Thanks for the post. It really helps me understand more about web 2.0.

On a similar note, I explained to a programmer mate of mine about the web 2.0 look and he looked at me as if I’d gone mad. He knew what web 2.0 was and was a big advocate of it but only as a programming term, webapps, live search etc.

“Web 2.0 look” is a term that seems to exist in the minds of clients and designers and has nothing to do with the real term at all. The sooner the two terms are seperated, the sooner the look will disappear.

@Ritchie: This is more about the “web 2.0 look” as opposed to web 2.0.

I liked your presentation although I do disagree do an extent: If used ‘properly’, the web2.0 look can work. Unfortunately, most people do not use it properly. Also the ‘look’ is slowly becoming overused.

@ Stevie K: You hit the nail on the head!

@ Dominik: Don’t worry, I agree with you. This is a message that unfortunately has been lost when viewing the slides without my commentary: I don’t think that the typical ‘Web 2.0 Look’ elements are a bad thing at all; they just need to be used in moderation and with care.

Many end-users (and designers) have the idea that the web2.0 is that gradient and squared corners things and that you host your stuff on the cloud.

They don’t get the important concept of the real web2.0 and this is a pretty cool way of telling them that.

Congrats Elliot!

The most valuable points for me:
1) I can now effectively (and politely) articulate the differences between concept and style to clients who really “want the ‘Web 2.0′ look”.

2) I can encourage my clients to be trend setters, rather than sheep (as you put it) by showing them examples of design cliche. Hey, no one wants to blend into the wood work, right?

I hope our paths cross again. Thanks.

I really liked your presentation and I think it will help people understand that the current term, “Web 2.0″, is not necessarily associated with the look or design or a website.

I do however disagree a certain amount. Although the term wasn’t originally associated with what Web 2.0 is technically, I do believe that if people want to associate that style of design with the term, then it should be adapted into the definition… or be a separate definition of the term. I definitely agree that is is a trend and is becoming over used.

Regardless, enjoy your thoughts around it and as always enjoy your site very much. :)

To sum this up really quick, I want to say that I think a big part of this trend is due to developer’s overreliance on templates and online generators without giving good honest *conceptual design* a chance to shine through. Either these developers didn’t see the value of hiring a designer to create an unique personality or they just needed something quick to put online and slap with a “beta” label.

The lack of that devotion to concepting a branding approach prevents them from owning any particular element as part of their brand character - hence the sheep-ish or pack mentality. It’s not just about the interface, it’s about the big branding idea too!

Regards,
BG

You make some really valid points here, but uninspired or incapable designers cannot shoulder ALL the blame. Elliot’s mention of the Make MY Logo Bigger Cream brings into the limelight a large and more disturbing problem: The fact that clients try ( and are frequently successful) in defining visual elements. Elliot goes on to to say that it is up to the designer to assert their role in the design process.

So my takeaway on his point is that when clients ask for a “Web 2.0″ look, what they really mean is that they want it to look “modern”, maybe even “trendy”. And hey, let’s face it, it can take some work to convince many clients that they should be trend-setters instead of sheep. What I got from Elliott’s presentation is that it’s up to us as designers to use our expertise accordingly and not bow down to the Gods of beveled edges, shiny elements, and reflected logos. What we really need to do is find out what they really wants and then deliver something meets their needs, while being both unique and rich in concept–instead of heading right for the gradient tool.

You mention Apple as the undisputed kings of sheen. I’d tend to agree, but I note that whenever anyone mentions Apple.com as an example, there’s never any reference to the actual designer of their site.

And I have no idea who that is! Where is this person whose work we love so much?

Can anyone put a face and a website to the design(ers) behind Apple.com?

Let’s get THIS person speaking at a conference. I know i’d love to hear what they have to say about their work and the ‘Web 2.0 look’.

@ Jason: I do actually agree with you to a certain extent (as you’ll hear once the audio and video from the conference are made available). it can be useful to describe this kind of aesthetic with the term ‘Web 2.0′ if people are used to it; my problem is that in doing so, we’d be actively encouraging the misuse of the term.

@ Cam: I think the fact that the designers behind apple.com remain faceless is a very intentional attempt to continue the ‘mystery’ of the Apple brand. And Apple only ever let Steve Jobs speak publically on behalf of the company.

@ James & Boz: It’s interesting you should mention the ‘grunge look’: I’m writing a blog post now about it, so check back tomorrow! :)

I think it may be somewhat of a similar situation though to when we were in school. The artsy design kids would dress however they wanted to, and as a result, they were the most interesting people to look at. Also they were the ones who usually got made fun of the most.

But, for the majority of people, looking current with the latest fashions is a requirement for being socially accepted. Websites _are_ subject to fashion and the whims of the masses. When I have a client who wants to be current with the latest “technology” (meaning mostly the look of the latest trendy sites) who am I to argue that they’re wrong. They’re simply responding to their current environment.

