Those Three Little Words
The names for this site’s major sections—Synapse, Oculus, and Mandible—debuted in 2002 when etherfarm version 2.0 launched. For whatever reason, this use of unconventional terminology has always irked certain people. I’m fine with this; if etherfarm is ever a site which appeals to everyone, I’m clearly doing something wrong, and of course, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Every once in a while, though, I come across sites which reference or review etherfarm using qualified complements such as, “once you get past the ’clever’ navigation…” or “despite the intellectual pretentiousness…”
I never thought I’d want to explain the reasoning behind etherfarm’s nomenclature, but I feel that all the new traffic brought about by the release of v4.0 presents a unique opportunity to do so.
First, let me just say that none of the section labels are, by any measuring stick, large words. They’re Greek and Latin, which makes them large only in a historical sense. Colophon, however, is also a word derived from Latin and Greek—but it has somehow become fashionable on blogs, and people don’t object to its use. While the anatomical terms I use may not be ubiquitous to anyone except perhaps those in the medical sciences, they’re definitely not unwieldy. I’ll gladly accept the charge of being intellectually pretentious if those making the charge accept the counter-claim that they’re intellectually lazy, what with definitions and etymologies for any word in any of the major languages only a few clicks away.
But for the sake of argument let’s say that I did use large words. I’m guessing that some people would rather see an etherfarm navigation bar which looked like this:
—which uses the standard navigation terms used on 99% of weblogs. I suppose the appeal of this navigation is that one knows instantly what each link means and the kind of content they would find by using these links. Nothing wrong with this. Nothing at all. Except that these navigational terms are used on 99% of weblogs, and this being the case, they have as much personality as your standard-issue office paper clip. This is a personal site and I, for one, would like it to at least offer the illusion that I have some personality. Nevermind that it’s a bit sad that the best I could come up with was three Latin words. Look right past that, please.
The art and science of design has brought many great things to the web, but of design’s cultural contributions to the so-called “personal web,” perhaps the most dubious is that, in the name of usability, web design has driven both curiosity and exploration to the brink of extinction. Do we really want to live in a world where the same standards for evaluating the effectiveness of a commerce website are used to evaluate the ways people express themselves?
I’m certainly not trying to argue that my use of three Latin words somehow constitutes the cutting edge of exploration-inspiring navigation. In fact, the point is that if these three little words represent the outer fringes of what’s considered usable navigational language on a personal site, then we should all start swinging from the trees. Again.
It warmed the cockles of my heart (and to quote Woody Allen, “there’s nothing like hot cockles”) to see Simon’s comment on etherfarm v4.0’s inaugural post:
…the navigation terms—not sure what to expect when clicking—but sure made me click them, didn’t it?
Well, at least one person gets it.
Please take note that this entry isn’t intended to insult those who have commented on etherfarm’s navigation, nor is it a defense of the decisions I’ve made in producing etherfarm. This entry merely contains observations and laments about a larger web-design-culture trend towards all-things-uninteresting, a trajectory I find tragic only because of the web design community’s largely unfulfilled potential for pushing virtual experience and expression beyond something more than pixels, code standards, ROI and usability.
top
23 responses
Comment posted at 13:42 on Monday, March 14, 2005
Narayan,
It’s your website. I’d suggest doing what you want to do, and not cater to the lowest common denominator. It’s a sad fact that fewer and fewer people want to make any effort in their lives, and maybe, just maybe, you’ll get readers to “raise their bar”.
top
Comment posted at 00:21 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
It seems a little odd that, in a whole web site with multiple pages and plenty of room for written content and images, you still feel that the “make the navigation menu in a language that your readers can understand” requirement is excessively chafing your creative expression.
You decided what pages to have, what went on those pages, and what they looked like. You configured the site so it behaved the way you want, including writing custom code. Your personal stamp was already all over the place.
Does it make a difference that all three words are written in a roman alphabet and have easily-recognizable english cognates? I’m trying to imagine if your argument was applied to a site whose navigational links were in Japanese or Elvish or something.
top
Comment posted at 01:03 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Joel, perhaps you misunderstood. I didn’t argue that my ‘creative expression’ was being chafed. Last I looked, those menu items are still up there, so no chafing here.
If anything, I was arguing that usability has created a reliance on language that readers can understand, and while that’s fine for certain aspects for the web, it is, in my opinion, a rather stale and uninteresting way to express oneself.
I’ll put it this way. Why do many web designers spend so much time tweaking pixels and code? I’d argue they do so to create a unique visual identity. All I’m asking is that language, maybe particularly on personal websites, could and perhaps should be handled similarly.
