Home › Web Development › Internet › Does Ugly Design = Successful Website? Or do designers just see everything as a question of design?

Does Ugly Design = Successful Website? Or do designers just see everything as a question of design?

Fri, 2006-06-30 04:34 — Nick Lewis

Jon Lebkowsky is right, this is an eye-popping thought: Ugly design = successful website. It’s a controversial claim; and but that’s about all it is.

You needn’t know a thing about design, or websites to see why this claim is complete humbug. Observe the logic:

Premise 1: Myspace, google, and craigslist are successful websites

Premise 2: Myspace, google, and craigslist are badly designed

Conclusion: Therefore badly designed websites will be successful

The above argument is a textbook case of the questionable cause fallacy.

Examples of successful ugly websites were cherry picked to support the conclusion. What about Flickr? What about Basecamp? They aren't ugly, and yet they are... successful? O! Lord, what a contradiction of the original claim!

Maybe design is only one part of a whole list of factors that affect the chances of a website succeeding. And maybe, just maybe, the greater public has historically been clueless as to what constitues "quality" in the visual and musical realms. Some would argue that mediocrity makes people feel comfortable, and that which is great threatens them.[1] Thus, design != success when audience is huge, and, function over form dominates.

My name is Captain Obvious: faithfully reminding you that water is wet.

Notes:

1. A Mr. Show episode

Comments

Tue, 2006-07-25 01:30 — Corp X (not verified)

The Drudge Report is another

The Drudge Report is another great example. I would agree on Google though... not a bad design. Simple is perfection in many cases. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. ~Leonardo DaVinci I think it is also important to understand that your target market should have a great impact on the amount of time that you spend on your GUI. Some target markets (non experienced users, Adults who grew up before the iPod, and even younger "tech" executives) don't have patience or time to try and figure myspace out or deal with its slow load times etc. YOunger generations, however... apparently don't care. -- CorpX
Thu, 2006-07-06 10:14 — a passing drifter (not verified)

Total nonsense

The argument is a classic case of some kind of correlation seeming like cause and effect, therefore crap design is the key factor. It's not, not by a long shot. The "main" factor is that there is no main factor. A combination of things contribute to a sites' success, including luck.

Good design always helps, but isn't enough on its own. It doesn't compensate for poor content etc. However this is not the same as saying bad design actually helps. It never does, and always hinders.

Google, for example, is showing its age. The average user is blissfully unaware of the myriad of products they offer beyond search. Why? Because they're buried in an interface a junior designer would get shot for producing.

What the article does highlight is that perhaps the time for self-appointed "experts" is over. The Neilson crowd, to pick an example, never seem to tire of telling professionals how they ought to be working. If people are prepared to believe that the only manifestation of elegance and simplicity can be achieved via bad design, then they are sadly ill-informed about the mechanics of design. This in iteself is symptomatic of the design culture that the internet can encourage - namely non-experts and non-practitioners telling us what they think. Who cares. Give me beautiful design and great content every time.

As for designers seeing everything"just" as design? Professionals never do, and can create a fusion of clients needs and elegant design. This is difficult for non-professionals to do or even see, hence the declarations along the lines of Bad Design = Success. It demonstrates an ignorance of what design is for, and how it works.

Mon, 2006-07-03 17:02 — agent bedhead (not verified)

Just A Designer Rambling...

It's all about the content - that's what the experts keep reminding us - build the content, and they will come. Design is at least a small part of the picture, as far as accessibility goes. If people can't find the content, then what use is it? Making no sense here - so I'll reintroduce myself - Hi Nick! It's an old pal, Sadie, formerly of Mirthful Ones. Stop by and say hello someday if you get a moment.
Tue, 2006-07-04 03:35 — Nick Lewis

::ghasp:: How did you find

::ghasp:: How did you find me here... ::pauses:: oh, yeah... google. I do deserve that search. I insist. Voltaire, smoltaire.
Fri, 2006-06-30 15:47 — dan l (not verified)

BS

My take on Google: Google became popular when most of us were still on dial up. It provided us with first rate search results quickly, in addition to having very simple web design, which means the site loaded much much faster via 28.8 connections. Fortunately, google was able to capitalize on the product they developed and keep users coming back. They branded their products as easy, functional, and kind of trendy. Full disclosure, I'm admittedly becomming a google whore. I use: Gmail Google Reader Analytics Images Maps Earth And I use them all on a daily basis. Google is taking over the world.
Sat, 2006-07-01 00:16 — Nick Lewis

Don't forget it that it has

Don't forget it that it has a unique advantage that few products can ever hope to attain. Its brand has become the defacto verb for "searching the internet". "Google it", does not translate to, "Use google brand search products to find the information you seek". No, it means "do a search". The only other brands that I can think of that managed the same thing are: Coca-cola "can I get a coke?", the IBM PC (that old chestnut...), and maybe a few others...

And don't forget. Google is a lot easier to type than yahoo.

Fri, 2006-06-30 13:56 — a passing drifter (not verified)

The other main problem with their argument

The big problem is that good design doesn't necessarily equate to "looks pretty". Google is very well-designed, because it makes it easy for users to do what they need to do. Ditto craigslist and del.icio.us, two other sites that get castigated for not being pretty. Their fundamental flaw is a complete misunderstanding of what good design actually is.
Sat, 2006-07-01 00:17 — Nick Lewis

Which is exactly why I think

Which is exactly why I think a good portion of designers are goofballs... Especially the pompous ones. 
Fri, 2006-06-30 09:26 — Arancaytar

I'm not a designer by any means...

...but by what criteria is Google's design ugly? The standard search page looks clean and purpose-oriented to me - the criteria I try to use for my own pages. Or is it another page on Google?
Sat, 2006-07-01 00:18 — Nick Lewis

Well, its true that their

Well, its true that their homepage is extraordinarily effective. At the same time, their logo does evoke all of the elegence, and refinement of a multicolored circus tent. (not to mention, it has a freaking drop shadow! and a bad one at that!).
Fri, 2006-06-30 19:36 — erik

Not Vanilla Google

I'm not sure exactly what Nick meant but I would think that Google in this case would be Google Calendar, GMail, Google Spreadsheets, Google Chicken Skinner, Google Fishing Lure, etc. But that's just a guess. I certainly find Calendar and Mail to be a little non user friendly sometimes.
Sat, 2006-07-01 00:09 — Nick Lewis

I actually don’t think

I actually don't think google, myspace, and craigslist are badly designed. Clearly, its a good design: otherwise their numbers of users wouldn't range from 7-9(?) digits. I think that I, and the rest of ya'll are probably biased, and cursed hopelessly refined tastes in web design. For example, when I first look at a new webpage, I'll catch myself thinking, "My... what a daring move to use times new roman....", or "Ah yes.. #000000 text, against an #ffffff background with #eeeeee boxes, and sidebars, with #666666 borders. This page certainly takes the color grey to a whole new level -- it will turn the design world upside down." I am a design snob (nobody is perfect). Since, I'm a snob, I often forget that the majority of folks are paying less attention to the typographic choices, and instead are fully emersed in trying to figure out how to find, or accomplish whatever it is that brought them to a web page.