People, like bonobos, ravens and racoons, like shiny things.

As designers, it is our job to make sure we help them pick out the right ones.

I feel the Web 2.0 style is also born out of a larger focus on usability with it’s strong colours, bigger type and clearer layout. It’s nice not to see so many pastels, shades of brown, grey websites which used to clutter the internet. So I thank the style/trend for this, although this might just be down to the natural improvement of web designers.

I’ve worked in (profit led) companies where the websites we’ve built haven’t had a big budget but do have a tight deadline and therefore you end up resorting to a default style to get the job done without heart failure. As long as these type of project and companies exist I think there will be an over use in styles and themes to cut cost and make things easy. Spare a thought for them poor designers this Christmas

You use FAMFAMFAM on your site — isn’t that like one of the most over-used “web 2.0″ icon sets on the web to-date?

I feel your point as a designer — but its your inability to remove yourself from that position that I sense keeps you from seeing the big picture. You may be an artist, but are all things designed art? Should they be?

I wrote an article over a year ago that sort of touched on this point:
The Reflection: In defense of a Web 2.0 Design Trend!

But I want people to understand that I’m not actually criticising these various stylistics motifs; I’m just criticising their overuse, and / or the notion that they have to be used. I don’t really care if Famfamfam’s ‘Silk’ icon set (elements of which I use) is all over the web - I use them very sparingly and I think they’re extremely well-designed icons. It’s about being aware of why you’re using them.

So, no offence, but I don’t really think that I have an “inability to remove [myself] from the big picture.” I’m also not sure when exactly we entered into an “are all things designed art?” argument.

Lastly, having read your article, I see where you’re coming from - the crux of your argument seems to be that ‘the client gets what the client pays for and that’s why we’re in a job’ - but it also sounds like you’re asking designers to just give up and stop trying to fight for what they believe in. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, and it’ll certainly help with job security and bill-paying, but I personally couldn’t just sit there and take the shit ideas that clients throw at me. It would sap my creativity and my desire to be a designer.

I am just wondering (not sure as to the answer myself) — is all design work done for hire worth fighting for? Is there a need to fight for it? Does the real designer say yes and the chump who has a copy of photoshop say no? If your mom asks for a fax cover sheet Word template — are there elements that need fighting or can simple elements relying on common convention suffice?

Does “web 2.0″ mean something to the masses? Does the elements that designers are sick of actually convey meaning to the masses? Can joe user see gradients, rounded corners and drop-shadows and think “impressive”. Can “web 2.0″ design trends actually leave the user with a better first impression than without (in particular situations)?

I love your style though — and I am a hypocrite of sorts. I complain about the term “web 2.0″ but sell-out to clients when they seek it out.

Web 3.0 will be all SVG??

TY

It was nice meeting you at the FOWD event. Your presentation is great. Good job man!

Nick

Is there any audio or video from the Future of Web Design, New York event available?

By the way, I absolutely love your website’s design. Keep up the good work.

@ Nick: It was great to meet you too! I hope the next time we meet, there’ll be time to have a proper sit-down chat. Are you going to SXSW?

@ Ståle: It’s all being prepared as we speak. The audio will soon be on the site in the form of free MP3s for everyone; the video will be accessible online too, but only for conference attendees, unfortunately,

@ Hamish: Thanks! I’ve been meaning to install wp-typogrify and your comment has reminded me that I need to do it asap!

I read this the day you posted it but was in a bit of a hurry (very busy of late) so I didn’t get to post. You were a natural on stage by the way, tell Ryan to give you more than 10 minutes next time!

One thing I wanted to follow up on after reading the comments was your use of the FamFamFam icons, I’m using them as well in a major project at work and just today was suggested a different set (the excellent Chalkwork icons from Mezzoblue) because the Silk icons seem to be everywhere.

But when I thought about it, the Silk icons were more explanatory to their purpose and just seemed a better fit for “at a glance recognition.” And I plan to continue using the Silk set for that very reason even though the Mezzoblue icons would be more unique, they don’t really fulfill the purpose.

By the way, the folks at Clockwork enjoyed the slides during our FOWD discussion meeting. ;)

Cheers.

! At the end, everything boils down to communication. Apple.com has round corners because their products do and they want to be consistent.

This website has a grungy texture and typeface because probably Elliot is a bad ass :) (In a good way)……

So people out there: Try spend at least a couple of focused hours thinking how you are gonna sell the client the idea that the reflected panels and exploding badges do not match the look of the kitchenware they are trying to promote online…or may be they do……in that case do use them

:)

Earlier this year and after months of toil with various Web 2 designs for myself, I realised that it was going to be almost impossible to come up with something that didn’t look like everything else.