Regardless of all the pretty scenery on a well-designed website, language is in most cases still the primary vehicle for conveying meaning. In the end, I think designers are probably most responsible for the cultural migration away from understanding through contemplation or experience and towards efficient information consumption, and the issues people have about my use of so-called big words were merely impetus for me to write about this phenomenon.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I accidentally submitted this comment before it was fully written then edited it afterwards.)
top
Comment posted at 05:23 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Glad you took my comment the right way, Narayan. You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding our pursuit of standards often being at the expense of creativity. Don’t get me wrong, many designers do not let standards stunt their aspirations, but standards-alone should not be the goal. We must always remember the end user’s experience of what we build, and often our own satisfaction at knocking out another ultra-valid site can cloud that. Let’s not lose sight of the fun we can have building websites, and let’s keep pushing that envelope.
Let’s have more K10K, more Yugop, more Noodlebox. I gave up art to work in this industry, and if we lose the creative excitement, I’ll just go and be a park ranger instead.
top
Comment posted at 07:46 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Well said! A similar thought was posed by Greg at Airbag a little while ago regarding the Blogosphere in general.
I, for one, applaud your interesting navigation. It’s thought-provoking. Yes, on a corporate site you don’t want to make people work too hard to find things. Yes, usability is good thing. A blog can be a different matter, however. By using words that are metaphors and slightly out of the norm, you invite your readers to explore a bit, to loosen up and take part in a surprise. It then becomes more of an “experience” to visit here. That was one of the high-minded ideas early web adopters were crowing about-“The web is an interactive experience, something beyond the mindlessness of TV”.
One of the things that never ceases to amaze me online is how easy it has become for everone to be a critic.
top
Comment posted at 09:22 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
“I think designers are probably most responsible for the cultural migration away from understanding through contemplation or experience and towards efficient information consumption”
That *is* the job of a graphic designer, no? ;o)
I’m not sure what the ‘cultural migration’ is. Some things need very clearn language (highway signage, airport wayfinding, instruction manuals) and some things can be exploratory in nature (literature, personal sites, etc.) As always, it’s all about the context.
top
Comment posted at 09:35 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Maybe I’m just a bit paranoid but before I clicked on the words I didn’t understand, I hovered over them and read the tooltips.
Now only if there was a different word for “About”.
top
Comment posted at 11:16 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Good post. In the end all that really matters is whether or not you’re happy with your work. Life’s too short to spend it pandering to critics.
top
Comment posted at 11:54 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Joel, perhaps you misunderstood. I didn’t argue that my ‘creative expression’ was being chafed. Last I looked, those menu items are still up there, so no chafing here.
If anything, I was arguing that usability has created a reliance on language that readers can understand, and while that’s fine for certain aspects for the web, it is, in my opinion, a rather stale and uninteresting way to express oneself.
I guess my point was simply that, as web designers, we adopt certain conventions as a basic framework and express ourself within them. I did not mean to offend you; on your page this stuff is fine.
Since I wrote my post at 2am, I forgot to say a few things, and might have come off as harsher than I meant.
First, your target demographic is a bunch of intellectually pretentious web geeks (myself included) who love this kind of thing. I think you’ve probably endeared far more readers than you’ve scared away.
Second, there is nothing wrong with using idioms in an interface, as long as they’re easily memorable. Links in latin are, because english has many words derived from latin; links in arabic or korean are not, unless the page is targeted to people who can read that language.
Third, it’s your site, and you can make the links say whatever you want. You also (I’m assuming) have a vested interest in your readers actually being able to find stuff on your site.
Finally, I missed the tooltips until someone pointed them out. Chalk it up to 95% of links not putting anything useful there. Being able to figure out their meaning without having to actually click on them makes them much less annoying.
top
Comment posted at 12:00 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
I have to admit that the first time I visited your site, I was taken aback by the unconventional naming scheme in your navigation. I also admit that my initial impression verged on labeling the author “pretentious.” I still have to decide what that says about me…
However, upon further exploration (including a trip to dictionary.com) my impression is now very different. Yours really is a beautiful site, both visually and in creative spirit. Regarding your naming scheme, I’m now left saying “Hell yeah!”
Doing your own thing, and doing it well is what creativity is all about.
Your use of Optima doesn’t hurt my impression either 
top
Comment posted at 12:44 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Here here! Well said. Unfortunately, weblogs, like any other design culture, is stricken with mediocrity. Not that I’m one to talk…my web site, though perhaps slightly tilted towards outside-the-norm, is well within the boundaries of said-norms. I applaud your post, simply because you point out the simple truth that, we as designers (you have a weblog? done, you have to design it) is to attact the viewer in to the point of not wanting to leave…yet. Keeping them there long enough for a couple eye blinks is a goal.
top
Comment posted at 14:09 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Geez. It’s not like you didn’t use the title attribute in your navigation links. A mere seconds’ hesitation before clicking explains all.
top
Comment posted at 14:59 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Hmmm, seems like it’s taken me a while to get to this post, but it is so up my street. All credit to you Narayan, you have certainly sparked some debate.
The thing with weblogs is that they are personal and should be whatever you want them to be, and that’s fine. The problem with blogs is who are they for? The author or the audience? They probably start being for the author then change, with popularity, for being for the audience. This is when standardisation and conventions must play a part. Conventions exist for a reason - they are understood by the majority.
