
Why Popular Sites Are "Ugly" - aristus
http://carlos.bueno.org/2007/03/why-popular-sites-are-ugly.html
======
python_kiss
Social networks, such as MySpace and Friendster, outsource graphic designing
to the users by letting them alter the source code. A user who spends two
hours customizing their profile is likely to become more loyal than he or she
would've been two hours earlier.

Of course, the side effect is that the site turns out to be chaotic; though,
it does leave the user with a more personalized experience. Humans have a
tendency to prefer choice when given the freedom to do so. And as it turns
out, they are not very good at it.

------
rfrey
To me the interesting sites are those the author would call ugly by design
(i.e, not the ones that are ugly because there was no money to hire a
designer, or because the programmer thought he was a designer.)

But with those, I think bueno misses the point: these sites represent the edge
of design. They are designers trying to create something unique, trying to
find a spark. When successful, it's usually a small crowd that "gets it":
they're passionate about it while many, maybe even a majority, hate it. If
it's truly good, eventually the majority gets converted. I'm in the majority
with the Honda Element, for example: to my shock I'm beginning to come around.

Most edge design, though, IS ugly, will gain only hedging admiration from the
designer's mother and averted gazes from his wife. But it's not intended to be
bad, it's intended to be revolutionary.

~~~
staunch
_"...not the ones that are ugly because there was no money to hire a designer,
or because the programmer thought he was a designer."_

Like Google or Craigslist? Necessity is not only the mother of invention, it
seems to have another child: great design.

~~~
rfrey
I didn't mean to suggest that there are no programmers who can do good design
-- I'm sure there are many. I suspect that most programmers (like most bus
drivers, or most doctors) aren't good designers, though. But unlike bus
drivers or doctors, programmers are often pressed into design work: sometimes
by their boss, sometimes by their ego. :)

------
danielha
Broad appeal and psychological acceptance seems to have a direct relationship
with poor design, doesn't it? It's one of those things that make you ponder.

It's undeniable that Virb is more beautiful than MySpace. But it seems to me
that superior design has that subtle hint of self-importance that becomes a
tougher sell over a modest offering.

(edit): Oops, didn't see this before:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=5760>

Looks like I pretty much just said what Paul did in his comment.

------
domp
I don't agree that 'ugly' is what popular sites are trying to do. I just think
that it's poor designers. I won't even bother with a site that looks like it
was made in the 90s. With a better designed site I have a better chance of
going back and using their service.

In my opinion you only have around 10 seconds to make an impression on me with
your website. If I see an ugly site I won't even bother looking any further.
I'll just click the back button and never go back to your site again.

~~~
aristus
Popular sites are not trying to be ugly -- they are trying to be popular. Look
at it this way: Myspace has $600 million dollars. If aesthetics were a
competitive advantage with the /average/ (i.e. not a web professional) user,
surely they'd spend some of that hiring Eric Meyers, don't you think?

~~~
domp
Yeah I see your point. But having an ugly site isn't going to help you gain
popularity.

I agree Myspace is probably not thinking of the design aspects. They're
focusing on expanding their product and adding features. But when I look at
Virb I think "Wow, this is what Myspace should look like". If Virb becomes a
big competitor I guarantee that Myspace will be changing their design very
quickly and calling up Eric Meyers.