This week I rebooted with a design I feel actually gives a feel for who and what I am - a female designer who refuses to be hemmed in by so called web fashion.

Frankly I’d rather follow Jakob ’s Law and make websites like others so that my site would be more usable with the result that my users would be more effective using my site and thus help achieve business goals.

Also, seems you missed this great blog post about Web 2.0 Visual Design.

Showed this to my Boss !

Got promotet !

Now I am LEAD “web 2.0 designer”.

‘Onestly:
Spoke my mind !!! Thanks !!

Also the presentation file is really fun and informative. I posted it in my blog along an English entry (I never posted in English before).

Thank you!! :D

Let’s just hope that browsers keep improving, and all those style goodies that CSS3 promise to deliver actually happen. In a few years’ time we will have the ability to create semantic, accessible sites that are as every bit as engaging as some of the best Flash sites out there.

And that doesn’t mean making a site any less usable. UX is a combination of many factors - not just design & usability. But I digress… the Web 2 look is wearing thin for many people and more designers would do well to broaden their repertoire.

Your presentation was great, and I only saw it inline on this page. Would have loved to have seen it in NYC, but alas, I don’t get out much.

Can I get the background on my kitchen worktops?

;)

The “2.0″ look does what it sets out to do…give a site a clean, crisp look.

But it’s a trend that’s not unlike a million other web trends. There’s the “Overused Photoshop Flower Brush” site (which I’m guilty of owning). The “Grungy Punk Rock / Water Color” looking site. The “Bling” or “WAY too much After Effects” site…etc., etc….I mean stone / grunge backgrounds aren’t exactly breaking new ground. It’s a trend just like so many elements of the 2.0 look.

I’m totally guilty of using 2.0 elements in my sites. I think in moderation they can look good! But I do acknowledge I need to grow some more as a designer, so I could be wrong. Who knows, in a year I may scoff at web 2.0.

I will put a link to it anyway in case the temptations there but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

BBC’s beta redesign

I personally see gradients, reflections and what else you hate as a style and not classified as web 2.0 seeing web 2.0 is more about social networks, state of the web etc.

But Thanks for this nice article and i think it was necessary that someone tells his opinion about web2.0 .
You Are Not The Only One I Think

spot on sir

as a progression, i think this era (of ‘everything 2.0′) has been good for design - we’ve gotten back to some good usability basics through the use of much of the stuff you mention here.

but there’s so much more we can now do with the web, now that design is cleaner. bandwidth is high, hardware is abundant - there’s none of the old restrictions to doing innovative work.

the underlying technology of sites is also now much more flexible. CMS’s can give designers their head AND make sites easy to maintain for clients.

i think the most important point you make is that whats needed is strong leadership from our industry to inform clients as to whats achievable and sensible.

clients are using budgets in better ways now - we need to channel it to functional innovation. get them thinking more about how things like video, widgets and new design perspectives can help their brands…. instead of just being content to ‘look a bit cool like apple’ and having us knock out clone after clone of web 2 style sites.

anyways - BRAVO! this really needed to be said.

A week after you posted this I was re-designing a logo and website for a dotcom here in San Francisco and the creative brief stated (over several paragraphs) “Our new logo will have a web 2.0 look”. Literally. A few days, and few mock-up versions later I approached the CEO of the company I was working for and told him, “You know, the design community is now making fun of the web 2.0 look. I’m pretty sure it’s played out.” His reply, “I like the web 2.0 look, it’s cool. Drop shadows are nice, don’t you think?” Um…. sure.

Part of me thinks this “web 2.0″ look is a west coast, silicon valley driven aesthetic caused by cheapness, and simple design ignorance.

The truth is, in Silicon Valley very little is actually designed by designers. Most web products you use are really designed by product managers. People with business sensibility and financial goals, but with no design literacy. The start-up culture here likes to cut corners, a lot. Consequently, a lot of designers here just “implement” other people’s ideas without being able to bring their design skills to the job.

We all already know know what good design is. Does your message about design ever get to the right people?

http://futureofwebapps.com/roadtrip/

* Vibrant contrast
* Gloss
* Special offer badge
* Beveled edges
* Gradients
* Soft outer glow

…it’s got them all!

Yes, how dare clients expect to exert control over what they are paying for?

Hahahaha…

The Subtraction site in the slides is all trend but it’s just that the trend passed a few years ago. Grids, helvetica in the corner, monochrome solid colors.

Four of the sites in the next few slides (plus this very site) runs with another trend that’s blossoming right now. Paint, earthy tones, freehand form elements, organic natural look. Just visit www.csstux.com and see that almost half of all the sites is made in this aesthetic trend.

I think the most important thing to see (which has already been mentioned in these comments) is that the web look so much better now than a few years ago. People care more for their design, and that’s a good trend.