Hungry? Want another bullshit sandwich?
There has been too much nonsense spouted about the effectiveness of certain successful companies’ websites and it’s time to correct it. Those who say that poorly designed websites are partly responsible for some companies’ success are feeding you a load of crap. And too many of you are eating it up.
Stop it. Bad design harms business, it does not help it. Websites like Boingboing, Google and eBay are successful in spite of their poorly designed sites, not because of them. What kills me is that I continue to see designers, some of them professionals, buying into this drivel and helping to perpetuate it. This whole business of contemplating the elusive wisdom of bad design and ugly layout is amateur hour on parade. It’s time to call bullshit.
This is commercial success we’re talking about, boys and girls. In commerce, if your product sucks, you suck.
Commercial success plus bad design does NOT equal good design. The reason Google is the premier search tool is because it works. It is the most comprehensive and best-respected search tool for most Web users. It’s well managed, a business leader rather than follower and it has been around for quite a while. Google is a mover and shaker, constantly finding and providing tools, solutions and applications for everyday people to use online. The Google brand has gravity, respect and delivers tangible results every minute of the day. THAT’S why Google is the search engine of choice.
The fact that Google’s website is unremarkable and poorly laid out is ancillary to these facts, mostly because the main interface is very simple. Poorly designed “simple” is far easier to swallow than poorly designed “complex”. It works okay in spite of the bad layout and un-design.The fact is Google got it right where so many fail. They built their reputation on substance rather than on style. They’re not important because of their style, but because of execution. They don’t have to look important because they simply are important.
This is commercial success we’re talking about, boys and girls. In commerce, if your product sucks, you suck.
Most companies put the cart before the horse and try to build their success on how cool their company culture is or how awesomely awesome their logo is. Google’s logo pretty much sucks. So what? They can buy and sell any company that has a cool logo any day of the week; not because of their awful main interface layout, but in spite of it.
All of these companies that have suckass website designs and layouts but are successful anyway did the same thing. eBay was best at what it does before anyone else was that good. They’ve locked up the category with execution first, not style. Boingboing is one of the best-known and most popular weblogs because everybody loves to go there to hate on the Bush administration. The design sucks, but the content and advertising always bashes the readers’ #1 enemy. Substance, not style.
This is commercial success we’re talking about, boys and girls. In commerce, if your product sucks, you suck. It won’t matter how awesome your website looks, you will fail if your product is not up to snuff. By the same token, you are allowed to look like a dog if your product is the cat’s meow. Think about it; the successful businessperson will always have a hot date to the dinner party. We’re talking about human behavior here, folks.
But let’s not be too smart by half. Craigslist, for instance, is a clear winner with an un-design, but it’s not an example of bad design. The site content is nothing but relevant text links, and rightly so! The “design” it uses is well-suited to the type of content, so it is quite effective. This site is not like eBay or Google, as it succeeds because of the design rather than spite of it. Google and eBay have layout components and content that were clearly added as afterthoughts, ruining any true layout or design. Not so with Craigslist, the layout is solid and design appropriate. Design is a solution to a problem, not a decoration or embellishment.
So we should stop swallowing tripe for cream. As designers, it’s time for some of us to see that the emperor has no clothes and to use our insight, understanding and training to define what we agree with rather than mindlessly going along with idiots in the crowd. We have a responsibility to avoid pseudoscience and pseudointellectualism as it relates to what we produce for our clients and what we share with our fellow designers. If we’ve not got a sufficient grasp of things to see through this sort of drivel, perhaps we should go back to school or find another line of work.
Bottom line is designers need a foundation to ward off ridiculous ideas like “bad design creates success”. We shouldn’t relegate ourselves to simply sailing whichever way the wind is blowing this week. When the wind smells bad, it’s time to get upwind of the bullshit.
Comments
Add a new comment
Too often, though, some do not care to discriminate between style as a contextual design component and style for its own sake, ridiculing style in any context as pretense or decoration. This practice is indicative of an ignorant and naive perception.
Perhaps you did not read any of the articles referenced in this tedious commentary thread, but usability was at the heart of my cursory little exercises. Of course, as I’ve stated in those articles and several times in this discussion, I was able only to touch on the obvious usability mistakes in the interfaces as I’m not privy to much of the otherwise relevant data. Also as I stated in those articles, they were concerned otherwise only with visual/graphical/architectural matters in the design, for the same reasons stated previously.
