I know it’s a news site, but it looks like it’s trying to mimic print rather than adapt to a new medium.

Interesting point. Although I can’t speak on Khoi’s behalf, I’m inclined to believe that this was a conscious decision. So much of the NY Times brand is invested in its print material that the brand may become diluted if its website spun off in its own direction. In this case, the tradeoff may have been to sacrifice some of the benefits of web media to preserve a consistent identity. However, that in itself is a discussion worthy of a separate blog post. Thanks for bringing it up. :)

Yeah, I think I get your point — something doesn’t have to look minimalist in order to be minimalist (and looking stereotypically minimalist = looking Swiss).

I also take your point re the typography both sites employ (msnbc looks pretty similar to NY Times give or take a bit of eye candy); I also like the fact they both use a completely conventional blue to indicate links.

My ‘gripe’ is with the amount of stuff on the page, which isn’t ‘reductionist’ (even if the site isn’t ornamental). Vinh obviously does a spectacular job of organising a lot of content, but wouldn’t a minimalist ethos suggest reorganising and removing some information? I mean - who is going to reach that ‘Automobiles’ link right at the bottom of the page?

Not only is the page hard to scan, but there are some pretty small, hard – to – read fonts in there.

I know it’s a news site, but it looks like it’s trying to mimic print rather than adapt to a new medium.

Ta, Leon

The NY Times website is an interesting example because it looks absolutely jam-packed full of info, so at first glance, it doesn’t seem minimalist at all. However, that’s simply the result of what it is — it’s a news site. However, it does so while sticking to the absolute basics. Only four colors are used to differentiate text, and content is separated either by single-line or double-line borders.

Compare nytimes.com against msnbc.com.

Both sites are very good. To be honest, I think the msnbc site trumps every other news site out there, but I don’t think it’s minimalist at all. They have extra gradients, extra gloss, extra ‘lickable’ icons. None of it is bad — overall, I think the execution is excellent. But they could’ve gotten 95% of that excellence with simpler interface elements.

Your thoughts?

You don’t see this aesthetic in its pure form outside of blogs, I guess because its aim is to remove any sense of character from the product (I don’t mean that pejoratively, by the way!), and only a designer would want to do that.

But is the NY Times really an example of minimalist design? There’s a lot going on on that front page! It’s more a case of organising a lot of content really well rather than applying a minimalist ethos. Isn’t it just Swiss – style with serifs?

Take Vinh’s Yahoo mock-up. It looks great, but Google has already won this battle by being minimalist: no grids or fancy typography, just a big search box slap bang in the middle of the page that screams ‘we do search’. Everything spins off from that.

I think what you’re talking about is more along the lines of consistent brand identity than project direction. However, I do agree that some websites can look hobbled together. I think this problem occurs most often when a company has a new promo website that focuses on a new product or service. In many cases, there’s a completely different identity that doesn’t jive with the existing brand at all. Sometimes, it may be warranted, especially if the product is self-contained, or if the brand is in the process of realigning itself. But, more often than not, I can’t help but feel whoever was in charge of designing the website had no regard for the brand at all, and was only interested in aesthetics and self expression.

Keep up the great articles, they’re worth it! :)

… a satisfied, validated individual who’s proud of his work and station in life makes for better, stronger society, moreso than any design project could.

Well said!

I think you’re right — we’re bound to affect others’ perception according to our own belief system, no matter how objective we try to be. But there’s no harm in that; like you said, we should only try to be true to ourselves. In a broad sense, a satisfied, validated individual who’s proud of his work and station in life makes for better, stronger society, moreso than any design project could.

… on the occasion that taking a certain job does reflect my personal moral compass, I feel that it’s my responsibility to make a decision based… on what the finished product says about me as a person

Agreed. I think that’s all we can really do, and I think it’s true for all professions. Ultimately, we can’t dictate what other people think, and it’s not something we should be doing anyways. The only thing we should be promoting is the freedom of thought and open communication.

It’s not my responsibility to tell people what to believe, regardless of my power as a designer to have people perceive things in a certain way.

I think this is where things start getting fuzzy. I agree that it’s not our responsibility to tell people what to believe, but, as you said yourself, we do have the power to make people perceive things in a certain way. I think Milton Glaser said it best when he said that we have access to people’s minds, hence his belief that we have the responsibility to communicate ideas that cause no harm to society.

As much as we might like to distance our personal beliefs from our professional work, it’s usually the case that we’ll accept projects that don’t conflict with our own morals and ethics. I think all of us have a bit of innate hubris—it’s what makes us human. By simply accepting a project, we make the first step towards imposing our beliefs (but perhaps not ideals) on other people.

Of course, maybe we’re waxing philosophical a bit much. My intent with my original post on social responsibility was to suggest that we should carefully consider our work and make sure that we stay true to ourselves. Doing otherwise would just be a disservice.

To me, being socially responsible means only taking the jobs whose premise, message, or motives I agree with. But the fact is, the vast majority of jobs I take are ethically neutral; they’re strictly there for me to make sure I pay my rent at the end of the month, and require no moral or ethical stance.

However, on the occasion that taking a certain job does reflect my personal moral compass, I feel that it’s my responsibility to make a decision based, not on how others will perceive my work or how it shapes their ideas of the product/service advertised, but on what the finished product says about me as a person.

It’s not my responsibility to tell people what to believe, regardless of my power as a designer to have people perceive things in a certain way. My job has nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with answering a brief; my responsibility, though, to myself and to my own belief system, is to do work that I can look at and be proud of, both for its artistic merit and for its moral reflection on me. This has very little to do with what I think other people should believe.

The sort of attitude you’re talking about — acting as another’s moral compass based on personal beliefs — is hubris. Most people don’t care what we believe, and will have their moral perception shaped how they see fit, regardless of the design community. What matters is, not telling others what to think (in a moral sense), but making sure our work reflects what we believe in a socially responsible way.

After writing this post, and also having just read yours, I’m starting to think that there’s a flaw in this kind of thinking. While I still think that we should have some responsibility to make a positive change in this world, I’m wondering if we should really be the Communications Police. Seems rather idealistic in a totalitarian greater-than-thou kind of way. In other words, it just seems wrong, don’t you think?

I think I need to work on a follow-up post…

I agree though. It’s important to realize that what we do as designers can have a direct impact on the rest of the world.

Some might call that egotistical, because we’re ultimately here to answer a brief and make our clients happy while at the same time keeping food on the table and a roof over our heads. But design has such a serious effect on the human psyche — effective design does, anyway — that we need to be careful as to what, exactly, we’re doing with our billable hours.

I’d been so comfortable in the old interface when I started using it. Simple to understand tabs, large clickable buttons, draggable interface elements, etc. What’s not to like?

Your statement highlights our amazing ability to adapt to the objects that we use. Even with the most unusable interface, given enough time and practice, many people can learn to use it quickly. Of course, anything should be designed to require the minimum amount of adaptation and learning necessary. It’s not that the old WordPress was difficult to use—it just required more thought than necessary, especially for people who are new to the CMS. Whether WordPress 2.5+ makes life easier for more experienced bloggers is something that we’ll witness with time.