

The Surprising Truth About Ugly Websites (they perform better) - nickb
http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2006/mar/27prt.html

======
pg
This guy is confused. There are a lot of ugly sites that perform badly too. In
fact, the average ugly site probably does a lot worse than the average nice
one.

I think what he means to say is that (a) simplicity is so important that
simple and ugly works better than beautiful and complex, and (b) if you have
enough drawing power by other means, you can get away with bad design.

~~~
Kelevra
He quite explicitly says that ugliness (quite apart from simplicity) actually
has some advantages, like earning the trust of a certain class of users.

It's fine to disagree, but to suggest that he's "confused" when he's stated
that so clearly is kind of condescending.

I think he may be right, and I think the "ugly == trustworthy" idea is also
lent credence by the hideous ads in small newspapers, in "Coupon Clipper" type
mass-mailings, ugly signs for small local businesses, etc.

~~~
pg
He has made up this elaborate theory that ugly sites sell because they're
ugly, when Occam's razor says they sell despite being ugly. Thinking that
muddy can accurately be called confusion.

~~~
Kelevra
"Elaborate?" His notion is, if anything, radical in its simplicity.

Websites, advertisements, et al. do not exist in a vacuum. If websites "sell
despite being ugly" then the whole design business is a scam, and at the end
of the day you've got a much more complex situation to explain. What does
Occam's razor tell you about that?

The point he's making is that design sends a message. Certain types of "bad"
design included. And that certain types of "bad" design send a message that
may actually appeal to some users. Is that really so elaborate, so confused?

~~~
pg
I didn't mean elaborate in the sense of how many words it takes to express.

------
mechanical_fish
Besides being ugly, what do PlentyOfFish, Ebay, Craigslist and MySpace have in
common? They are sites which are built entirely around user-created content -
the more of it, the better.

Ugly works well for these sites because it's inviting. There is no shame in
posting blurry pictures, poorly spelled prose, or badly edited movies on an
ugly site. After all, ugly is the norm there.

It's kind of embarrassing to see your own clunky prose and ugly photos stuck
in the middle of a beautifully designed page. Unless, of course, you are a
troll or a vandal, but what site wants to attract those?

Would you feel comfortable holding a yard sale in an upscale mall, a few steps
from the Apple Store? Probably not. The junk from your basement would look
pretty shabby by comparison. The clientele is all wrong. People might laugh at
you. You would feel better - and maybe have better sales - if you set up shop
at the flea market, or on a street corner. PlentyOfFish, eBay, and Craigslist
are in the flea market business.

Of course, if you're trying to sell your legal services, attract paying
subscribers, or encourage your users to contribute only the highest-quality
content, ugly is probably the wrong design for your site.

~~~
cx01
"It's kind of embarrassing to see your own clunky prose and ugly photos stuck
in the middle of a beautifully designed page."

Good point, but one could argue that ugly people post their photos on POF not
because the site is ugly, but because there are lots of ugly people on POF and
therefore the standards are just lower.

------
tx
I disagree with him. Professional looking web site is yet another step higher
in delivery of "quality feel" your business may either project to customers or
not.

I am inclined to think that craigslist, ebay an plentyoffish are rather
exceptions. Every single one of them has very significant reasons to explain
their success. So significant that design got irrelevant.

Certainly there is more to succes than a pretty looking HTML/CSS, but saying
that ugliness sells is just wrong.

------
acgourley
At one point Ebay wasn't so ugly, it was more par for the course. While it was
rocketing to popularity it had a simple and clean design (iirc). Of course,
since then it did two things wrong:

1) never kept up with current design expectations 2) never really refactored
despite a feature influx.

~~~
asdflkj
I think everything went exactly right. Most people who use Ebay know it like
the back of their hand, simply from experience. Gradually adding new stuff
isn't stressful for users, compared to a redesign, and rocking the boat is the
last thing Ebay wants to do, considering that their only advantage over
competitors or potential competitors at this point is momentum.

~~~
acgourley
So they are being conservative because they can only cash in on their momentum
due to being so conservative...?

------
tipjoy
In the end of this article, the author states that "In Conclusion X It's Not
Necessarily Ugliness That Sells." He then goes on to plea with people to
consider their usability over their aesthetic design. This seems a somewhat
weak ending given the rest of the article, however reasonable this conclusion
may be.

Furthermore, to quote myself: "...one of my favorite anecdotes from Blink is
the tale of the identical ice cream: the same ice cream was wrapped in two
different packages, one plain, the other fancy, and taken around to the public
for taste tests. People actually reported that the ice cream in the 'fancier'
package _tasted_ better. What's great about this story is that it's an
excellent way to explain to someone the value of beauty to usability. Given
two functionally identical products, users will believe that one is _easier to
use_ simply by virtue of it being aesthetically pleasing. I once saw a
presentation at a UPA (Usability Professionals Assoc) Conference where a study
showed just that - a product with identical information architecture was run
through two usability tests: one where the product had a rudimentary look and
feel, and one where the look and feel had been touched up by a graphic
designer. User data showed that people felt the prettier version was easier
for them to use, even though it took them the same time to complete tasks in
both versions. Now, as an interaction designer myself, I would hope this
argument is never used to dismiss the importance of interaction design and
information architecture. We can't use aesthetics to 'put lipstick on the
pig,' as one of my coworkers is fond of saying. But if you've taken the time
to make a really usable product which meets a user need, imagine how much
people will love it if you ALSO make it beautiful. That, for me, is the
definition of a "delightful experience." "
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38839>)

------
samson
In some ways I feel compelled to agree with his point, even though almost
every thought in my mind goes contrary to that.

People trust the Wall street journal which has a fixutre of using Times Roman
for most of their articles. I think it would advantagous at least intially for
some sites to jump on that where their content depends on trust that the site
has not yet acquired on their own. Ugliness (if you want to call it that) may
work over a bubbly fonty web 2.0 site.

At the same time I agree with brlewis expectations idea of the user. If I
wanted to put my photos anywhere it would be a disney like bubbly, fonty like
site.

But all this is just a view on what works initially (or on first glance),
afterwards it still up to the site to retain and grow their user base. And
thats based on content not ugliness or beauty.

~~~
acgourley
Ugly and conservative are not the same thing, in fairness to the WSJ.

------
mynameishere
When "pretty" equals "childish", ugly will of course always win.

------
Goladus
I think this guy also just has weird ideas about what's ugly. I don't think
plentyoffish is ugly. It's not gorgeous, but it's far from ugly.

There is definitely a point when certain kinds of beauty become uninviting to
certain kinds of people. It's like room with furniture so fancy that one feels
uncomfortable, like an intruder, just by sitting on it. But I don't really
think his argument conveyed how that happens with websites.

------
eusman
it's like comparing a good comedian actor vs a good looking actor. e.g. Danny
Devito vs Brad Pitt. You just cant.

Both make money, both are famous. But for different reasons. But there are
cases of beautiful/comedians that don't perform equally well.

So, you can't say that un ugly looking site will perform better. Usually ugly
sites don't function well. The whole thing is about flow/simplicity/usability.

Uglyness is so relative and differs to all individuals.

For example, would you consider not painting your Ferrari's carbon fiber
indoors and pedals uglyness? The point is that beauty some times cannot serve
the purpose needed or it just has different variables. And in this case, you
wouldn't show the beauty of what this car is made of if you went with the
paint!

