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.

94 Comments

Comment feed | Back to Top

Penlix
8 February 2006, 18:46 ( Permalink )

Well said, but trends are always trends, and if the amazon model has gone well, many would love to adopt. Thanks for the thoughts.

Tor Bollingmo
8 February 2006, 19:37 ( Permalink )

How should the Google page look like, then?

David Longworth
8 February 2006, 19:47 ( Permalink )

Couldn’t agree more.

Andy Rutledge
8 February 2006, 20:15 ( Permalink )

Hi Tor,

Funny you should ask:
http://www.andyrutledge.com/google-redux.php

Lorin
8 February 2006, 20:20 ( Permalink )

> How should the Google page look like, then?
Apparently it should have 1/2 the page set aside for tiny links to the google local site of every city you aren’t in.

Peter Costello
8 February 2006, 20:57 ( Permalink )

I agree with the fact that google, ebay and amazon nailed it on execution and were first to do so. I also agree that all the cool websites in the world will not make a shit sandwich taste good. But I wasn’t aware that there is an undesign philosophy? Is this a case of a couple of lazy wankers in marketing going “it worked for google, it’ll work for us” or is there really a school of designers who practice this?

BTW. Sensational design and interesting content. Good work!

JC
8 February 2006, 21:05 ( Permalink )

can i get an AMEN!

Well said. Would seem like a “duh” situation, but some people just “yes sir” everything they hear.

thanks for the post.

Tor Bollingmo
8 February 2006, 21:08 ( Permalink )

Andy Rutledge:
I’ve seen it, the google redesign is allmost the same, except some colors added. Does it differ so much that you would say that google design is not a bad design anymore?

Ann
8 February 2006, 21:09 ( Permalink )

Someone sent me this article. I couldn’t get through the first paragraph. Get over yourself.

monkey dancing shadow
8 February 2006, 21:27 ( Permalink )

Au contraire: bad design sells all the time, because a majority of users don’t have the vocabulary to critically analyse what bad design is (c.f. Windows etc). When having difficulties, users often see themself as the problem, not the tool that they are using.

Also, I would argue that your examples are not examples of bad design, they are just not examples of overdesign, or “designer’s design”. They may not aesthetically please you, but neither do they create massive impediments in their own functionality with their design, their usability is realtively good. Your praise of craigslist confuses your arguments more given your previous examples.

Everything can be improved, for sure, no interface is perfect, but I think you could have cooled down a bit and thought of some more applicable examples for your arguments before sitting down to write this article. A passionate yet shallow editorial in need of an editor.

[ -1, emotional ^_ ]

Comfy
8 February 2006, 21:32 ( Permalink )

Thanks Ann. I think you’ve discovered a way of solving our information overload problems. Simply stop reading things because you think the writer is egotistical. Sheesh.

I think this article was necessary, although a little repetitive in places Andy. Thanks.

Kero
8 February 2006, 22:05 ( Permalink )

bq. http://www.andyrutledge.com/google-redux.php

Nice article but “A” is up there ‘cause of coherence: it’s placed in the same position in any other Google service (Gmail, Groups, etc…).

Justin
8 February 2006, 22:06 ( Permalink )

>> Boingboing is one of the best-known and most popular weblogs because everybody loves to go there to hate on the Bush administration.

Really? Ok, I’ll give you that boingboingers tend to be liberal, but come on. There’s a whole world of interesting stuff to talk about, maybe a fraction of that is Bush related.

Excellent read btw, don’t mean to nitpic.

Susan
8 February 2006, 22:57 ( Permalink )

I really enjoyed reading this article, thank you! I love the voice in the article, and think this subject absolutely warrants it.

* I agree it would have helped to have additional applicable examples of “bad design” and “good design”. Maybe examples where bad design really did equate to poor business results? Or good design that led to successful business? etc
(Pics & diagrams are always nice too.)

* Another thought on the Google redux design—which I had seen another time, and really enjoy it being addressed!—the “search” and “I’m feeling lucky buttons” below search bar aren’t centered. This is inconsistent with the rest, what’s the thought behind that?

Benson
8 February 2006, 23:28 ( Permalink )

The endless time I’ve hear the client asked for Amazon-tab navigation or Google-simplicity is mind-numb. Then I’ll have explain to them that the project is better served with better design.

Bullshit it is but bucking the clients request a lot harder. Great article.