Tell me, is Boingboing’s choice to surround the page with a couple dozen multi-colored advertisements of various sizes and configurations (some separated by horizontal rules and some not), link text of varying colors and behaviors, some with underlines and some without (for no apparent reason), to display posts that seem to run, headlong, one into the other, hemmed in by a too-tight dashed border on a page that goes on for twenty feet all indicative of good design in your book? If so, I don’t hold with your book.
Does this make it impossible to read Boingoing? No. Does this all add up to excellent usability, legibility and reader comfort? No. In other words, poor design – even in the face of whatever the business model is. I don’t fault Boingboing for a lack of style. I fault it for poor design. Improved design can improve these pages and anyone’s failure to hold with that idea is not something I’m interested in entertaining any longer.
So my thesis still stands: eBay, Boingboing and Google main pages are poorly designed. That is the basis of my beef with these pages. That I presented redesign solutions that included a particular approach to style (mostly for entertainment in the article) is wholly irrelevant to my thesis. It’s simply something folks will need to get past in order to get anything from these articles. The articles address SOME specifics, not the whole ball of wax and I’ll not devote any more time to trying to make that any more obvious.
It seems to me that designers often have an elitist attitude towards what they consider “good design”, one that is at odds with some of the most basic requirements of the average reader.
Another issue to consider is there is definitely a large percentage of the population who are utterly “design blind”. I’ve had personal experiences with a number of successful business people who have no ability whatsoever to choose between a “good” and “poor” design… however, oftimes that “good” design contains some basic “flaws”, like a smaller font size, that is at odds with a designer’s idea of good design.
I’ve seen people who say this too. They also say that since google is able to survive with a bad design, they should be able too as well.
Google and others are successful in spite of their bad design, and it is a bad design as I wrote below. It’s like saying that Superstore (the department store to buy from where I live) is successful because they have a very dusty, rarely cleaned building. They’re successful because of a quality product at a low price.
It is a a bad design. I recently started using Opera a lot more, and I updated the version to the latest one. There is a stylesheet provided in the view menu I can automatically have override the author settings. It’s called Emulate Text Browser. Google’s design isn’t complex enough to get screwed up in a text browser, but ebay’s certainly is. I couldn’t see anything but the navigation and some links at the bottom.
That doesn’t make Google’s design good; far from it. They get screwed up in other browsers.
The Net is so consumed with Standards that it’s ruining the Internet. We have Web Standards for Web Sites but yet no Browser Standards. Everyone thinks we need valid xhtml and css… But honestly, how many people go to a web site to buy something, view the source, and then say, crap… It’s not valid xhtml or css, I can’t buy from this store..
Great web sites are just plain user friendly.. Not loaded with flash and other useless junk.
Look at the bottom of this UX Mag.. Claims to be valid xhtml, css and 508.. It’s far from it.. But who really cares.
“Style for it’s own sake, Alain. Style for it’s own sake. That’s what I meant when I said “style is not design.†And any designer worth his or her salt knows that style is often an important part of successful design.”
^ That right there is pure bullshit. I don’t know where you got this. I think you confuse the meaning of design. Design is communication. Every form, every color, every choice of typography is supposed to have a reason. The combination of all of these is what sends your message. Before you even think of beginning a design your suppose to have a THEME/DIRECTION. You never attach a style to your work, if you do, your a BAD DESIGNER. Your work dictates your theme and your theme dictates your design. If your definition of style is “adding shit to your design so it looks cool” then you obviously have no idea what the hell design is. If you don’t have a CONCRETE reason for adding an element, then YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING. Did you ever study graphic design? This is pretty much a known fact.
The only time “style” is to be used is in personal work, (experimentation/etc) not commercial work.
Give me a link to the site of a “designer worth his or her salt” that uses “style” in commerical work, just for the hell of it. And please make it a reputable designer, because I see alot of bad designers who do this. Look at the element in his/her design and tell me if it has no reason for being there. If you think it has no reason then post the link here and well see. But from my knowledge of design, that statement is pure bullshit.
Sorry if I came out a little strong, but I see this kind of stuff all the time in peoples “design” and it ticks me off. Style is what breeds bad designers. It’s this constant copying of trends that slows people’s developement as DESIGNERS.
