After the first few months of freelancing, I’m starting to finally discover my design and business aesthetics — I want the web to be more like print. I want more constraints and far less technology. More than anything, I want to make things simple.

A great experiment for successful design is to pretend the Internet doesn’t exist — how would be communicate your product, service, or information in a 2 page print brochure? If we’re stuck on an elevator, what’s your pitch? Know exactly what you want to do and do just that, nothing more.

How did it get so bad?

We all seem to have got off track with the constant repetition of the “large site with deep navigation site” archetype. It’s a crutch solution — the focus is solely on organization and design, not the whole and the end result.

Just as everyone in development is enamored with scaling, it seems that far too many designers ask the question, “how much content can we dump in here, and still have things make sense?” rather than “how can we nix this nonsense, and just say what we mean?”. In many projects, it’s taken a priori that all the content that exists going into a project must remain intact. Of course, this leads to the new site simply shuffling a rotten core, putting a new face on old problems. Really, what’s diluting the web are piles of meaningless words, not a lack of style.

Of course, what holds most projects back from revising content is that it’s difficult, time-consuming work. It takes coordination, lots of buy-in, and tons of time to really re-think how to present your business or organization in a succinct fashion. Usually, it’s a much more time-intensive project than a re-design. Design is comparatively cheap and headache free, compared to re-wording and re-thinking your marketing pitch (I know, I’ve been re-writing my site for months). Yet the hardest problems are often the most important to solve.

Distorted incentives

We’re still saddled with the notion that the larger the company/budget the “larger” the site goals must be, a linear relationship wherein you add more money and you get more stuff (technology, more copy, etc). Further complicating things is that in many ways, the design firm’s best interest is to scope more work, because contracts are still largely based (or at least estimated) on hourly rates. The more “stuff,” the larger the end payout.

Until we can forcefully show that leaner, smaller scoped projects are more a valuable as larger ones, the trend of most site redesigns packing in “more than they need” will likely continue.

A way out

For a while I’ve been joking that the Internet would be a better place if every company tried to emulate apple.com. Well, now it’s not a joke. Seriously, go copy Apple.

Of course, don’t lift the design or steal the structure or patterns, but look to it for serious inspiration. It’s highly visual, but not too flashy, and the copy is just impeccably tight and convincing. One of the most successful selling laptops of all time is presented in six short, individually styled pages. Just like a great brochure.

Once you stop assuming (or allowing) that “everything must stay” in a given re-design, you can really start focusing on just how much can go. Focusing on editing, copywriting, and the end goals will result in a better web.