John
9 February 2006, 01:51 ( Permalink )

Those sites are not poorly designed. Maybe they are plainer and less aesthetically appealing to fussy graphic design types than some of the kickass modern CSS based sites, but looks aren’t everything. Looks are important, but looks alone are not design. And nearly everyone has opinions on how various popular sites should be reorganized or improved, so welcome to the club.

clint
9 February 2006, 04:04 ( Permalink )

Interesting piece,

I hadn’t heard about this trend of “success because of poor design” at all. Are you citing any sources in particular or is it just the “buzz”...

Paul D
9 February 2006, 10:35 ( Permalink )

Thank you for recognizing that Google and eBay have sucky design! The Google logo looks like someone’s nephew overdid it with a Photoshop bezel effect and Fisher-Price colours.

eBay is a design and usability nightmare. My wife runs an eBay store, and there are basic auction functions that should be one click only, and instead take five clicks and two log-ins, assuming she can even figure out how to do it in the first place. In fact, I’d say even their product sucks, but no one has come along and built a better one yet (at least, not one with the critical mass of customers required to succeed).

Joshua Kaufman
9 February 2006, 10:36 ( Permalink )

Clint: I hadn’t heard of this trend either. I respect the author’s viewpoint on this, but I would respect it more if he would site the sources of this trend.

York
9 February 2006, 10:44 ( Permalink )

Less or more

Lloyd
9 February 2006, 11:51 ( Permalink )

Interesting, but who on earth is saying “bad design = good website”? I have NEVER seen such a statement. Nearest is “no design can still mean good website” or “good design can’t save a bad website.” But the strength of your words implies loads of people are saying bad design = good website, and I’ve just never seen anyone say that.

Phil
9 February 2006, 12:37 ( Permalink )

“The Google brand has gravity, respect and delivers tangible results every minute of the day.”

THAT’S DESIGN, YOU DUMBASS. Design is not the color of a pixel.

Besides, this strawman argument that someone is out there saying “ugly sites are well-designed” is itself bullshit. No one is saying that.

mike
9 February 2006, 13:11 ( Permalink )

google is a well designed site, as it is easy to use it to achieve what i want to do…

Andy Rutledge
9 February 2006, 14:28 ( Permalink )

I appreciate everyoneâ€™s comments. I also appreciate your questions about the source of the idea that bad design + success = good design. And, true, in the context of this publication the article comes off as shallow and cursory. But it was not written for this publication, but rather for my own site. It appears here by invitation. If I had written it for a publication such as UX, Iâ€™d have taken more pains to cite specifics and tone down the â€œemphasisâ€ upon which I based the piece, contextually appropriate for my personal site.

The idea that I take issue with in this article comes from what Iâ€™ve read in a host of comments generated by many articles and discussions online over the past couple of years. I cannot cite specifics on this one, as I visit a great many sites and read dozens of articles and discussions each week â€“ and I donâ€™t regard individual comments as substantive unless foolish ideas gain a foothold in that context. But itâ€™s not my intention to build a straw man or fabricate a topic.

I assure all that if I had a beef with any certain well-known or influential individual I would name names and not mince words. Instead, Iâ€™m merely responding to a recurring nonsensical theme Iâ€™ve noticed over a period of time within the design community. Nonsense deserves to be answered and not left to gain footing.

Simon
9 February 2006, 16:07 ( Permalink )

Let’s be honest if you have a good product and a good business idea then no amount of bad design is going to hinder the internet companies you have described. Packaging a product on the other hand is an entirely different matter.

Your article is only focussing on large internet brands such as Google and Ebay, two simple ideas executed in a great way; leaving the competiton behind.

Your ideas don’t really apply to anything else but these types of companies.. seems like you rant on to much!

tino
9 February 2006, 16:26 ( Permalink )

don’t forget MYSPACE in all of this crap. ;)

JA
9 February 2006, 17:11 ( Permalink )

In summary:

_…feeding you a load of crap… time to call bullshit… boys and girls… if your product sucks, you suck… Googleâ€™s logo pretty much sucks… these companies that have suckass website designs… the design sucks… boys and girls…. if your product sucks, you suck…. weâ€™re talking about human behavior here, folks… stop swallowing tripe for cream… the emperor has no clothes… itâ€™s time to get upwind of the bullshit._

I feel like I just read a rant by a 12 year old!

joel
9 February 2006, 17:25 ( Permalink )

The December 2003 Wired Magazine featured a piece that asked several â€œexpertsâ€ in user interface and web design how they would redesign the Google home page. Several designs were submitted, including one by Joshua Davis who used visual display God Edward Tufte as a test subject, designing an incredibly complex and supposedly Tufte-esque Google UI. I canâ€™t find the exact quote, but Tufte rejected Davisâ€™ design, saying that the Google UI was perfect the way it was and shouldnâ€™t be touched.

