The variations of each Web designers style has always interested me. It may be the way the CSS is organized, or maybe it is the way the Web site aligns. During the design process, there are usually a whole lot of circumstances that are at play. But the outcome, and the process that was taken to make that outcome, has always been interesting to me. While browsing some Web sites this morning, I came across a couple of decorative outcomes. So I started asking myself, how many people really look closely at a design and ask themselves, is it more than just decorative? So I decided, why not take a look at a couple of beautiful Web sites, and see how well they conceptualized it!

How am I going to do it? Well, I am opening up the CSS, taking a look at the main wrapper (usually no bigger than 980px or so), and trying to figure out if their Web site aligns to a grid. Why use a grid to analyze how well it was conceptualized? As Web designers, we should all agree that alignment should be Web standard and rule number one. I have also noticed that Web sites which are very decorative seem to have a harder time with alignment. I don’t expect each grid to be perfect - since there is a lot of equations that go into place (gutter size, wrapper size, column count). But I would like to see some sort of plausible action to some kind of grid alignment. Why does this mean conceptualized? Each design is architecture, a very thorough plan (concept) should be made before any building occurs. That plan should include alignment.

WebDesignerWall.com is a very beautiful Web site - one that I would definitely call decorative. The multiple elements really make the Web site distinctive and attractive. It’s a toss up - the nonalignment of some elements give it it the real “pad and paper” feel, but the nonalignment also would make the Web site be put under the decorative category in this case. Nick La is a great guy, keep up the great work Nick!

Viget.com is a really great company that was recently introduced to me. I think their work is very unique, and stands out among many smaller design firms - in that respect I am extremely jealous. But if you look closely, the right portion of the grid is a little off. The gutter is suppose to be your main source of padding, thus elements should align to the column after the padding. In that respect you can tell that the designers put that together on purpose, which is where the “extended grid” name comes from. But for some reason, my eye still feels strain with this type of grid. Beautiful and unique design overall.

ModernoPrometeo.com is another great Web site with the “pad and paper” sort of feel. A little scattered, navigation might be a little harder than usual, but overall pleasing for customers and regular consumers.

Conclusion

Overall what can we take from this? First, each designer should be given credit for being so creative, and spending so much time on their work. But we can also take a step back from focusing on these individual designers and just look at the process of conceptualizing a Web site like the styles above. What do you think the differences may be?

The possible decorative process

1. Imagine & mock up (decoration begins)

2. Code & create (concept begins)

3. Publish & play (concept finishes)

The possible grid process

1. Conceptualize & calculate (yes calculate, calculate architecture)

2. Code & create (concept in action)

3. Decorate & beautify (decoration after concept)

As a designer, how do you feel about decorative Web sites? Do you pitch them to your clients because you feel the public has a better response to a design on the decorative side? Or do you just not prefer alignment (grid or not) to that extreme of an extent?