
Making it Suck - mgunes
http://www.cooper.com/journal/2010/10/making_it_suck.html
======
jakevoytko
This technique is also used in software engineering. Apple "makes it suck"
when "it" should not be done regularly. Resetting an iPod requires an
extremely unintuitive key sequence [0]. Apple doesn't want the user to know an
iPod can be reset - resetting is something your PC does when it doesn't work
anymore. But occasionally an iPod actually freezes, so they added a
complicated sequence to reset the device. Even if you remembered the sequence,
you wouldn't want to use it unless you needed it.

Elsewhere, Microsoft intentionally designed Vista's User Access Control
dialogs to be irritating [1]. Microsoft wanted applications to stop using
Administrator rights for no reason, so every privilege escalation painfully
obvious: The screen fades to gray, and an extra dialog appears. Application
developers get the same dialogs, and can trim unnecessary escalations out of
their code.

[0]
[http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1320?viewlocale=en_us&loca...](http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1320?viewlocale=en_us&locale=en_us)

[1]
[http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/on_software/1445...](http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/on_software/144500/vista_security_is_annoying_by_design.html)

~~~
mxavier
That is a fairly risky move on Microsoft's part but I applaud them for taking
it, especially if it works. Every average Windows user I knows notices and
complains about the constant UAC popups. What's funny to me is that since 7
has come out, I've heard this a lot less. I believe since 7 got the
connotation of being the "good" Windows and Vista the abject failure, people
may be cherry picking their complaints to support their assertions that 7 is
much better and Windows XP is too old to be a viable alternative.

~~~
rryyan
Microsoft also removed the UAC prompts in some cases in Windows 7:
[http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/the-curious-
ta...](http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/the-curious-tale-of-
windows-7s-uac.ars)

------
Swizec
Making stuff suck to make it better is a pretty brilliant way of looking at
things.

Sure, most of us then don't consider the result to suck, but it actually does.
And we do this a lot.

Some more examples from the top of my head:

\- making landing suck for fun --> skydiving

\- making sitting suck --> for better posture

\- making reading in light suck [iPad/etc] --> for better contrast

\- making privacy suck --> to get 500M users

\- making security suck --> to gain a monopoly

Yep, pretty brilliant. Let's all start making things that suck! It's obviously
working.

~~~
bitwize
Making music suck --> alternative rock

I think this is related to the "ugly for authenticity" point in the article.

------
Tichy
There is a story about German discounter supermarket Aldi: supposedly they use
wooden shelves in their markets even though they are more expensive than metal
shelves. But the wooden shelves look cheaper, adding to the bargain image of
the supermarket. (It could have been vice versa, I don't remember if wood or
metal looks cheaper).

~~~
X-Istence
Aldi in The Netherlands uses metal shelving, some of it even wire shelving.
The place looks like a dump, but the quality of the food and items is
generally really good and the price is really low.

------
colinprince
Noticing that some public seating sucks has opened my eyes to how my
municipality regards its residents.

While the sucky seating prevents the behaviour (sleeping) _right there_ , it
doesn't address the need/problem at all.

People don't want to sleep in airports, they'd much rather sleep at home, but
their connections suck or delays made them miss their connection etc.

So sleeping will happen, but on the floor beside the seats.

~~~
hugh3
Sleeping is a lot easier on a comfy padded bench than it is on the floor, so
it happens a lot less than it otherwise would. Preventing sleeping isn't just
to the advantage of the people who want to sit down without having a sleeping
man taking up four seats, it's also to the advantage of the people who would
otherwise be tempted to take a nap that they know they shouldn't (because they
need to catch their next flight).

Oh, and some people _do_ want to sleep in airports -- cheapskates who don't
want to pay for hotel rooms. Check out "The Budget Traveller's Guide To
Sleeping In Airports":

<http://www.sleepinginairports.net/>

for far more information than you ever wanted about the best places to sleep
at airports all around the world.

~~~
mxavier
I'd also imagine more people would avoid sleeping on the floor for cultural
reasons too. We perceive someone sleeping on an airport waiting bench to be a
weary traveler. Seeing someone sleep on the floor in a very busy place
communicates vagrancy.

------
wccrawford
Yeah, I don't think this works.

For example, near where I live, someone recently posted a flier for her house
cleaning service. It was on green construction paper and written with a red
marker.

