Art is for artists. Design is not.

I took drawing and painting lessons for years as a child. When the time came to pick a career path, I considered art and illustration. Deciding that the common phrase "starving artist" didn't bode well for an art career, I sold out for graphic design. Here was art for commercial gain. I could be creative and make a living at the same time.

In reality, fine art and graphic design are not distinguished by commercialism but by objectives. The artist creates purely for personal expression. The designer creates to communicate a specific message to a specific audience.

Sometimes designers select their messages and audiences, but usually they do not. In any case, artists are free to express themselves as they like. Their works may communicate any message and evoke any and every emotion. But a designer must communicate a select message to a select audience, or their work is a failure.

Now, a designer may use art or even personal expression to convey a given message, but the primary goal is to communicate a unique message to a unique audience. This puts inherent restrictions on the works created by the designer.

Design is about problem solving. The problem is taking a unique concept and communicating it through as simple a means as possible so the concept is understood as easily as possible. This is not to say a particular message may not call for confusing, confounding, or angering an audience. But most will not. While art is often expected to be provocative or evocative, design usually communicates, and those communications are typically messages of informative, educational, or inspirational character.

Sadly, many designers don't see their role as communicative. They see websites (or videos, or print advertisements, etc.) as creative outlets and experimental spaces. They see their role as mostly creative and rarely consider accessibility. For them, function follows form.

The result is website designs that showcase the creative whims of egocentric designers instead of making content available for as many people as possible.

Let me be clear: this definition of art vs. design is my own. Most dictionaries--and many readers--are likely to disagree. But regardless of what terms you use, I believe the broad roles I describe are accurate distinctions. And I think it's crucial for every artist--or designer--to understand their role and the underlying motivations.

The Supercali- fragilistic- expialidocious Email Test

Several years ago a web hosting client came to me with a request for a new and exceedingly long email address. There's nothing more annoying than listening to someone spell out each letter of a thirty-five character email address over the phone. Having to be the one slogging through reciting all those letters is no fun either, so I knew I would do my client a favor if I could convince him to shorten the requested address.

But how to point out the obvious blunder of such a long address without using the phrase "obvious blunder"? My solution was what I have coined "The Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Test."

I sent an email to my client that compared the number of characters in his email address with that really long word we are all familiar with:

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
TestUserLongEmailName@yourdomainname.com

This simple visual explanation was all I needed to convince my customer to go with a shorter email address. And it's worked many times since, as well.

Of course, this test works for more than just email addresses. Believe it or not, you'd be surprised at how many times clients have suggested website domains that are nearly as long as the "S" word.

So next time you are considering a long email address or domain name, try to err on the side of short and sweet--or you might not pass the test.

Your Website Might Not Be Usable on 30% of Computers

If you're like most people, you surf the web with one browser. Probably it's a version of Internet Explorer on Windows. I say "probably" because Microsoft's browser is now only used by something less than two-thirds of web users now. That's right, according to our research, it's likely that a full third of all internet users are not using Internet Explorer to view your website.

Some ten percent of users are viewing the web via the Safari browser on Apple computers or iPhones. Another fifteen percent or so are using Firefox. Opera and other alternative browsers account for a portion, and a small but growing percentage of people are viewing the web on smart phones.

What does this mean for you? Well, depending on how carefully your website was tested when it was created, 30% or more of your visitors may see misaligned images and text, or worse, some parts of your web pages may not show at all.

Unfortunately, many web designers are not careful to test websites on all of the common web browsers. Despite improvements in web standards, each browser (such as Firefox and Safari) shows web pages in slightly different ways if pages are not coded properly. In fact, even if web programmers are careful to adhere to the latest HTML standards, not all browsers will display pages the same way. Often the differences are slight, but sometimes, as noted above, some page elements may be hidden altogether or otherwise unusable.

For a while, Microsoft had a monopoly on browser usage. During that time, many web designers became complacent (i.e. lazy) and stopped testing websites any browser but Internet Explorer. Some even added little statements on the bottom of websites like, "Best Viewed on Internet Explorer." It was easier to demand that users cater to the needs of designers than the other way around. With the decline in popularity of Internet Explorer, this is no longer responsible web design practice (assuming it ever was).

So if you haven't looked at your site in a while with another browser, give it a try. (Most alternative browsers are free.) And if you are considering developing a new website, make sure your developer will be testing the site in all major browsers.

Get Ready for Banner Ads on TV

As we've predicted for some time, Advertising Age this week reports TV networks will soon begin testing ads that appear on screen during programming. The new ads will show not in a commercial break but during shows, at the top or bottom of the screen.

This banner ad-like advertising is seen as a way to reach viewers who are becoming increasingly savvy at ignoring ads. Research shows most TV viewers mute commercials, leave the room, change channels, or skip them via DVRs like TiVo.

We often talk about the rise of advertising clutter and the need for advertisers to find new ways to capture the attention of their target market. Banner ads on TV are one way, though such schemes risk alienating and irritating the very audience advertisers hope to reach.

Still, this advertising arms race that pits audience against advertiser is likely to continue. Advertisers must be both aggressive in cutting through ad clutter, and cautious about how they do so.