purpose.

I think that a lot of business owners get frustrated when they invest in a new web design without putting the due attention to the branding and positioning. Certainly there are times when great content is obscured by poor design, and then a redesign can be a huge boon to a site. However, all too often, the designer’s do their best, but in the end all that is accomplished is that the same old ineffective bucket of words have been carefully poured into an expensive shiny pretty new bucket. After the initial excitement of newness wears off, the site settles back into the same level of performance that caused the frustration in the first place.

IMHO, design is as much as important as the content, this is very debatable as it depends what is the purpose of teh site

@Ed – great reply!
The article followed a forum discussion on WDF about copywriting in design where we were talking about the Photoshop slice-and-dicers and how so many times content and copy isn’t available to the designer until late on. It’s meant to push the role of content (and copy) because it’s role in shaping design is too often ignored, but of course both have to work in harmony.
What was interesting in that the discussion was the blurring of the borders between content and design… many designers felt anything graphical was design, especially content that itself had been designed. That causes much confusion.
Content and copy need good design, good design needs good content and copy – you’re right… all need to be working together to achieve the site’s goals. Some sites won’t have much copy, but the web is still largely a place of words because that’s the way we humans primarily communicate.

I agree with Ed.

If you have a site with great design and poor content, users will be temporarily stimulated but will eventually leave. You might get a lot of praise in the design community, end up on ‘best of CSS’ galleries, and all that jazz, but you won’t have many loyal readers.

If you’ve got a site with poor design and great content, you will detract most users off the bat, but may retain a few users who torture themselves with your bad design to get to your good content. They sacrifice their user experience to access your content when they shouldn’t have to.

Neither situation is good, and I’d say they’re both equally bad and equally fixable. Add great content to the first scenario or great design to the second one, and you’ve got an amazing website.

But I do agree that you’ve got some good points. I wouldn’t call Photoshop the final stage, but it definitely shouldn’t be the first. Thanks for the good read!

The true purpose of design is communication. As Thomas states in the post: “Copywriting is essential in effective communication.” I agree, and I’m not surprised that someone who can’t communicate effectively (@Ed – “words doesn’t matter as much as what you see, it is all about eye candy.”) doesn’t get it.

I do completely agree with your point of view. Your
paragraph, “Starting with quality content, the site must
then meet functional requirements, ensure usability and visibility. Only once this is achieved can or should the appearance be decided.”, summarizes quite well my own approach to web design. For years I have argued with the local designers, here in Spain, about the validity of this principle. They used to emphasize the artistic aspects of the presentation. Luckily things are changing now.

Funny how folks have turned this into a “content v design” thing – and that somehow this article says design isn’t important. I’m sure it says that both should work in harmony just that, for effective design, the content should dictate the design not the other way round.

The skill involved in creating a great design (form) to serve (follow) content (function) is what makes a great designer.

I dont’ know why designers have a problem with this. It doesn’t discount the importance of site design, just defines its purpose — to present the content in the most compelling manner possible in service of the purpose of the site.

Terrible POV.

The process is fundamental, not the discipline. Verbal & visual need to be in sync, elevating the idea as they work through the process together.

I amazed that a copywriter would make such a gross assessment and flat-out attack on a complementary discipline. Then again, an SEO writer is more so a taxonomist than a true copywriter, despite what his website proclaims. So I can understand his frustrations and malcontent.

Wow, thanks for that digital… I assure you I’m content and can write real pretty!

I put the point of this article across strongly to open it for debate and your point on verbal and visual being in sync is well made and, strangely the article says both should work in harmony.

This isn’t an attack on design and the ‘gross’ assessment is a take on what design is and is something worth discussing.

A couple of quick examples of things to think about are:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/04/first-question-every-web-site-designer-must-ask.html
and:
http://www.studiodino.com/info/news47.htm

I think the issue for a lot of designers is that they are reliant on the client for the content (on most ocassions) yet the design aspects of the website you have full control over.
Many times I have worked with a client and they want to see a mockup design before I even see any content. It can make it quite challenging when the content actually turns up.
I think the number 1 question that must be answered before anything happens is ‘what is the website trying to achieve?’. This will determine the nature of the content that you need as well.
I definitely think that content is king from an SEO perspective, and in that regard you must know first what keywords you are looking to target.
Great article. Thanks for the info.

The comments here are mute,we all concerned with content and design,what we have all forgotten is “less is more” communicating should be simple and that’s the hard part.
Look at all the great communicators in any form they make it look so simple.

@digital: I fear that comment was way out of line. John is a SEO Copywriter and does his job very, very well.

What does taxonomy have to do with this anyway?

Is this purposefully written to make some debate over here so that you will get more popularity and visitors?

Whatever, I completely disagree with your points.
Content and design should go side by side. UI has key role in making a website work.

The correct order:

# Content — the substance of the website. The largest and most important aspect. It’s why the website exists and what visitors come to see.
# Usability — user-friendly with a simple and reliable interface. The design must make the content easily accessible no matter the technology its viewed on.
#Appearance — graphic design creating the optimal layout and visual style to reinforce the message being communicated.
# Functionality — dictated by the content, the purpose of the website and the audience… what interactivity is required/ desired to fulfil the website’s aim.
# Visibility — a website must reach its audience. The site must provide quality content optimised for search engines and to attract visitors/

If you dont have appearance but have shit load of buttons (aka functionality) its only going to confuse and drive away users.

If you have a visible website but when the user visits your site his eyes bleed, he is not going to stick around.

So thats the correct order!

I’m a web designer and I don’t find this a difficult concept to accept. Ultimately design is there to showcase content. A website design with great visuals and excellent navigation is ultimately pointless without worthwhile content.

That being said, I think it’s also fair to see that design is vital in order to encourage engagement with the content. Just as a great design is pretty pointless without good content, good content can lose the opportunity to engage with an audience if it’s badly presented.