Debate Query: Appearance vs Function?

Here is an old chestnut that I want to know opinions about.

As Web Designers our bread & butter is being able to present a client in the best light, but is that focused mainly on the eye-catching and mood setting visual aspects of a site, or on the way the content is displayed?

I know the mantra is "Content is King" but as the world becomes more and more visually oriented does that still hold true?
As advertising, games, and other factors shorten attention spans and make the public less patient with what it views, can a site risk being purely functional?

In Education particularly there is a lot of content to impart and it must be carefully organised not to overwhelm the viewer and still hold the attention.

Yet, will a populace that has grown up with bright iPhone colours and gaming graphics not give even the best content based-site only cursory attention before switching to Facebook or a gaming site with lots of entertaining graphics?
(I know one student in my course last year who's attention was impossible to focus on anything not visually "explosive", which was nothing course related).

As such is the future swinging to "Visuals is king"?

What do you think?

No matter what the " thinkers " are trying to convey, content is always more relevant.

Certain " groups " have always been more visually focused, and that should always be part of your design strategy. But there is always a small percentage or every group that is more visually intrigued than the group as a whole.

Here's the problem with designing for a visual audience and ignoring the " content is king mantra ", search engines are " content oriented ", if you have little or no content, then search engines will not index it properly. If search engines don't index it properly, then the people will not find it.

Every design strategy, should ALWAYS include aspects for the human and non human visitors of the site. If you try to ignore either, the site will be impacted negatively.

Good answers, but what about the trend towards the visual?
Even if content remains king and non-human users require data content, are sites still having to increase their visual aspects to maintain viewer interest?
I agree that a visual/content balance is the best policy but isn't the bar still shifting toward a need for snappy visuals, just to get the human user to bother investing their attention?

You have to look at your target market, there's a big difference between let's say a site about a musician and a site about theoretical metallurgy.

One would lean toward more of a visual aspect, the other would lean more to a simplistic intuitive aspect, because there is a vast difference in the target markets expectations and what they deem as a usable site.

There may be some markets that there will be some moderate convergence in perceptions, but I personally don't think there is or will be in the near future, an overall push to make everything visually appealing.

Take books for example, 5 years ago, there were studies and tons of things that would indicate that the future of books was limited. Although there has been a big surge in eBooks and readers, book sales have not declined at the same pace that eBooks have jumped. In actuality, the eBook market has supplemented the overall book industry, with just another outlet for a particular market.

The OP was about a lot of differing types of sites, also how I was referring to it.

The educational aspect is another "genere" of web presentation, and I agree 100% with your analysis of the differing types of learners. I see the same things on a daily basis.

Hi all, one of Ruarri's fellow students here. Thanks for the input so far guys.

I definately do not think that it is swinging towards "Visuals is king", no matter how pretty your webpage or graphics are you still want great content that you showcase and enhance with visuals.

As mentioned above by Smoseley there are different styles of learners with different needs, I just covered this in my E-Learning Design documentation.
I went with the VAK (Visual learners, Auditory learners, Kinesthetic learners) model, and hopefully used enough variety in the e-learning tutorial to give the three main learning styles of the target audience something to tweak their intertest.
Also as mentioned above it will depend on your target audience. If you know your target audience are *oooh shiney* idiots then yes your bells and whistles will amuse them, so you would go more visual heavy. Still you will need content to deliver!

Take Facebook as an example it is very plain, but the social network and content/contact it provides keep millions going back (some seem to never leave lol). Hell can you imagine the uproar if they suddenly made it all graphic everywhere, one thing a lot of FB users don't seem to like is change

My personal opinion is that I really do love a good looking easy to read site, but the content must be something that holds my interest or I wander else where.

Nicely put AlphaMare, I forgot to mention CARP. I strive for good layout with all my work, avoiding tension and having it all together coherently just makes for a more pleasent viewing and navigational experience.

Agreed, Alphamare/Nautilus. It is always the sign of a great site when the content is controlled in visually intuitive ways, one reinforcing or directing the other. The multiple learning types can always find something they can comprehend when this is done well.

In regard to the visual and kinesthetic learners, how do you view the recent advances in Kinetic Feedback? The games consoles that are being re-jigged as Virtuality devices, and even navigational aids for the blind, are opening up a new 3rd Dimension into which design will flow. Do you foresee a new educational clique for "VR learners" or virtual design melding with advances in 3D printing to create VArts & crafts where everyday people learn by creating stuff virtually and then "print" their creations into reality for assessment? How do you see the Designer's role in that 360-degree encompassing realm?

Ruarri I can only see 'Augmented Reality' coming on in leaps and bounds, from say the Xbox 360 kinect mods we see now. The problem I see for using it more for a learning aid is the amount of time to develop it, then actually getting users navigating and using the 3D enviroment, when for the most part the more user friendly and familar flat enviorment can teach the same thing.
That being said with 3D becoming more and more in our face (TVs, Gaming, Movies etc.)
it may only be a matter of time when it is more widely adopted for learning.
There are definately some cases where a 3D enviroment can help, medical, disabilities, engineering and training pilots being just a few.

Just think about where we could be in 5, 10 or 20 years the mind boggles.

While on the topic of 3D in Learning I thought you might find this a good read Ruarri.
The Promise of 3D Learning
Enjoy

So, education aside, does this mean it is time to look at Volumetric Design yet?

I think true Volumetric displays in daily use are a way off yet mate, however if you mean designing say volumetreic lighting for 3D game development get stuck in!