This was a typography exercise in my design theory class originally produced November 2007. We were given a few words in which we were instructed to illustrate.

*These ideas stem from a much larger essay I wrote called “Biopolitical Power, Immaterial Labor and the Web 2.0” under the direction of Dr. Brian Brown at The University of Western Ontario. These ideas are largely rooted in the works of Karl Marx, Nick Dyer-Witheford, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt and Tim O’Reilly.

Taylorism (or Scientific Management) makes sense in the factory. I genuinely believe that the work management is responsible for – the organization of labor, selling the product and building client relationships – takes more skill and effort than the actual laborer assembling parts or repeating minute tasks repetitively and therefore they should earn a more substantial wage. In essence, this relationship represents the division of intellectual and manual labor.

Outside the factory however, where management takes on a more laissez-faire approach and where the laborer is responsible for intellectual labor, I believe the laborer deserves a greater wage than that of management and/or administration.

I believe this primarily because the intellectual laborer is responsible for providing a full product (the whole) and seeing a product from concept through to completion. Freelancers for instance often take on multiple roles that a creative agency would normally disperse such as account management, copywriting, accounting, creative direction, design and so on.

I should be clear though that management does fulfill an important role. They are responsible for giving the client their undivided attention and this is the difference between an agency and a freelancer. While a freelancer can sometimes provides this, it is often the case that the division of these roles yields better results for everyone involved.

I recently had an interview with a 30 something for a graphic design position. The company was a one person shop and was built on selling a custom content management system (CMS) which is something I have seen at another company I worked for. Maybe it’s because I’m ten years younger but based on what I have experienced, I’m not convinced this sort of business can last.

It’s a heart warming story when a developer tells us of the efforts that have been put into a product that has has been in development for 10+ years – the struggles, the evolution and improvement of features etc. but what we’re witnessing is the end of an old dream. I see it all the time – people who become so invested in pet projects that they oversee the poor business model it’s based on (an image of a failing entrepreneur, a bogus product and terribly designed bristol board presentation seen on Dragon’s Den comes to mind). Let me be clear though – I’m not saying these developers made poor decisions to begin with or even face any trouble ahead of them but simply that they come from a different time. I’m sure most of them have sold their own CMS system to a few clients in the past and will continue to do so for their remaining career. What I’m getting at is that this kind of business is quickly becoming obsolete so, for someone like myself for instance, this won’t work, at least, long term. Recall, some of these developers have put in 10+ years into a product that is often sub par to something that is now free.

Developers need to realize that, as Tim O’Reilly has made clear, we are in an age of perpetual beta and essentially, a state of permanent incompletion. Think of how often we as users are prompted to update our software, whether that be our operating system (something we used to have to wait 4 years for from Microsoft) or software like Firefox and iTunes. Software companies change their features on a daily basis, even if the change is seemingly trivial. In fact, that’s what it’s all about: small, non obtrusive, frequent changes.

What the developers selling custom content management systems aren’t realizing is that platform computing is dead. The Web 2.0 is too focused on open source and user generated content (Sorry Microsoft). This is where feedback becomes very effective – software companies are no longer developing what they think is valuable but instead what we think is valuable. This means that users are now educated enough in computing to make these types of decisions.

The smarter developers who do offer a custom CMS will frequently and consistently update their product by changing, removing and adding features (keeping in line with the perpetual beta model). Ultimately however, their efforts cannot compete against open source applications that invite users world wide to come together and collectively build a product that improves every day (Wordpress and it’s countless plugins).

I kow what you’re thinking – won’t there always be a market for a custom CMS? After all, private corporations don’t trust applications built by the public, do they? For the moment, many do not and indeed, there is a market for this kind of venture. More importantly though, we cannot overlook the fact that the idea of open source software is very new. This is a system that older generations, namely the baby boomers, don’t always understand and for that matter, trust. For the time being, this is where the custom CMS can sell, although as harsh as it sounds, the market for this software is quite literally dying (or at least, retiring).

On the other hand, my own and younger generations are collectively creating a product that gets better by the second. Open source software is a system we can rely on and for the contributing developers even feel a sense of ownership to. I along with thousands of other users strongly believe in open source software and recognize the potential it has. Conclusively, it is my prediction that future generations will have more faith in open source applications and user contributions and therefore, knowing the power of such tools as Wordpress, Drupal and Joomla, I cannot justify investing a significant amount of time into developing a custom CMS. And neither should you.

Design implies subjectivity, interpretation and diversity but when it comes to the web there is a debate as to where developers should draw the line, that is, which limitations should be accounted for and which are obsolete.

Web design is interesting in the sense that it has standards and best practices but it can also be treated as an art form. More specifically, a design can be broken down aesthetically and practically (front-end and back-end) – the latter being the logic that goes into the architecture, usability and overall experience. I think most web designers and developers would agree that the synergy of these counterparts is necessary for good design.

It should be obvious how the aesthetic can be treated as an art for although there are basic design principles (legibility, grid systems, color theory etc.), it is ultimately the designer’s creativity that brings the aesthetic to life. However, it almost seems like a paradox calling logic (the development) an art form. It shouldn’t be though. Let me explain. Designing, or better, controlling, an experience is dependent on knowing your user’s perception – how they think and interact. It should make sense then that because our culture and thus our perception is constantly evolving (and faster than ever mind you) us developers need to adjust the ways in which we approach user experience (UX) design accordingly.

Currently we are designing for smaller screens (mobile) and touch applications that emphasize an increasing number of sensors (Luke Wroblewski talks a lot about these trends). For instance, the new Apple trackpad and mouse allow for the user to utilize four fingers rather than two as prior. This has made for a more complex and customizable user experience.

And it is not only hardware that is evolving either. Software too has changed as it is now, for the most part, being hosted on “the cloud” which has it’s own implications. Compression is a big issue as Steve Jobs and Apple continue to fight against Adobe Flash while bandwidth has become more important than ever with the introduction of mobile data plans and the plethora of web applications.

What I’m getting at is that these technological advancements change our experience and so developers must change their practices simultaneously. In other words, ‘best practices’ are changing more frequently almost to the point where developers should not necessarily rely on old techniques, but instead, anticipate new ones (especially with the release of CSS3 and HTML5).

In sum, there is no question that the future of web design is overwhelming but do not be scared. Be curious. Be excited. And be ready to take on new challenges that will push both the user and developer in directions never explored before.

Herb Pedersen is one of my favorite singer / songwriters. He is a bluegrass legend playing with The Dillards, Earl Scruggs, David Grisman and many others including his own band The Laurel Canyon Ramblers but his work extends to many country and rock bands as well (Emmylou Harris, Gram Parsons, Dan Fogelberg, Stephen Stills, Linda Rindstadt, John Denver, James Taylor etc). His most notable work is his vocal arrangements and banjo playing for Chris Hillman’s band The Desert Rose.

Agency: Bureau Group

Role: CSS / Flash AS3 Development

Design: Nadia Bergeron

Phosphorus Media specializes in high impact media delivery systems that engage audiences through the synergy of interactive media and content. Phosphorus Media is pioneering technological advances and providing cost efficient and highly effective interactive advertising techniques that leave a lasting impression. We synchronize advancements of technology with consumer behavior. The Phosphorus experience leaves a single impression that rivals the mass saturation of traditional ad delivery models.

Phosphorus Media – P15 GroundFX from Phosphorus Media on Vimeo.

Agency: Bureau Group

Role: CSS / Javascript / Wordpress Development

Design: Frank Chartrand

Accranada is a housing development company specializing in interior design and construction servicing Sudbury, ON.