Does that make sense? I can’t believe that anyone is defending Google’s design, or eBay’s, etc., as being good! At best, they’re not offensive. I think any company that does anything as well in their own field as Google does in its field, with the same amount of attention paid to design, will find itself in steep competition when someone else comes along who can do just as well with a really great design.
People do not blame themselves when a Web site doesn’t quite work the way they want it to (and a smart company doesn’t rely on people blaming themselves, either); rather, when a Web site doesn’t work right, people simply shrug their shoulders and think to themselves, “Oh well, there’s nothing better out there, so this is what I’m stuck with.”
In the case of visual aesthetics, people prefer better design; but, as long as the design isn’t absolutely abhorrent, they’re going to stick with what works well. If someone else can do the same job with a prettier interface, in time people will drift over to the equal but prettier competitor. I mean, really, everything else being equal, it’s the prettier girl whose going to get the eligible bachelor. But, maybe that’s just me.
Certainly, I’d center the buttons, too. If I were Google, I’d enlarge the logo, and then fit the motto under the first two letters; alternatively, I’d enlarge the first letter, and expand it, too, and fit the motto inside the G and over the next three letters.
Your portfolio is very, very weak. It’s very amateurish. I’m a professional designer, and, having you submit your resume to me, I’d immediately throw it away. Why do you think you are professional and accomplished enough to offer any sort of credible critique on others’ deign?
This is pretty much just sensationalist ‘journalism’ trying to give yourself some clout. It’s extremely unfortunate that it seems to be working, because you are simply not good enough to present yourself as any sort of expert in the least.
Several people mentioned that more examples would have been nice, especially that of good design = good business results. On this point, I decided to search the comments for one very good example, and came up empty; as far as I can tell – again, I didn’t read every comment – no one mentioned the iPod.
I’m guessing this might have been due to the discussion of websites rather than physical products, but the iPod is a prime example of how good design gives excellent returns in the business field. Other than the initial frustration felt by owners concerning the battery replacement issue, the product has basically been, dare I say, perfect?
Lastly, Andy deserves a little slack, though he bordered on hanging himself with it in this article. His explanation as to the original venue of publication – his personal site – was plausible and logical, but it leads me to make to points to two different parties…
1) Andy – if you receive more requests for articles to be published, take the time to consider the implications of a new venue. However, equal responsibility on this point falls on:
2) UX Mag / Site Hosting Article of Any Author – content that was produced for a semi-specific audience is not going to be very effective if it is presented unaltered to a different audience with different expectations. Next time, it wouldn’t hurt to ask the writer to modify the overall flavor of their content or article so that it meshes with your product / service environment.
Many great points (and bad ones) made throughout.
Go back to your therapist. Your transference issues are interfering with your ability to respond in a non-biased fashion, causing you to resort to personal insult rather than providing substantial critique.
”... more examples would have been nice …”
Interestingly, I think UX Mag is itself a good example. It’s been around a very short while and (for me, at least) pretty much came out of nowhere. But look at the amount of comments on this post (and others) and you’ll realise it’s got a whole lot of followers already. I believe this is (mostly) down to the virtues of its excellent and inspiring design.
If you haven’t noticed a trend in marketing toward the ugliness sells notion then I don’t think you’ve really been paying attention. Large companies or small companies are going a little overboard with design, or opting for the more is more philosophy, or taking the gimmick a little too far.
Some examples would be:
Macromedia’s old site – which was over cluttered with information.
Alias’s old site – which was over stuffed with unnecessary fluff.
Discreet’s old site – which was again poor execution and navigation.
All three of whom were bought out. And, no longer exist in their former ways. Now obviously their eventual lack of uber-continued-success cannot solely rest on the shoulders of bad design.
Snickers Marathon bars site – which takes the notion of a brown color scheme to a whole new level (I mean I know they make chocolate – but come on).
Snickers does not rely on people going to their website – so – design is pretty mute.
Also, add to the pile Chevrolet asking “average joe” to design their commercials.
And if CGSOCIETY becomes any harder to navigate, or slower to load I’m not sure what I’ll do.
This is called naive art. The unschooled and uneducated becoming “trendy” and “in demand” (not to say there’s anything wrong with not having a design degree). It’s a movement and will pass as it has in the past time periods of art history. Remember the beginnings of the internet when EVERYONE was a “web designer” then the shakedown occured. This is just the second wave of that trend. And, just as CSSzengarden tried to hasten the use of CSS as a standard model for designing in the web – designers should step to the plate and try to make “good” design the mainstay.
