While I was bothered by the content of the article, the layout is what first got my attention. Can you spot any problems?

The design in question

1. Black and white images. Isn't color particularly important when you're comparing designs? It seems an awful shame to leave it out here, if it can be avoided.

   I understand that an interior article isn't going to have color. But why not reproduce the color originals on the web, where color is free? It's clear this was just pasted from the newspaper source directly into the site template. Not cool.

2. The criss-crossing arrows. There doesn't seem to be a particular order (nor does there need to be) for the copy, so why arrange it in such a way that arrows have to cross over each other and even stretch all the way across the layout? It's just sloppy.

   Untangle that mess. Copy should be as close as possible to its subject. It's easier to navigate and it doesn't obscure the graphics.

3. Lastly, the compression is really bothersome. It's too low and/or not tuned very well. Look at the artifacts on this text:
   

   See the crumbs around the letters?

   In fact, why is this graphic just a scan of the page? For the website, couldn't they have used the actual text and added labels to the graphic? It would have been much easier to read and searchable to boot.

Its troubling to see design criticism that's in need of design criticism.

In a recent Boston Globe article, Matthew Battles invited several designers to compare the Bush-era whitehouse.gov with Obama's. They were asking: "Why does the site look better than Bush's?" and "What does the new page say about Obama's approach to governance?"

I'm not sure I completely buy their answers to either of those questions

The format of the article is to take some page element —the use of color on the page, for example— and compare the new with the old. But it feels like the comparisons aren't objective for the most part.

What are you supposed to be looking at here? The colors.

For example:

"The Obama site now has bold graduations [of color], texturing; Like Apple.com, it calls for reaction and collaboration" The Bush site, by contast, was muted and chaste, a pastel blue limited to the margins..."a set of dinner plates that only come out for visiting foreign dignitaries."

Really? Does that sound like an objective assessment or are we projecting with the metaphors here?

Instead of saying "the use of bold color focuses attention on headlines and interface elements" we get some partisan statement about how Obama is Steve Jobs and Bush is a stuffy old guy.

The article is seven paragraphs about form and one about function. If you compare the two sites, the content of the new page is not substantially different from the old one. In fact, it may be less genuine than Bush's. Obama's "blog" is a rebranded feed of press releases— there's no two-way communication. Besides a coat of paint and rearranged furniture, what's really that different about the new site?

The article is asking us to read too much into the new design. I like Obama and I like his websites, but I think there's some cognitive bias at work here.

Congratulations, its 2009 and you have a new website

Websites go in and out of fashion rapidly. With rare exception, there are few websites from even four or five years ago that would look or function as good as they did when they were first launched. To compare Bush's site with Obama's as though they were somehow contemporary is akin to comparing a Pinto to a Prius.

If the Bush whitehouse.gov launched today, I'd bet you it would look very similar to the current whitehouse.gov.

Obama's design looks better because it's up to date. Large slideshow images, subtle texture, bold use of color, serif fonts, active voice in navigation elements, whitespace, center orientation — you've pretty much run down the list of the top web design trends of 2009.

You could argue that a Bush website that launched today wouldn't be as good because he's behind the times, but I disagree. I don't think any web designer today (working for the President, no less) would put together something like the old White House site. It's just not done that way anymore.

Let's address the elephant in the room: maybe we like the website better because we like Obama better.

The Presidential reality-distortion field

Obama has a good brand— a very good one. So good, in fact, that it has spilled over into what people think about his website. Perhaps that's the real story here?

I applaud the effort to get newspaper readers to think more about the design they encounter online, but I hate to see personal politics get in the way of what could have been a more objective discussion about better page design.

Thursday, I'll speak a bit on another reason this article misses the mark: poor graphic design.

See you then!

For a short while back in September, DLB was working in collaboration with our long-time friend Dan over at Barack Obama HQ. During the course of that collaboration, we generated a video about the cost of the Iraq War, which, because of the constant issue shuffle, never really made sense for the campaign. We talked to him again today, and got the go-ahead to just upload it to YouTube ourselves. So, if you've got any friends or family who are still undecided, maybe now's a good time to remind them about the the other 1.9 trillion dollars the current administration's taken away from American infrastructure, education, and social welfare.

Here's a handy url to pass along to your friends: http://tr.im/1pt9. Don't forget to vote tomorrow!