My initial thought was 'maybe she'll be cheap' and then 'do I want someone in
my house that thinks magic marker is the proper way to make a sign for their
business?'

Another example: I buy a LOT of things online. But I only buy from sites that
I feel I can trust. That means they don't -look- like a scam, and they look
like they know what they're doing. When I go to a site that looks like it came
from 1990, I might check prices, but I -never- buy. Instead, I go back to
somewhere 'safe' like Amazon and pay a little more.

Most of the examples (shoes, chairs, tables) were designed to prevent or force
certain behaviors. They don't 'suck', they 'work' for exactly what they were
intended.

~~~
danielnicollet
I think you miss the point a bit. If making a design look cheap takes away
from basic usability, or reflects badly on the company's core competency (your
example of the red marker cleaning lady), it's a miss of course. But consider
more subtle touches that may seem random to the web site visitor, but make him
feel that he's not dealing with a infallible behemoth of a company. I think
that definitely can help in establishing some trust when selling something
that's differentiated by low price and simplified features, and competing with
big brand name alternatives.

~~~
swombat
I don't think he's missing the point. "Suck" is relative to the user. If your
product does exactly what the user and the owner want, it doesn't suck - it
rocks. It's an awesome design. Whether it uses Comic Sans and gets snotty
designers up in arms is completely irrelevant to its suckage or lack thereof.

Conveying the right expectations is a part of good design. If looking cheap is
a selling point, a design that looks expensive is a failure. It's the "nice
and clean" design which sucks.

------
artmageddon
Not that I disagree with the article, but the point of "making something suck"
is totally lost if the goal isn't accomplished. His first example is with the
Shape-Ups: they don't work. I can't find the specific article for the Skechers
shoes but here's one for Nike: [http://naturalbias.com/dont-let-reebok-fool-
you-shoes-wont-t...](http://naturalbias.com/dont-let-reebok-fool-you-shoes-
wont-tone-your-butt/)

jakevoytko also brought up Vista's UAC dialogs, which I agree is a Good Thing.
In my experience though(especially with my younger cousins despite my repeated
yelling), they simply log in as admin and bypass the whole thing.

------
danielnicollet
This is a very interesting article and maybe a perfect follow up on this post
on Apple's design hegemony: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1762682>

The truth is that design is as much for ease and comfort, as it is for
differentiation and in that department, there is only one slot for the perfect
web site, the rest of us have to stand out!

------
terra_t
I like the principle of "making things more difficult" in exercise. It's a
major principle of training in martial arts: you spend a lot of time training
to do things in ways that are a little more difficult than when you really do
them so that you find it easier when you really need to do it.

------
holychiz
dude, the point is not to make your design awful. It's to address a specific
needs, while ignore what it's not suppose to address. This is the point of
good design: focus.

catchy headline, though. :)

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Being awful in specific ways can be useful - if your park benches discourage
the homeless from sleeping on them, the park as a whole can be more pleasant
for the non-homeless visitors.

(Exactly what happens to the homeless is not discussed.)

------
araneae
No, the purpose of the silly silo is to rotate you so quickly that the floor
can drop from under you and you stay stuck to the wall. It is AWESOME. :P

------
qjz
Well, that explains why the majority of vendor support systems suck. It
certainly discourages me from using them.

------
fcnfhdh
He's practising as he preaches by using that font setup.

~~~
holychiz
Can somebody explain to me why fcnfhdn got -3 points here? it's his/her
opinion about the article's look which to me is his/her prerogative. it is
feedback to the writer about one of the aesthetic element of the piece so it
is relevant to the discussion. I'm puzzled at this seemingly random
negativity. thanks.

~~~
powrtoch
Doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion. If his intent was
actually to provide valuable feedback, he could send the author an email
instead of leaving snarky comments on another website.

------
devmonk
So the trick is to make it suck by design. But, that opens opportunity for
people to make it suck less, right, even if making it suck less is the wrong
thing to do?

I think anything sucking is bad. You can have a site that is well-designed to
elicit a local flavor, which might mean "suck" to some, but it doesn't suck.

You can have an airport with bad chairs, but a built-in hotel. That wouldn't
suck.

~~~
devmonk
I could have worded what I said differently and it would have remained one
point.

I guess that in fact proves the point that something can suck and still suck.
I guess the problem was that it didn't suck by design.

