With regards to my as-of-yet unentered reboot:bbc entry, I want to discuss where I’m coming from on a design. My whole design can be viewed as a response to the change in focus brought up by the Beeb themselves.

The overall stated goal is to incorporate personalization and wisdom of crowds to the current BBC homepage. Unfortunately, the homepage can really only scratch the surface of this sort of change. What I am trying to do is bring in the content that they want while maintaining what it means to be the BBC homepage.

My first comp threw everything out. Really none of the standard design elements persisted in the design, which is good for a first comp, but usually not as good for a final product. A final product has users that have used the product it is replacing for (in this case) years. A site of the magnitude of the BBC is not meant to have major changes in its workflow. In the end, any true redesign will be more focused on upgrading technology and incorporating content as opposed to “going back to the drawing board” as they have suggested.

That said, the contest itself has told us to throw out the baby, bath, and bathwater. And we must respond in kind.

I focused (in both comps so far) as much on user-created as BBC-created content. My design should not represent an end-point of the incorporation of technology but a front face. I must admit to a degree of confusion with regards to some of the BBC’s stated goals. For example, by enabling content creation, does the BBC expect to begin hosting blogs, social bookmarks, pictures, movies, and possibly even email? The resources to handle all of that is not easy to come by. But, hey, if they do want to move in that direction, please allow me to volunteer for a position supporting that infrastructure. I’ve always wanted to move to the UK.

Snarking aside, my design does not pull in the large amount of video content that the BBC already has, nevermind the video content they are looking to add. There is one simple reason for this: this sort of material does not belong on the front page. The front page is what people set as their homepage in the browsers, both at home and work. The last thing an employee will want is some video blaring through his speakers when he shows up in the morning. I know I didn’t when Apple put the new ads on their homepage.

Also, a nice feature that I haven’t included (at least not yet), would be some sort of suggestion engine. I would like the homepage to present me with links throughout the day that it would expect me to find interesting. This adaptive capability would probably link in with the social bookmarking feature I have shown, just taking it a little further.

As a purely visual critique on the current homepage, I don’t like all of the blue. This preference drove my decision to step away from it with the second comp. Knowing my own tastes, I will probably continue that spiral away, but it shouldn’t take away from the other goals in the design. Those are most important.

And now for the second part in our series “Doesn’t Bill Have Anything Better To Do?”

Without further ado, I present to you comp #2:

With this style, I moved away from the wonderful rounded corners that have given me such warm and fuzzy feelings with the first comp. Of note, I did decide on keeping the “From Us / From You” labeling. The more I searched my soul, the more I realized it was appropriate for the goal.

This design also takes the “Where I Live” from the current site and turns it into “My BBC.” Also in this area is a social bookmarking system.

By reincorporating the advert, more flexibility is given to the design. I chose to elevate the TV and Radio fields due simply to their relation to the banner. This design would change those items depending on what is in the banner space.

By moving the sidebar into the middle (sort of negates the label, huh?), I am using it as a definitive design element. It manages to serve multiple services while maintaining my goal resolution of 800×600.

I like this design worlds better than my first comp, thus making the baseline from now on. In fact, the next may be the final comp, just a slightly tweak version of this.

Let me know what you think.

On a few of the more recent sites I am currently working on, I have come across both PHP includes and iframes as methods to simplify changes on a web site. Both systems do have their benefits, although I personally feel that one is generally better than the other. Here, I’m going to discuss the benefits of either option without regard for security (in which the iframe comes under attack)
PHP Includes

PHP includes a function that allows you to use multiple files on one page. The files are patched together at run-time and presented as just one file. This allows for some static piece in a series of pages to be written once, but used in all pages. The user has to download all of the content stored in the include each time he or she visits a new page, so there is a greater bandwidth consumption. As the include provides all of the details on one hyperlink, a user is able to jump to any given file on a web page. Google will be able to index all of the data on the site. Aside from bandwidth concerns, the biggest drawback to the PHP include method is that it requires the use of the PHP engine. At this point, most web hosts offer PHP support, negating this complaint, but if you don’t have PHP support, you are out of luck.

IFrames

IFrames act like an intermediary step away from the old framesets we web designers from back in the 90s remember. These pages are standard HTML pages with a tag linking the changing content to the main page. The primary benefit of this is that the page is standard HTML; there is no requirement for PHP support. Changing the content is just as easy now as it was with framesets in the past. The primary downside is that it is almost impossible to deep link to a page and that Google will probably not be able to index things after your main page that appear within the iframe.

IFrames were once an interesting way to assure a standard presentation of information that now has passed. AJAX based technologies have really superceded the functionality of the iframe and PHP includes have enabled a greater degree of usability. As is usually the case with web technologies, I have no doubt that iframes will be seen on a variety of (unfortunately) new web sites. But the technology itself is rapidly joining its father (the frameset) in relative obscurity.