I hate that Larry and Serge make so much money and that they get all the chicks, but that doesnâ€™t change the fact that the Google interface (web site if you will) is brilliant in its simplicity, and the search results are good, and thatâ€™s why it works.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/google.html?pg=12

Patrick
9 February 2006, 17:33 ( Permalink )

I think you’re focusing on the wrong aspect of Google by examining their homepage. Google works because of its results, not what its homepage looks like. I agree with you, Andy, that the homepage is crap. But really all I need from the Google homepage is a working search field. The real case study is in the results listings and in that arena, Google has done a marvelous job. Every search listing contains the information I need and it’s laid out properly. If I pass intelligent search parameters, I get intelligent results.

Not to demean your efforts (I think the Google Redux looks terrific and is eminently more usable) but even if the Google homepage was replaced with your Google Redux homepage layout, I don’t think it would significantly affect the number of people who use it or the frequency with which it is used. I’ll bet there’s a memo in Google HQ somewhere that says the homepage should never, ever be modified beyond recognition. The spartan, slightly cluttered look of the Google homepage says, “The homepage looks like this because we spend all of our R&D budget on improving the search results and developing other tools.” In the grand scheme, how much time does one spend looking at the Google homepage vs the results? There’s nothing to navigate and no info I need to parse through. When I really need to locate something on the Google website, guess what I use? Yep, the search, not the navigation.

“We’re so confident that our search is superior that we shun homepage development so that you’ll use search to navigate our website.”

Frank Petronio
9 February 2006, 17:40 ( Permalink )

Do you get a lot of clients when you write “suckass” and “shit” a lot?

Won’t disagree that eBay is clumsy but I think Google is brilliant. When it started out people gravitated towards it not because it was a better search engine than Yahoo – but because it was a simple clean page.

Now page two of Google sucks… but 99% of the users never get beyond the first page.

And the logo is great. It’s legible and the mods are fun. How many other logos are built to be modified daily?

unclewilly
9 February 2006, 17:50 ( Permalink )

Your piece may have a valid thesis, but it’s “written like a designer,” to use a favorite expression of mine. From paragraph two: “Websites like Boingboing, Google and eBay are successful in spite of their poorly designed sites . . .” Websites are successful in spite of their sites? Um. Also, why write “This is commercial success weâ€™re talking about, boys and girls. In commerce, if your product sucks, you suck” twice? Need an editor? I’m good, fast, and affordable.

Brian Faust
9 February 2006, 18:01 ( Permalink )

Google has to be a billion things to a billion people.

The best way to achieve that is by 1) not being complicated and 2) not changing hardly at all.

Since most non-tech people think Google is the front door to the internet, less and familiar are the best attributes.
—
I may agree that visually it does little for me as a designer. But as long as the field autofocuses upon page load, I’m fine.

george d girton
9 February 2006, 18:02 ( Permalink )

Richard Hendel asserts in his excellent book-format treatment of book design (“On Book Design”, beautifully designed, I might add, a pleasure to hold in your hand and to see) that whether a book is designed well or not, that is, whether a book designer has been hired and done their book design thing on the book, is generally not an indication of the book’s commercial success.

Alex Schleifer
9 February 2006, 18:26 ( Permalink )

A lot of people are coming back with “who cares if Google is ugly, the results count” replies. That is kind of the point Andy makes. The problem lies in that fact that because the product is so great people start thinking that the design had something to do with it and hence want to copy it. Trying to change Google’s branding is like trying to change a flag, you’re doomed even if your new design is technically better.

Good design might not always be required to make a business succeed but bad design certainly never helps. Super-simple isn’t always right, over-design never is and as someone once said, “more isn’t more, less isn’t more, just enough is more”.

Tor Bollingmo
9 February 2006, 18:48 ( Permalink )

Alex:
Since when did people copy of Google?
I like this one better, by the way: “Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.”
– Albert Einstein

Donnie Jeter
9 February 2006, 19:16 ( Permalink )

You should really try to avoid using words like “Suckass,” especially when you want to be taken seriously.

