Web Design Program

The Tools — The Craft Behind the First Websites

An important part of the program was working with software — not simply as supporting tools, but as the gateway to understanding the craft behind digital development. 

Through image editing in Photoshop, we learned how visual expressions could be shaped. We worked with colors, contrast, composition, and adapting content for the screen. These were not merely aesthetic choices. They were about how information is presented and how users perceive what they see.

At the same time, we worked on building the websites themselves. Everything had to be created manually. There were no ready-made solutions to handle structure or navigation. Every page had to be planned, every link had to be created, and every connection had to be understood.

​

This created a completely different level of closeness to what we were developing. There were no systems to hide behind. You had to understand what you were doing.

Animations were also used as part of the visual experience. At the time, this was a relatively new element, and it required a thoughtful approach. Too much animation created noise. Too little made the experience feel static. Finding the right balance was essential.

It was through this work that an important understanding began to emerge:

It is not about what you can do technically — but what you should do for the user.

The Case Project — When Everything Has to Work Together

One of the most demanding, but also most valuable, parts of the program was the practical case project. We were asked to develop a complete web solution for a fictional furniture company — an assignment that initially seemed relatively straightforward, but quickly proved to involve far more dimensions than we had anticipated. 

This was where theory — or what we thought of as theory — met reality. Suddenly, it was no longer about individual elements such as images, text, or structure in isolation. It was about how all of these elements had to work together, simultaneously, as one coherent solution.

The design had to be more than visually appealing. It also had to help users intuitively understand where they were. The structure had to be logical, yet flexible enough to accommodate different types of content. Navigation had to be simple enough to require no explanation — while also being clear enough to avoid misunderstanding.

Along the way, an important realization emerged:

The quality of a digital solution is not determined by its individual elements. It is determined by how they work together.

The project also required us to think carefully about priorities. What matters most? What needs to appear first? How do we guide users forward without overwhelming the page with information? We did not necessarily have an established vocabulary for these questions at the time, but we worked with them — concretely, practically, and continuously.

The feedback on the solution confirmed that this holistic approach worked.

​

Having the solution described as “beautiful and good” was important in itself, but perhaps even more interesting was what lay behind those words. It was not simply about aesthetics. It was about balance. About control. About understanding.

​

The fact that the animations were considered entertaining without being distracting demonstrated an early understanding of something that is fundamental today:

Design elements should support the experience — not dominate it.

​

The fact that the menus were described as clean and easy to navigate pointed directly to the ability to structure information in a way that made sense to the user.

​

None of this happened by accident. It was the result of practical work, reflection, and an emerging understanding of how digital solutions actually work.

The Insight — What We Learned Without Realizing It

Looking back at the program through the lens of today’s terminology, it becomes clear that what we learned went far beyond what was explicitly taught. 

We did not simply learn how to build websites. We learned to understand how people interact with digital interfaces. 

It happened gradually, almost without us noticing. Through small adjustments. Through trial and error.

Through experiencing what worked — and what did not.

• We learned that poor structure creates uncertainty.

• We learned that unclear navigation creates frustration.

• We learned that good design is not simply attractive — it is understandable.

Today, these insights form the very foundation of fields such as user experience and interaction design. But at the time, these were not yet clearly defined as separate disciplines. They were not things you could simply learn from a textbook in the same way. They had to be experienced.

And it is precisely this kind of learning that often leaves the deepest impression — learning that comes not from theory alone, but through experience.

In retrospect, this can be seen as a form of “tacit knowledge” — an understanding embedded in the way we think, without necessarily being expressed in clearly defined concepts.

This is also where we can see the beginning of something that would later become a recurring theme throughout my professional journey:

The ability to see the whole — not just the individual components.

Relevance — From 1998 to Today

When we step back and look at the development from 1998 to today, it is easy to focus on just how much has changed. Technology has evolved at a pace few could have predicted. The tools have become more advanced, more accessible, and far more user-friendly. Yet at the same time, something has remained unchanged. 

The fundamental principles still stand.

Today, a website can be built in just a few hours. We can use ready-made templates, automated solutions, and advanced content management systems. Yet time and again, we still encounter digital solutions that do not work as well as they should.

​

Why?

Because technology does not determine quality. Understanding does.

What we learned in 1998 — about structure, navigation, and user needs — remains the foundation of good digital solutions. The difference is that complexity has increased. Users expect more.

There are more choices. Competition for attention is greater.

In this environment, the fundamental principles become even more important.

It is not enough to be online.

You have to work well online.

This is a distinction that is still not clear enough in many organizations, and this is precisely where that early experience provides an advantage. It offers an understanding that does not depend on specific tools, but on principles.

The Foundation — The Beginning of a Professional Direction

When viewed from a longer-term perspective, it becomes clear that this program represents more than a single period of learning. It marks the beginning of a direction — a professional path that would later develop through experience, further studies, and work.

What was established here was not simply a set of skills. It was a way of thinking.

A way of approaching problems by seeking to understand the connections before finding solutions. A way of working in which structure and user needs come before technical possibilities. A way of assessing quality in which the whole matters more than the individual elements.

This understanding has proven remarkably resilient over time. It has endured technological shifts, new platforms, and new ways of working.

It is also this understanding that underpins the idea that value is created through interaction.

Not through isolated initiatives or individual projects, but through the interaction between people, technology, and organizations.

The Web Design Program in 1998 may not have been intended as the beginning of a long professional journey. But that is exactly what it became.

Not because the technology was advanced.
But because the understanding that emerged proved to be lasting.

When Chance Opened the Door

When the Web Design Program was over, I did not really have a clear plan for how I would put what I had learned into practice. There were few established roles in this field at the time, and the path forward was far from obvious. 

One day, I was sitting in the SAS cafeteria at Fornebuveien with Thomas Havnegjerde, who was the Marketing Director at the time. During an informal conversation, he asked what I had been working on alongside my job, and I told him that I had recently completed a Web Design Program.

He immediately asked whether I had seen that SAS Norway was advertising a position for an Internet Manager. I had not.

That conversation made me aware of an opportunity I might otherwise have missed. I applied for the position through the regular recruitment process, and shortly afterward I was offered the role.

What until then had been an interest and a course of study alongside my job suddenly became a new professional direction.

But it did not stop there.

Just a week and a half after I had started in the role, Thomas approached me again. He told me that I would be joining a major project in Stockholm — a project to develop SAS’s first commercial online solution. It would involve a great deal of travel and become a long-term assignment.

It was the beginning of something far bigger than I could have imagined at the time.

​

For a year and a half, I commuted regularly to Stockholm. Every Tuesday morning, I traveled to SAS headquarters at Frösundavik, returning on Wednesday. There, at the SAS Royal Hotel in Frösundavik, we gathered as a Nordic team and worked intensively with our suppliers to develop what would become one of the company’s earliest major digital initiatives.

It was a period defined by pace, learning, and close collaboration. Together with talented and dedicated colleagues from Sweden and Denmark — including Ola Strangeways and Christian Mejlvang — we were not only building a solution. We were also developing an understanding of what digitalization could become.

It was not simply a journey in the physical sense. It was a journey into a new professional field. A journey that began with curiosity, continued through a course of study — and, through a seemingly chance conversation in a cafeteria, developed into a career that has continued all the way to the present day.