phnk Posted…

The term 'designer' has been confusing a few commentators. The survey actually looks at norm setters in general, not only web designers who design for a living. Some other commentators appreciated the fact that there was more than just classic web designers in the survey. Hence were included practioners, book writers, consultants, programmers...

What would happen is, I could have used just 'strict', narrowly-defined web designers : the consensus rate would have gone up to 85%. I however thought any individual who influences web design today could/should be included. This is why Tantek Celik and Jakob Nielsen are included. I consider Eric Meyer as a designer so to speak.

Still, the next version of this survey will be a lot more clear on what criteria were used to select targets. The term "web designer" was not the good one, I should have used some broader definition. The results hopefully stay consistent in any case (as I said, a shorter definition of target definition would have just made the results even more radical).

Thanks for quoting !

Andrei Herasimchuk Posted…

As I mentioned to Francois in an email, the term in the survey explicity states: "The survey seeks similarities and differences between those well known web sites, built by famous, talented designers."

I don't see how one can see this term as confusing. The point made by Nick is correct. The survey is either flawed based on the criteria, or the criteria needs to be restated as the "norm setters in general" and not "famous, talented designers."

I don't understnad why this seems so controversial, Francois?

phnk Posted…

The mistake is mine: as you state, the criteria needs to be restated as the “norm setters in general”.

The mistake I make in my introduction by calling all my targets "designers" is partly corrected in the explanatory note : http://phnk.com/design/survey/#selecting.

Tony Posted…

I really don't even know which entry to post on. I'm so confused.

When I went through the survey, I noticed the term designer. But when reading into the content, I promptly forgot about the term when looking at the questions. The serif/sans-serif question seems to be almost the closest 'design' question in the bunch. The rest deal with structure, usability, interaction, and coding. The subjects are obviously all pretty much "A-List" sites. The convergance between them is pretty interesting.

At least to me

Andrei Herasimchuk Posted…

"The mistake I make in my introduction by calling all my targets “designers” is partly corrected in the explanatory note"

Francois, it's fine that you attempt to explain the subjects used, but the introduction still states "famous, talented designers." Your explanatory note does not correct this error adequately. Until you change the introduction, all you are doing is setting a very bad precedent.

Sorry to sound harsh on this, but I feel pretty strongly about reports that might be used as facutal data for researc -- especially if it pertains to design -- when that research is flawed to begin with.

You either need to change the introduction with a note regarding that change, or replace Tantek, Meyer, Nielsen and Pilgrim in the survey. Period.

phnk Posted…

The next version of the survey is meant to replace the term 'designers' by a more appropriate one. Perhaps 'norm setters' will be the only expression used. Perhaps the more general term 'experts' will be okay.

It must also be taken in account that not everyone is giving the same list of 'inappropriate targets'. Some commentators are pointing at Jakob Nielsen only, for instance. Again, the fact that not only "I-web-design-that's-my-job" people were included also pleased some readers. It's okay you strongly defend this point, but there's much dissonance about target selection.

I may find some compromise in the end, such as calculating dissidence for just strict web designers as a separate, additional variable. I am not editing the page for the moment to make sure everyone reads and comments the same data, including its potential mistakes and lexical inaccuracies.

Simon Jessey Posted…

Whatever the nomenclature, the survey was nonetheless interesting. All of the individuals are respected in our general field, and are therefore trendsetters to a certain extent. The comparison of various aspects of design and structure would probably be better with a much greater sampling.

Darrel Posted…

Contrary to Nick and Andrei, many of us use the term 'designer' as it is. We don't specifically, by default, associate the term with a GRAPHIC designer. All of the people listed designed their own sites. Obviously, not all posses the same design skills. Some are better at graphic design, some are better at application design, some better at HTML/CSS design, writing design, usability design, etc.

The rest deal with structure, usability, interaction, and coding.

Many of us consider those all parts of design.

You either need to change the introduction with a note regarding that change, or replace Tantek, Meyer, Nielsen and Pilgrim in the survey. Period.

They're all designers in my book.

Andrei Herasimchuk Posted…

"Contrary to Nick and Andrei, many of us use the term ‘designer’ as it is."

Sounds like you have factual proof... or are you speaking for the "many" out of the goodness in your heart?

Probably just trying to argue for arguments sake again. I'd be willing to bet if I asked Nielsen, Meyer, Tantek and Pilgrim if they considered themselves 'famous, talented designers' they'd probably say no. They consider themselves something else first.

Your attempts in trying to be a devil's advocate has now worn beyond thin for me. Your points and cunterpoints feel like ntohing more than tedium. Say what you will in the future... I'm putting you on my mute list.

Darrel Posted…

Sounds like you have factual proof… or are you speaking for the “many” out of the goodness in your heart?

Umm...the dictionary seems to agree with me. Andrei, you clearly don't agree with me. Let it be. Two opinions can co-exist on this planet. ;o)

G. I. Posted…

I'm not a famous but a very talented designer.