Due in no small part to my underemployment and current unhappiness with the direction my design skills are going, I have decided to attempt an entry in reboot:bbc.co.uk. To that end, I have put together a rough comp that I may or may not base later designs on. Under most normal situations, I would not publish these (in my opinion) incomplete and untested designs, but I want you, my reader, to see how at least one web designer goes from concept to design.

First off, the wonderful team at the BBC has put together a few guidelines as to what cannot be left out. These are as follows:

• BBC Logo / Branding
• Legal Blurb Links
• Search Box
• The News
• Contact the BBC Link

I will admit that when I had first put this design together, the legal blurb links didn’t make the cut. Let that be a lesson to any in a contest: read the rules first.

So without further ado, here is a thumbnail of my first stab at the design.

From here, you can see a page that is much simpler than the current site. Also, notice the wonderful (over?)use of rounded boxes. I call the overall design retro-circa-2004-blue. I think it has legs.

Anyway, the most important feature of this design is the top rounded box. I’m not thrilled with the wording, but I do like how both BBC content and user content (via blogs, podcasts, and vlogs) share relatively equal footing.

Well, that’s a decent rundown of my first comp. Barring a major distraction, there should be a number of more pieces in this series.

I am a web designer.  Well, not really.  I’m more of a web developer with the ability to put together moderately (according to others) attractive websites.  I like simplicity and focused.  I like readable.  I like content.

I am working as a web designer, according to my job description.  The position is more of a developer position, which is fine.  I am not redesigning web pages.  I have accepted this fact.  I do get to make changes to content, so maybe the job is more data entry.  This is also fine, not preferable, but acceptable. I make minor changes to any number of minor pages. If my job was simply this, I would merely have an issue with being bored. I don’t.

Once upon a time, I worked with a certain program.  This work was not primarily involved with the program, nor was the end result used.  I did use the program.  In my defense, the web was still in its difficult teenage years: drinking off of window frames, putting tables within tables, or any other idea that would make even Escher cringe. I used it, but I didn’t inhale. I swear.

The web is now a young adult. It still drinks from time to time, but usually on tables. Most people don’t even remember the frames incidents.  It uses big words like semantics and compliance. It gave up on the excesses of youth. I have to work to find a site that hasn’t graduated from HTML to XHTML. CSS is passe. Developers focus more on issues like RSS or AJAX, not on indiscretions so prevalent in previous ages.

Yet the drug remains. Usually it can be found on media sites: movies, bands, and high school web pages. Finding a user is easy. Simply look for the "skip intro" link below the garish visuals and garish sounds. Like many drugs, this one has activists who push it, often literally. The tell us to just give it a try. Just one hit, and we will know that it will be OK.

These last few days have included me being force fed that hit.

Having tried the drug allow me to tell you, my wary reader, some interesting facts. The plethora of changes in the last six years have not changed the poor feeling one gets from using it. Smokers cough the first time. This drug isn’t quite as obvious. You feel a sense of apathy and disgust deep down. Listen to it.

All joking aside, I will make a harsh generalization. The situation requires it.

This drug assures a poorly designed site. It is never done for the web site visitor, but both for the Flash designer and the client. The desire for something edgy and impressive neglects the user. That’s right. It neglects the user.

The user, and I know this because I am one, wants information. We want to know if your company will help us make sense of our lives. Why should I buy your product, use your services, or talk to a representative? Unless your services consist of overwhelming my viewpoint on your site, please let me get through to your site. Especially if you are a business. Would you buy a car from a salesman wearing a pink polka dot mu mu? Probably not. Why dress your web site in one?

It’s your first day at a new job, and your new boss comes up and tells you to come up with a redesign.  “Here’s what we want,” he says as he hands you a pile of papers.  A quick glance at the material informs you that it is a number of printouts from one website.  Upon further questioning, you begin to understand that your new job is to (at least in the eyes of management) be “inspired by” a major competitors site.  Add in the fact that bills are beginning to pile up and leaving this job is not an option for the immediate.  What do you do?

Let’s add in the fact that this isn’t your first time doing the web game.  It’s a good bet (at least in my experience) that you’ve never been asked to copy completely a design.  Now, you financial situation has forced you to lower a rate that even a month ago seemed too low.  How do you as the designer gently explain that what is being asked for is theft?  How do you explain that, in order to do what they are requesting, you would have to give up on ethical concerns?

The answer (at least in this situation) is to take a long view.  Tell your boss that the redesign shouldn’t be focused on “how it looks,” but “how it presents data.”  Good advice under most circumstances, but in a situation like this, it allows for the visual design to be looked at once removed.  Now, the questions become, “how should I include this?”  These are more effective questions.

But, this episode causes me to wonder.  Does the expectations change so completely once the cost drops below a certain level?  Are companies getting a design-as-theft and not questioning it?  Is it standard practice?

The Flashbag is a USB drive that, as it is filling with data, will expand. This allows for someone to see visually and in the real world how much space is being used.  Personally, this seems to be the next arena for HCI with components.  I can’t wait to see more items like this.