Also, one last punch, for those who are ranting about this article. Have you the same credentials/work experience/clients that Andy does? Or, are you like me – an out of work wannabe? If you are the latter – please leave him alone. His advice is simply that – kinda of like a professor’s advice. You can choose to ignore it, or you can choose to follow it. But, simply saying I feel like you are two – it’s called Ad Hominem – you are attacking the man not the argument. His points, in my opinion, having been doing this since before the first burst, are quite valid. We are seeing a resurgeance of the “anybody can do this attitude” from the early 00. And, anyone can do this. But, NOT everyone can do it effectively.
Using “mute” instead of “moot” instantly kills your credibility in my eyes.
-Matt
Using “mute” instead of “moot” instantly kills your credibility in my eyes.
-Matt
If you haven’t noticed a trend in marketing toward the ugliness sells notion then I don’t think you’ve really been paying attention. Large companies or small companies are going a little overboard with design, or opting for the more is more philosophy, or taking the gimmick a little too far.
Some examples would be:
Macromedia’s old site – which was over cluttered with information.
Alias’s old site – which was over stuffed with unnecessary fluff.
Discreet’s old site – which was again poor execution and navigation.
All three of whom were bought out. And, no longer exist in their former ways. Now obviously their eventual lack of uber-continued-success cannot solely rest on the shoulders of bad design.
Snickers Marathon bars site – which takes the notion of a brown color scheme to a whole new level (I mean I know they make chocolate – but come on).
Snickers does not rely on people going to their website – so – design is pretty mute.
Also, add to the pile Chevrolet asking “average joe” to design their commercials.
And if CGSOCIETY becomes any harder to navigate, or slower to load I’m not sure what I’ll do.
This is called naive art. The unschooled and uneducated becoming “trendy” and “in demand” (not to say there’s anything wrong with not having a design degree). It’s a movement and will pass as it has in the past time periods of art history. Remember the beginnings of the internet when EVERYONE was a “web designer” then the shakedown occured. This is just the second wave of that trend. And, just as CSSzengarden tried to hasten the use of CSS as a standard model for designing in the web – designers should step to the plate and try to make “good” design the mainstay.
Also, one last punch, for those who are ranting about this article. Have you the same credentials/work experience/clients that Andy does? Or, are you like me – an out of work wannabe? If you are the latter – please leave him alone. His advice is simply that – kinda of like a professor’s advice. You can choose to ignore it, or you can choose to follow it. But, simply saying I feel like you are two – it’s called Ad Hominem – you are attacking the man not the argument. His points, in my opinion, having been doing this since before the first burst, are quite valid. We are seeing a resurgeance of the “anybody can do this attitude” from the early 00. And, anyone can do this. But, NOT everyone can do it effectively.
”... more examples would have been nice …”
Interestingly, I think UX Mag is itself a good example. It’s been around a very short while and (for me, at least) pretty much came out of nowhere. But look at the amount of comments on this post (and others) and you’ll realise it’s got a whole lot of followers already. I believe this is (mostly) down to the virtues of its excellent and inspiring design.
Go back to your therapist. Your transference issues are interfering with your ability to respond in a non-biased fashion, causing you to resort to personal insult rather than providing substantial critique.
Several people mentioned that more examples would have been nice, especially that of good design = good business results. On this point, I decided to search the comments for one very good example, and came up empty; as far as I can tell – again, I didn’t read every comment – no one mentioned the iPod.
I’m guessing this might have been due to the discussion of websites rather than physical products, but the iPod is a prime example of how good design gives excellent returns in the business field. Other than the initial frustration felt by owners concerning the battery replacement issue, the product has basically been, dare I say, perfect?
Lastly, Andy deserves a little slack, though he bordered on hanging himself with it in this article. His explanation as to the original venue of publication – his personal site – was plausible and logical, but it leads me to make to points to two different parties…
1) Andy – if you receive more requests for articles to be published, take the time to consider the implications of a new venue. However, equal responsibility on this point falls on:
2) UX Mag / Site Hosting Article of Any Author – content that was produced for a semi-specific audience is not going to be very effective if it is presented unaltered to a different audience with different expectations. Next time, it wouldn’t hurt to ask the writer to modify the overall flavor of their content or article so that it meshes with your product / service environment.
Many great points (and bad ones) made throughout.