It's become a misconception that "cool" and "good Web design" are synonymous. How has this vacuous moniker become a mantra for the Web? If we tinker with the question, it becomes "what is this thing called Web design?", and with another mutation we have..."what is good Web design?"

There are so many factors that a designer must take into consideration with so many possible permutations of browsers, platforms, and technologies available. Good Web design has become somewhat akin to the delicate act of walking the high wire.

Tempting as it is, there's no point in drawing up a list of specific do's and don'ts. On the one hand, it would lead to a pervasive homogeneity of look and expression from one site to the next; while on the other hand, there are basic "rules of grammar" for Web site design. The actual language is impossible to prescribe or regulate.

One way of simplifying the complexity of good Web design is to think of the three basic elements of Web design forming an equilateral triangle: great graphics; a quick download; and ease of navigation. Each of these may have the strength to work individually. For example, a user may be so taken by good graphics that she would endure a slow download and the occasional dead link. Or she might be able to speed through a site in search of information, while ignoring the graphics to find what she's seeking. But why put up with these compromises, when with due consideration--and striking a delicate balance--you can invoke the cry of the Three Musketeers..."all for one and one for all."

In addition, it's important to remember that the Web is a new kind of non-linear medium. Some sites choose to stick close to a linear trajectory that moves the visitor from point A to B, but the best sites exploit the multi-directional possibilities of the medium to the max, exploring all the points of interest along the way. Expectations ran high earlier this year for the debut of Slate (www.slate.com), Microsoft's first venture into the world of webzines. Concern had been generated by reports that editor Michael Kinsley had some "heretical ideas." Slate, for Kinsley's watch, would be on the Web, but it would not embrace it or even cater to those already on the Web. As the launch drew nearer, designers and developers were holding their breath for what was to come. Some were concerned that whatever direction the Microsoft armies took, the rest of us would be inevitably drawn along in their wake.

When the site launched, the initial download time was excruciating. The designers had employed one large table to organize all the information. Now it's true that tables have become the designer's best friend, in that they afford the most control within the limited structure of HTML. But one pays a price for this, because the information will not appear until the document reaches the end </table> tag. The designers hastily tried to remedy the problem by chopping the table into a number of smaller units.

As it now stands, the Table of Contents is almost a three-screen scroll with an intended hierarchy, considering that elements near the top seem to have greater weight than those further down the page, despite their similar size. Content is currently numbered from one to twenty-seven. Notwithstanding the large amount of information contained within the site, the decision to embrace a traditional print metaphor, "Table of Contents," has hampered the site's ease of use. Table of Contents implies that everything is listed and boy, do they list everything!

In stark contrast, Word, though perhaps of the same species, is a completely different genus. Word has embraced the medium and taken advantage of every feature that is intrinsic to the Web. There is apparent hierarchy from the start. The different sections are listed down the left-hand side, with the lead story taking a place of prominence near the top. As new features are introduced, the others move down, and are represented with smaller graphics and reduced text. The site downloads with acceptable speed but the ever-fresh and pleasing graphics are well worth the insignificant wait. The content items themselves utilize a variety of Web techniques. The stunning piece on Guyana which follows the travels of three artists, employs one of the most interesting uses of frames that I've seen of late.

The Hotwired re-design has transformed a formerly graphically obscure (though content-heavy) site into one that is much easier to navigate. The earlier design required the user to click through a number of screens before reaching the desired content. You're now initially greeted with an animated splash screen which changes weekly, as does the background color in the "front door" which you are automatically pulled towards. Once inside the front door, a number of content items are featured from a few of the thirteen sections within the site. These download quickly, as the text is set in HTML, and the accompanying graphics are also small and restrained.

For browsers that are JavaScript-enabled, a snazzy applet generates a smaller navigation window, which in turn activates the larger existing window. With the JavaScript navigation window, it's easy to navigate and move through the site, though the back button may lose its charm after awhile. Users without a JavaScript-enabled browser are still able to navigate within their original window.

These are a few examples which demonstrate how important the delicate balancing act can be. When the three work together, complementing one another, the results are well worthwhile. Unfortunately, if one of the three dominates, the interface may not prove to be as seamless or easy to navigate as desired. Given the amount of inspiration and perspiration involved, why not consider building upon a proper foundation?

The creation of a new site, or the rehabilitation of an existing site, begins as a dialogue between the client and designer. Once a site is launched, the dialogue should continue between the site and its users. Much can be learned from ongoing site feedback, as more often than not, users are far more likely to comment when something doesn't work as well as they feel it could, rather than when all is working well. It's important to remember that the Web, unlike print or other mediums which require a final, permanent commitment, is a "living entity." In fact, if a site is considered a fait accompli, it won't be too long before it becomes a "cob-web."