STILFX
9 February 2006, 19:38 ( Permalink )

Design is not just skin deep. Has anyone ever viewed the source code of Google? This is 2006 – who uses a font tag! Oh, and God forbid anyone of the supposed “designers” hating on this article ever try to validate 1 page of Google: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com

The design is RUBBISH!

Hoorah Andy! Love the Article…

Tor Bollingmo
9 February 2006, 20:04 ( Permalink )

That is because it’s hard to make a validating standard version of the Google frontpage, that is smaller in filesize, STILFX.

pwb
9 February 2006, 21:11 ( Permalink )

The reality is slightly different. Google and eBay, by not spending an inordinate amount of energy on “good design” enable themselves to expend more energy where it is of more value.

If the Google homepage matched your mock up, and by extension, the rest of the Google web site needed to follow that design, it would create a humongous amount of extra work to maintain and enhance.

So it is actually partially accurate to say that Google and eBay’s lack of “good design” is, in fact, a driver of their successes. We unfortunately cannot test this hypothesis, but I suspect that if eBay and Google would have done the necessary work to make their entire sites match your mock up, they may not be as successful as they have been.

Baxter
9 February 2006, 21:23 ( Permalink )

Tor, you’re kidding, right? I sure hope so. Making the Google home page lean and standards-compliant (while improving accessibility) would be trivial, and if it’s done properly the filesize would be quite a bit smaller. In fact, I thought I saw where someone had studied the matter and computed the bandwidth Google could be saving.

Tor Bollingmo
9 February 2006, 21:31 ( Permalink )

Baxter: url me, because I think google has thought this over, a lot.

Trevor Filter
9 February 2006, 22:19 ( Permalink )

I agree that it seems this article confuses style and design. While aesthetics are a critical component of information design, they’re not everything. This seems to be realized to an extent in your Google Redux article, but not here. (Sharp-looking mockup, by the way!)

I would argue that the Google homepage is well-designed, for the simple reason that the only two objects on the page that draw focus are the brand and the search box, and those are all that’s important to 99.9% of visitors. Beyond that, the page is designed to be small so it can load quickly (your version looks to be much more weighty, and when you serve as many page views per day as Google, it adds up).

This article singles out eBay and Google (and so does your personal site), when in fact I think that their designs are quite well done, not to mention easy-to-use. They simply tend to the very-uncluttered end of the spectrum (one could say “less-styled”).

Beyond that, I think your main point (that good product can pull poor design, if I’m interpreting correctly) is quite on-target. But good design can definitely supplement good product better. I also agree with other commenters that words like “suckass” and “shit” are unnecessary, even if this article was originally posted on your personal site.

And as a side-note: set any text in Catull, bevel it and fill with primary colors, and almost anyone will immediately associate it with Google. Now that’s branding.

TheElder
9 February 2006, 22:43 ( Permalink )

Okay…..how do I respond…....................Amen :)

Clark
9 February 2006, 23:23 ( Permalink )

You may or may not have a valid argument but it’s pretty hard to take you seriously in the manner in which you have presented it. You should have rewritten the article in a tone and manner more appropriate to a web site such as this. Leave the personal pandering to live journal.

Phil
10 February 2006, 02:28 ( Permalink )

“Iâ€™m merely responding to a recurring nonsensical theme Iâ€™ve noticed over a period of time within the design community. ”

Where? Who’s saying this? And who’s listening? This is the sort of argumentation that Fox News uses: “some people say you kill children, are you calling them liars?”

I say you are lying, sir. You are simply lying when you state the premise of this article. You do not have some guru in mind you don’t want to offend, and you cannot point to a “recurring…theme” that anyone is taking seriously.

Here’s the real theme: Google and ebay are massive successes by any measure. They have millions upon millions of successful customers. In what possible universe could you complain that design is holding them back?

Timc3
10 February 2006, 05:47 ( Permalink )

You totally miss the point of sites like google it seems, I agree with a lot of the comments in here about google working, google is well designed (though there is still room for improvement).

But your redesign is horridly unusable and just adds confusion and makes it look like any other page.

Brian Reyes
10 February 2006, 08:11 ( Permalink )

This article should be taken with a grain of salt as Andy did not originally intend to have it published professionally. It does have some interesting points, however, which is why UX Magazine requested it for their site. This was first written as blog post (more or less), which is why the language appears crude. In any case, the Google redesign is a fantastic example how there is improvement in many UIs we see and use daily. Andy’s post can serve as a wake up call for us to realize that there really ARE some ways we can improve on things, and that yes, even almighty Google can be fallible!

