The title of this article could easily have been Style vs. Content, but that would not accurately describe its subject. And since "Style" can be the "Content", that title might bring further confusion to the subject. Instead of spending a lot of time defining what this article is NOT, let me just lay out what it is concerned with: The use of visual elements in media design.

There … now I've said it. So let's get to the meat of the topic.

As designers in a cutting edge media, we are constantly exposed to new techniques and visual effects. We are visually oriented people and the temptation to use cool tricks and dazzling design in our work is often overwhelming. We can become so engrossed in producing stunning effects that the content of our work becomes entirely lost to the viewer. Or worse yet, what if our design is so intriguing and "edgy" that a viewer cannot even find the information that they came for?

This is not a new problem. Film makers have been dealing with this issue for almost one hundred years and the debate has gone back and forth in the motion picture industry since the days of the silent films. It is interesting to note that one of the earliest vocalizations of this concept was by the comedic genius, Charlie Chaplin. As a director, he insisted that the "camera" must not intrude in the media experience. In other words, if you are constantly aware that you are viewing a work through visual effects, then the piece is about the effects and nothing else.

To better explain this concept, we will compare two films that deal with roughly the same scenario, but approach the telling of a story from the opposite sides of this debate. The two movies that we will discuss will be Tron and The Matrix.

For those that have not seen Tron, it is an "old school" film in which a hacker is transported inside the digital world of the computer. It is heavy on visual effects and light on plot. For those of you that have not seen The Matrix, it is time for you to leave your cave and re-join contemporary culture.

The movie Tron was all the rage during its original theater release. The visual effects were incredible and everyone talked about their favorite scenes. Opinions were rarely based on plot or character development, but solely on visual effects. (I loved the motorcycle race myself.) The visuals were so "cool" that the movie even inspired the hottest arcade game at that time. (To my knowledge, the first game that charged more than a quarter per session!) But where is Tron now? Do you have a copy in your DVD collection? If you were to view a copy, you would probably think that the movie was dated at best. The reason that this movie has not held up to the test of time is because it relied so heavily on visual effects. The visuals were really the content of the movie; pure eye candy. With advancements in motion picture technology, these once incredible effects are now only cheesy. Since these effects were really the main content of the film, the movie now has little to offer, other than for use in a discussion such as this one.

The Matrix, on the other hand, is also a movie full of ground breaking visual effects, but its approach to the use of these effects is entirely different. This approach is openly stated by the makers of the film in several interviews. They insist that one of the major differences between their film and those of similar genre is that they do not use effects to show off. Every effect that they use is a tool to tell the story. A good way to highlight this is to point out that many of the effects from The Matrix actually go unnoticed by the typical viewer. For example, many times a camera shot begins by looking at a scene through a monitor screen. The camera then passes through the screen and the viewer enters the scene directly. Actually this is a pretty tricky effect, but usually the viewer is so engrossed in the film that the effect never causes us to stop and say, "uh,..wow… that was cool!".

If this doesn't prove the point, think of it this way: At the time of this writing The Matrix has two sequels. Have you ever heard of Tron II or Son of Tron? I think that pretty much sums up my point.

So what does this have to do with design for the web and new media? The same rules apply. Sure, it is nice to have the praise of other designers for incredible effects, but what happens after everyone is using the same effect. Your work is passed unto the garbage dump of overused techniques and gratuitous effects.

Now, don't get me wrong. Use of good visual effects and great design have their place. They are the tools of our trade. But does your client want people to come to their site to look at your effects, or are they trying to get some message across? (Keep in mind, it doesn't matter if they are only presenting their company in a positive light or actually selling something…they are trying to get a message across to someone.)

If a designer takes this approach serious, every effect and "cool" element of a site or media presentation will further the message. Anything else hinders the purpose of the work. (Well, it stands to reason that if the purpose of the work is to feature effects and design, then going over the top may be exactly what you are looking for, but that is the exception to the rule.)

I am not saying that as designers, we should abandon anything "cool" or new and go back to boring static text presentations. If we did, we would lose the passion that makes us artists and the world would quickly become a cold, gray place. What I am saying is that the use of effects and design should enhance, not distract. No good designer is immune to the need to be creative. Personally, I cannot help including in each Web site that I design, something that I think is really cool - no matter how boring the client insists that they want their site to be. But I never stick effects in just to show off. Every element in a design has a purpose other than just including a neat effect. Just like the makers of The Matrix, I use effects to get the message across; not use the message as an excuse to apply cool effects. (Well, I try to stick to the rule, but sometimes I can come up with fairly complex justifications to include some new bit I have developed. After all, I am an artist !)

Here are a few questions that you can ask yourself during the design process. These questions can be applied to any part of a design and do not have to be limited to visual effects:

What is the purpose of this element that I am thinking about including?

How does it help get the message across?

Does it distract from the real purpose of the presentation?

If you answer the questions honestly, you will know whether or not to include something, … or how to use a particular trick that you have been dying to try, in a way that will improve, not hinder.

Okay, enough lecturing. Now go design something!

*Post-Script Note:

This article was originally written while the two sequels to The Matrix were still in production. After their release, they were not nearly as well received as the original.

I found it ironic that the major criticism of these two movies was that they lacked the content and depth of plot of the original and relied too heavily on visual effects. In short, the second and third films in the series fell prey to the one fault that the first film successfully avoided.

On another note, the movie Tron has been re released on DVD and I own a copy. After watching it again, I found that my original comments still hold true.