THE CHALLENGE
In the last issue, we ran a column on the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting website. It was a very sophisticated example of interactive design. But since it seemed a bit manipulative, I let my personal views on the content slip a few times. Several readers sent e-mails taking issue with this. They felt I was insulting the Marines in general, rather than questioning the recruiting site in particular, and that doing so at a time when we are at war was in poor taste. Reggie Byrum, a designer from Charlotte, N.C, added that as a professional journal, STEP shouldn’t be in the business of promoting any particular point of view. We had to admit that he had a point. He then challenged us to review a liberal website, and give equal time to the opposite view. Again, we agreed. After all, part of our job is to show people how to look at communications critically, and see how design adds implicit meanings.

A WELL-DESIGNED LIBERAL WEBSITE
The first step was to find a site that was a) clearly liberal, and b) well designed. To fulfill the first requirement, I Googled “liberal websites.” Pages and pages and pages of links came up—who knew? Fulfilling the second criterion was much more difficult. To be worthy of review, the site had to do more than just organize the information logically, have an easy-to-understand interface, and be visually attractive. It also had to carry strong messaging, build on that messaging with a distinctive visual language, and use interactive technology in a meaningful way.

Most of the liberal sites failed these tests—as do most commercial sites. Visually pedestrian, chaotic, and verbally hyperbolic, they lacked basic communications discipline. Why so? Do liberal groups lack the funds to hire excellent designers? Do they fail to establish a strong enough sense of mission to attract excellent design volunteers? You may be better equipped to answer that question than I.

Finally, after clicking through sites for several hours, I found one that was clean, visually powerful, with consistently branded messaging and intelligent interactivity: “Who Dies for Bush Lies?”. The title tells us where it stands on the political spectrum. Let’s see if the design pays off.

VISUAL LANGUAGE
The home page is unusually focused. It uses a half-black, half-white format, a blazing orange title that spans the halves, and a pair of image blocks that balance each other with enough asymmetry to create interest. One image is a blazing military convoy; against it in the opposite field are pictures of protestors. Both have been darkened and flattened so the orange text remains dominant. An orange subtitle, “What YOU Can Do” sits below the protestors and over a list of links—which are in such thin, dark type that they’re illegible, and therefore negligible.

Symbolically, this visual language speaks of opposition and conflict: black against white, orange against black, hard edges, militaristic imagery. No moral gray areas here. On interior pages, the black-and-white, for-or-against symbolism continues. The half-and-half layout persists, with links and content switching between the black and white fields for variety. Photographs are black and white, divided into positive and negative zones. I would have thought that the site’s political position was clear. However, when I sent the link to a sister (who lives in a passive-solar log house in central New Hampshire), at first glance she thought that this was a conservative venue.

Maybe the design spoke louder than the text. Maybe the cue was the fascistic color palette—most antiwar sites deploy happy blues and greens. Maybe it was the slick, professional layout—most antiwar sites look homemade. Maybe it was the angry, militaristic imagery—most antiwar sites use images of human hope and suffering. In any case, however good its design values, the site almost lost an impassioned liberal on the home page.