Aesthetics do matter to most people, think of any time youâ€™ve gone shopping for clothes or for a car. Good design can make our lives a little easier, and make us a little bit happier in the process. Ultimately you do have to have substance underneath that exterior for your product to be worthwhile, but it doesnâ€™t hurt to be a little sexy on the outside. Just look at what Apple has done, and what Windows Vista promises to do (finally Microsoft is getting it!).

designer
10 February 2006, 09:55 ( Permalink )

You’ve got to be kidding me.

”[craigslist] is not like eBay or Google, as it succeeds because of the design rather than spite of it…the layout is solid and design appropriate…”

Are you looking at the same sea of links I get when I go to craigslist.org?

Seriously though, I think you’ve totally missed the point of interface design as it relates to the success of a product:

* Bad product + bad design = no success
* Bad product + good design = no success
* Good product + bad design = no success
* Good product + good design = success

If the design of eBay/Google were so bad, people would not be able to sell/buy/search, and the sites would fall away to other competitors.

One last point: how can you get on your high horse about the design of these sites without any understanding of the companies’ business goals? Or are your judgements of these sites intended to be taken as “pure design, without constraints”? Yawn.

Andy Rutledge
10 February 2006, 10:50 ( Permalink )

I wholeheartedly endorse anyone’s choice to disagree with my premise in this article. Your thoughts are much appreciated and you often help to illustrate my point. I do, however, ask that you not take things out of context when taking me to task – as in criticizing my “redesign” efforts in the Google and eBay articles.

If you read the articles, you’d know that these were not my redesign efforts, but rather exercises to illustrate some specifices of design and usability. Google and eBay were merely my whippin boys, as they clearly have issues that should be resolved.

To do an actual redesign of either of these sites would require my having loads of information to which I’m not currently privy, and an extensive disovery process. Not to mention, a tidy sum of cash. But this was not my intent and I’ll appreciate your sticking to facts in your disagreements, not beating me up based upon your own distortions. Sometimes, reading articles is more informative than looking at them.

And for the nameless, faceless, annonymous individuals who are compelled to chime in here, don’t. If you’re afraid of letting on who you are, your comments are not worth anyone’s time. Go and misrepresent yourself to someone else. Real people’s comments are often worthwhile. Fake people’s, not so much. Thanks.

Marcel
10 February 2006, 12:07 ( Permalink )

How ignorant, anonymous folks making good points are just as important to listen to as people with their full name, address and phone/fax numbers displayed that make good points..

Also, your definition of design is a graphical one, right? “Design” = “pretty” right? Google is pretty. Ebay isn’t. Both work great, as their interface design seems to work even for my mom.

If you want to talk “design” as in “site looks pretty” you oughta start bashing those blogs out there that all look the same.

Seamus
10 February 2006, 12:21 ( Permalink )

“Boingboing is one of the best-known and most popular weblogs because everybody loves to go there to hate on the Bush administration.”

This is a laugher. You and I must get routed to a different boingboing.net. I’d say 1-in-50 posts even mentions Bush. And only 1 ad is anti-Bush related. In fact, using the Google engine on BoingBoing you only get a couple hundred posts on GWB, approx 25/year. That’s one post every two weeks. Bashing Bush has absolutely NOTHING to do with BoingBoing’s success.

Your analysis is more “suckass” than these design problems.

Jen
10 February 2006, 13:27 ( Permalink )

I wonder how many people criticizing this article are in fact bad designers themselves. We can all agree to disagree when it comes to the sites Andy has chosen to illustrate his point with but when I search the internet and come across “web design companies” that are creating bad MS Front Page site after site, it lends to his arguement. Many companies that we designers are designing for don’t have any clue what good design is, as witnessed by so many poorly designed company web sites. I say stop picking on his choice of language, sites he used to illustrate his point and start learning the art of design.

Marcello
10 February 2006, 14:06 ( Permalink )

Andy, you are a young, bright web designer who is passionate about your craft-Good for you! Your writing style does need work. You should not use words such as suckass and shit sandwich when discussing design of highly successful sites.