I like the fact you’ve stuck your neck out and thought about your structures labels and tried to introduce some personality and creativity, but I can’t help thinking this has been at the expense of clarity. True, usability has a habit of standardisation, but for the most part, it’s there to help the audience, especially where signage is concerned.
I agree with your points about language but think that perhaps there is a time and a place for creative writing and signposts are not it.
But hey, it’s your site, and i’m here commenting so can’t be that bad eh? 
top
Comment posted at 21:00 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Darrel, you’re right, context obviously plays a central role in determining the wiggle room one might have in these matters. That said, I also would find it sad if graphic design wholly privileged information consumption over the understanding of information (these things are not equal in my book).
Joel, no offense taken, and I didn’t think your comment harsh at all.
Warren, I don’t know if you use a Mac or a PC, but if it’s the former, I have several reference sources at my disposal at all times. One is the “Reference” tool in [the sadly defunct] Watson, then there are the the free OmniDictionary and Nisus Thesaurus. All are excellent, and with LaunchBar or Quicksilver, definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, and synonyms are just a hotkey away.
Mark, I’ll use Colly’s distinction between the professions of art and design as a way to address your comment. He’s right in making this distinction—art and design have very different goals, and I suppose the whole point of this entry is that maybe—just maybe—the latter could and would benefit from a little more of the former, at least in the context of personal websites. My next post will explain why I think so. Cue drumroll.
For the record, I get very antsy when people start wielding the word “must” like a stick with which they beat ideological conformity into the masses. This is by no means a criticism of your comment, Mark—if anyone appreciates a healthy debate, it’s me—but must evokes a kind of dogmatic rigor which I would actually like to see tempered in discussions about design. Just a thought.
top
noah
Comment posted at 21:17 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Its a sad comment that this debate is occuring over these three words. I’m not a doctor, I’m a grunting artist, and I know what all three mean, and without checking anything. Its a meaningful debate, but if this is the battleground, why bother?
top
Comment posted at 21:41 on Tuesday, March 15, 2005
I didn’t mean to stir up a debate focused on these three words. As I mentioned previously, I was merely using the fuss these three words cause as impetus to criticize what I perceive as an detrimentally shallow conception of the term “usability” in the field of web design. I don’t really consider these three words the battleground, though clearly people have taken my post as being a battle cry for creative freedom (which it wasn’t intended to be).
As an aside, you don’t really grunt, Noah, do you?
top
Comment posted at 08:08 on Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Good point, and to be honest I hadn’t thought about my words there, maybe “should” would be more appropriate. No offense meant.
The art and design debate is a good one as most designers come from an art background. The two disciplines are different and, yes, maybe they can learn a bit from each other. I guess nurturing a mutual understanding of either medium would help. To be honest, since university, i’m way out of touch with the art world and maybe it shows.
Note to self: Read about art again!
top
Comment posted at 15:27 on Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Donec eros nunc, posuere vitae, eleifend quis, iaculis rhoncus, massa. Duis cursus, magna nec fermentum iaculis, velit lorem tempus wisi, at rhoncus magna leo non leo. Pellentesque gravida leo sed augue semper tincidunt. Proin nulla. Maecenas rutrum, eros in tempor consequat, sem nisl sagittis elit, et venenatis quam magna sit amet ligula. Aenean interdum, nisl ut malesuada ultricies, tellus turpis scelerisque massa, at tincidunt tortor dolor adipiscing turpis. Ut ullamcorper nisl.
top
noah
Comment posted at 21:19 on Wednesday, March 16, 2005
I didn’t say that I speak Latin, I just know Latin words that are part of common English. A translation site seems to think that you are writing about pain and pregnant lions. Thats the best I was willing to do.
Actually, I only grunt when I lift heavy things, which unfortunately I am still called upon to do on jobs occasionally. Normally I am content with just snorting.
top
Comment posted at 12:20 on Thursday, March 17, 2005
I was just kidding, by the way. The site is easy to navigate, less filling, and tastes great, too.
top
Comment posted at 17:17 on Friday, April 01, 2005
Those were my thoughts exactly when I chose the navigation titles for my page. I couldn’t have put it more eloquently.
top
Comment posted at 11:49 on Saturday, July 08, 2006
[…] A very accosting layout and a interesting discussion topic, do you provide any Web-based services to universities or students. […]
top
Comment posted at 23:41 on Sunday, April 01, 2007
Hi,
thank you for the good Article and Design Tips - verry good Job. .. and interesting discussion.
Greetings from Germany
Sven
top
What's This?
∗Required field
♦Email addresses are never published
§Followup comment notifications contain a link to turn off further notification
†The captcha system verifies you're a human by having you enter text which spambots cannot read.
About Comments
IPs are logged and can be banned, so be civil and don't make an ass of yourself.
Registering greatly simplifies comment entry.
Allowed Tags
a, blockquote, em, strong
Note: only the above tags will be used in submitted comments, despite what that sneaky live preview leads you to believe.
top
