1 Excellent Article, but we don't need another buzzword

I agree that often elements of a site’s design only need to be adjusted – not thrown out entirely. I risk sounding cliche, but it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water .

However, I don’t think the term “redesign” has to entail destroying the old look of a site in favor of a new one. A redesign can also mean evolving a current design to fit the needs of a site better.

From Dictionary.com: redesign: To make a revision in the appearance or function of.

Revising doesn’t mean destroying and starting anew. Redesigning, in my mind entails just what your “realigning” term means – adjusting and revising. But sometimes those revisions need to be radical to fit a changed need.

In fact, I would call all three of the examples you cited as re-designs, especially your first example, 31three. I think the word “design”, when applied to web sites, means more than it’s appearance, but refers to the entire user experience and site structure. I would call a shift from hacked tables to web standards a radical redesign, even if the visual look remained mostly the same.

I really don’t have a problem whatsoever with the incessant redesigning going on these days, and I especially don’t think you have to choose between developing good content or redesigning a site.

I think there are bigger problems in this industry than incessant redesigns, and maybe they need some new terms coined. For instance, incessant re-branding, incessant SEO bull, incessant blabbering of buzzwords/ coined terms, incessant “coming soon” hype pages (hey, I’m guilty too), etc.

posted at 12:59 am on October 25, 2005 by Rob Goodlatte

2 Isn't this a false opposition?

Redesign and realignment aren’t mutually exclusive camps – why should this be an either/or thing?

posted at 05:40 am on October 25, 2005 by Justin Stach

3 Untitled

I personally got a lot from this article – I’m new to the whole 2.0 ‘movement’ (note the virgin blog) but not to redesigns… for years it’s been ‘my scientific speciality’. I’m currently responsible for a massive redesign of a regional news portal in my area and defining a line between aesthetics and function within the redesign seems to help me wrap my head around the whole thing. Whereas a makeover is definitely in order, a complete aesthetic shift isn’t possible – we need to match the feel of the print publications we support – and a should be thinking more like ‘how can I adjust the current vision to more effectively execute the function’.

At least that’s what I got out of it.

posted at 07:53 am on October 25, 2005 by Chris Wible

4 I get it, but I have one question.

Great article. I always appreciate Cameron’s articles. I don’t think Cameron is really trying to sub-divide designers into two categories, but rather trying to make those designers who crave redesign (hey, it’s our job AND our passion, right?) to make sure that they have good reason to fufill that craving, or to resist it.

The only thing I’m wondering, however, is what the heck an “RFP” is!? “Really Fancy Project”? “Ridiculously Fudged Pricing”? Only this one acronym stands between me and world domination…someone please help!!!! :-D

posted at 08:03 am on October 25, 2005 by Jason George

5 A good reminder

@Jason – RFP = Request For Proposal

This is a good reminder that all sites don’t need a total redesign. Back in their client days, 37signals did this through their 37express 1 page redesigns, but if you look at the example it is more of a realign.

posted at 08:12 am on October 25, 2005 by Brian Sweeting

6 great article

I agree with Jason that Cameron wasn’t trying to intentionally force designers into one of two camps, but rather using hyperbole somewhat to get his point across. I believe there is a lot of similarities to what Cameron calls “redesigners” and “realigners.” The “redesigners” usually don’t go far enough in their thinking and reasons for redesigning. Its a good reminder for us to think though why we redesign. While still in school, a designer once told me “whatever you do design-wise, make sure it has a point.” Never forgot it.

posted at 08:33 am on October 25, 2005 by Chris Kavinsky

7 And BAD Designers Invent

Good Designers Redesign, Great Designers Realign. What do bad designers do? It is supposed they won’t do either, I guess.

When we think of realigning, it always makes me feel that it’s the good strategy for a company of gregarious sheep, who follow the stream but do nothing to determine its course. Realign realign, hurry up we must reALIGN with the LINE they have given to us.

There can be no leadership in the net (even if just for the Warhol canonical 15 minutes) if design is not meant to lead, but to REALIGN, to COMPLY (with w3c often, taking their specifications as pure gold even when they are clearly absurd – for we all know that whatever the w3c says is perfect), and to FOLLOW.

Are we raising a generation of followers?

In this fashion we produce sites all too often looking like each other provided they have to cope with the same market field (think of some PHP websites: since they feel they are in the same lot, they also feel they must imitate each other’s design in order to compete better).

Not only, but we are all under the spell that designing websites is for the market. It can’t be for the Art. It must be for the BUCKS. It is given as a granted fact, invariably.

The consequence that is entailed is that we are implicitly BUILDING EXPECTATIONS in the surfers.

These expectations are all levelled low to the designs that become more successful and therefore more familiar and more browsed.

The immdeiate consequence is that as soon as a surfer sees something that does not comply with the reALIGNED designs, there we go that is immediately seen as “ugly”. Gestalt studies and cognitive dissonance might come in handy.

Could we teach our surfers and our designers too not just to REALIGN like sheep but also to VIOLATE like artists, rather than stirring endlessly the same old sauce in the same old pot?

Do not redesign. Do not realign: DESTROY. Nietzsche’s lesson has never entered the internet. And Kandinskij one’s neither: http://images.google.com/images?q=Kandinskij

posted at 09:07 am on October 25, 2005 by Alberto Vallini

8 And a Harvard Business Review article to boot

Double whammy Cameron. First your’s then the referral. Michael Porter’s article is bang on.

Thanks, and Thanks

posted at 09:41 am on October 25, 2005 by Ray McKenzie

9 iLife

The iLife redesign was clearly to SELL MORE BOXES. Comparing the two, one has a title way too small to spot (the other way too big, but at least it’s readable). One has a bunch of average jigsaw pieces on it, the other has a bright, cheerful green shape, guaranteed to catch the eye.

Now websites often don’t have to follow Apple’s hard sales technique. Personal sites can look exactly how they want. Of course they’ll grab more visitors if they look dandy rather than dull. Business sites must always look fresh to incite sales, so I guess they feel they MUST redesign (or realign) every year, if not sooner.

Designers without a business brief can’t resist regular full redesigns though. They see their site almost every day and soon get sick of the colours. And instead of just tweaking them, how about a total redesign, even if it isn’t needed. (Often with a stripped-down black on white layout while they get back to basics, redesigning in public to generate hype and look cool.)

I have to be wary of this now though. My site has had so many redesigns (catalogued on the Past Layouts page) but still I itch to redesign it all again! Instead I tweak the layout to fit the content better and add new sections. Until the backend changes radically, there’s no point doing more just yet. Also, I go through much tearing out of hair in frustration at browser bugs when redesigning, so another reason to avoid it!

Great article anyway. I would better it by making the animated gif controllable by the user. I want to view the first image in the animation longer, but I can’t. Could you make it so you had to click to see the next frame? Or have links at the base to each frame like a slideshow. Allow the user to choose which frame they wish to see, and in which order, at any time.

posted at 11:08 am on October 25, 2005 by Chris Hester

10 Great article, but one weak case study

Great article, but I find your 31Three case study really weak. With the Apple case study, you display the two designs and explain how you think the new one portrays a re-alignment of the brand. With the 31Three case study, you present the two designs and then just say “Gorgeous, isn’t it? Final score: Realigners 1, Redesigners 0.”

So, they now use tables, have a blog and a new redesign. You don’t mention how any of this realigns anything.

posted at 11:08 am on October 25, 2005 by Stan Taylor

Got something to say?

Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.

Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.

Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)