You are basically bringing up large corporate sites that have a long history (for the web) and are successful. Your rant seems more like talk from a frustrated web designer. You should try to work for one of these sites and see what really goes on behind the scenes. Much of what you see on screen is not the work solely of web designers employing the latest fades, gradients and CSS. The design is a result of a long iterative process where people on various levels have input on the final design.

Many think eBay’s designs are not up to par, but I disagree. eBay works because you don’t really have to explain to anyone how to use it. The information and links are easy to see. It may not be the most aesthetically pleasing, but it helps get the job done.

Google and other sites work on the same prinicpal. As a result, I would say that these sites actually employ good design. Not every site has to have the ubiquitous fades, bright colors, 3d logos and such that are the current style. They are making their own brand and sticking with it.

In the discussion there are many examples of other version of Google, but I really do not see how much “better” these designs are compared to the original Google site.
The design at:
http://www.andyrutledge.com/google-redux.php

Looks more like Microsoft’s search site. That design would be more detrimental to Google since it would dilute their brand. Plus, it uses blue which during the high flying 90s was more of a cliche. “I’d like a website with a rotating logo and make sure it is blue”

Kevin
10 February 2006, 15:02 ( Permalink )

Could you whine a little more? I read very little that offered any help whatsoever.

web
10 February 2006, 16:25 ( Permalink )

Though sometimes “over designing” can kill a good tool by accident. I agree bad design is not good for anything.

squareman
10 February 2006, 17:28 ( Permalink )

I’m not sure how some people can consider eBay a good interface design. I think the article nails the fact that it succeeds despite it’s designâ€”just as Word succeeds as a DTP program despite its user-combative nature. Word is a powerful, useful product and used by a huge user base; but it is also extremely difficult to use where it should be simple in some regards. Same goes for eBay.

But every time I’ve tried to use eBay, I am so frustrated by bad search results (so many unqualified hits) and the effort it takes to filter it down, that I swear I’ll never come back. It is the 800-pound gorilla that no one can take on. Even if another online auction product came online that was designed well, it would never succeed because of the community already built up within eBay. Would you rather have hundreds of thousands of potential bidders able to see your product or a few hundred? The former. But that’s not to say that eBay couldn’t make their site easier to use. Until they do, I probably won’t ever buy or sell off it again (especially since most items are sold by online quasi-stores instead of individual sellers and it’s hard to tell the differenceâ€”but that’s a different issue).

Martin
10 February 2006, 17:36 ( Permalink )

There is a reason the Google home page (for example) is like that is because it works. Google gets so many visitors a day that they can try placement of something for a couple of hours and quickly know whether the element works or not.
Everything they do is based on how the element adds to whatever they decide is the goal of the page.

Nice design would be, well, nice – but it doesn’t neccesarily mean that it’s succesful.

The same goes for eBay and Amazon. The Amazon site looks fairly nasty, but I’m sure it’s completely optimized for the conversion goals they set.

agm
10 February 2006, 18:53 ( Permalink )

Oooh, look, let’s add blue bars at the top and bottom. Then let’s move sign in link from one of THE standard locations it is found on pages all over the web.

I call bullshit. The redo is essentially the same as Google’s current site, minus some pizzazz.

AJ
10 February 2006, 19:00 ( Permalink )

Nice one. I have to say I agree.

Along the same lines, I did a theoretical redesign of Friendster… and oddly enough, when they relaunched, they’d incorporated a lot of the same stuff I’d been thinking about.

So these kinds of critiques do matter, and they do help. I do think Google is doing more to address usability / UI issues…we’ll just have to wait and see.

drx
10 February 2006, 20:08 ( Permalink )

Good design, good design, good design … only graphic designers need good design because when they see something they consider ugly, they suffer. But beautiful graphics are not an interesting status symbol anymore for corporations. Especially on the web. On the web things that look familiary made are more likely to succeed.

Despite of the technical functionality and the basic usability, Ebay looks like a bargain place and Google looks easy and simple.

Both are lies, Ebay is not a bargain place and Google is not easy and simple. So, goal of design accomplished!

Timo
11 February 2006, 12:29 ( Permalink )

Regarding the “redesign” of the Google interface, it seems fairly obvious that some level of interface design would be in order. However, I find the pronciples of the redesign flawed.

I think that we all agree that when redesigning a brand you have keep loyal to the principles and core-values of the brand. The front page of Google seems to be by far the most visible aspect of the brand. So extra care should be taken to maintain the principles behind the look and feel of the site.

On the usability side, