Am I the only one who is now even more confused about what web design is after reading this article? So many weird comparisons and metaphors were made in such a small amount of space. Seriously. Why am I reading about architecture, peanut butter, and obscure art references?
This article just bothered me because the only useful parts were the definition of web design and the over-stressed point that web design is unique and not like other types of design. That’s great. That didn’t need to be written over and over again in a long-winded article.
Now I’m just kind of off on a rant but this article was also so terribly written that I could not understand half of what the author was trying to say. For example:
“That Google Maps might be as representative of our age as the Mona Lisa was of Leonardo’s—and as brilliant, in its way—satisfies many of us as an answer, but might not satisfy the design critic in search of a direct parallel to, oh, I don’t know, let’s say Milton Glaser’s iconic Bob Dylan poster.” I’m sorry, but what?
I read the comments on this article too and everyone really likes it. However, all of those who left positive comments are professional web designers. I feel like this article doesn’t make sense to anyone who is not very well versed in web design.