Does good design matter? Of course we would answer "yes." But there's more to it than meets the eye - and this was the topic of discussion at today's breakout session during the Politics Online Conference in Washington DC, where Colin Delany of e.politics brought together a panel consisting of Grand Junction Design's Margaux O'Malley, Free Range Studios' Susan Finkelpearl and The Bivings Group's Todd Zeigler.

(Don't worry nonprofit folks -- it's true that today's discussion focused around political web sites, but there's a lot here that applies to you, too!).

We started off by establishing the difference between ART and DESIGN, and that art is more about creative expression, where design also incorporates the aspect of functionality and serving a greater purpose. I am always reminded of an example that my design teacher once told us, of a fancy sports car that was beautiful to look at, drove well, etc. etc.... but that lacked a door handle. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem with that design!

Susan started by walking folks through the design process that Free Range Studios uses with their clients. They try to get past the obvious level of answers, and into the deeper meaning of what clients are trying to do. How can their sites convey a greater purpose? How will they be used? What are the different things that people need to be able to do with the web site, and how can the graphic designers create an interface that is not only attractive, but also allows visitors to use it for the desired purposes? A well-planned project is much more likely to succeed.

Todd countered with an example of how so many times the reality of a situation requires that we act quickly, and we're sometimes not afforded the luxury of planning things to the extent we might like. In those cases, we're forced to set up something rough and then tweak it later. One time in his experience where good design did NOT particularly matter: his designers had made a very rough sketch of a pickup truck, to illustrate the concept of filling it with gas as a parallel to a candidate's fundraising goals. They never meant for that sketch to go public, but they suddenly got notice that the candidate needed a site up right away, so they posted the truck. People were so excited to see the gas tank get fuller as they made donations, that they far exceeded their fundraising goal. Even when the designers tried to take away the truck and replace it with something they felt was classier, people asked for the truck to return.

Margaux pulled things together with a rundown of the five major presidential candidates' web sites. We looked at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee. In summary, all of the sites did a good job of looking attractive and making the information easy to find. Some of them (Ron Paul's in particular) did a good job of serving as a hub but letting most of the action take place on external social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. We also noticed that the general focus of the two democrats' sites was on YOU, the visitor, and how you could be a part of it, whereas the general focus of the three republicans' sites was on THEM, the candidates, and what message they wanted to convey.

Overall, though, the two that stood out were Barack Obama's and John McCain's, in that they were the only ones who had successfully branded themselves and their campaigns in a unique way that flowed through their entire site. For Hillary's, Paul's and Huckabee's, you could remove that candidate's name and photo from the site and replace it with anyone else, and it would still work; there was a certain cookie-cutter nature to them all. In contrast, Obama's message of hope is not only shown in the "O" logo that appears on his site and all of his promotional materials, but also in the gradients that appear throughout his web site, the "glowing" white areas, and the overall ethereal (thank you for the word, Todd!) feeling it evokes. McCain's military experience was similarly portrayed throughout his site, and according to a recent article by Karrie Jacobs on Salon.com, the typeface used on the McCain logo is Optima, the same typeface used to carve the names in the Vietnam Veteran's memorial. You could NOT take Obama or McCain out of either Web site, insert someone else, and have it still make sense.

So does that bring us to a conclusion in terms of fundraising dollars? Hard to say. The current count has Obama on top, with 88% of his funds coming in online. That could be the Web site design, but it could also be his other advertising, the social networking that his supporters are doing, or any number of other factors. McCain has also raised more funds than the other republicans, but again, it's hard to determine whether the superior Web site is to thank for that. My own feeling is that people are going to donate to the person they support, based on all of that candidate's publicity - and as long as that candidate's web site is at least decent, donors won't be too deterred.

And what does this mean for nonprofits? A lot of the same principles apply. Start by determining the site's goals. Not just "to teach people about our work", but something more specific. What do you want them to DO with that knowledge? Do you want them to donate? Volunteer? Send an email to their Congressperson? Next, map out how the site will flow together, and make it easy for people to take those actions you identify. Also, go for consistent branding throughout your Web site, and also with any printed materials or email communications that you show the world. It makes you more memorable, and gives you more credibility.

One final question (raised by one of our audience members today): what happens when one of these presidential candidates gets into office? How will having a large online network of supporters change the way that we, as citizens, communicate with our next President? And how much will it matter WHICH of these folks is in the White House?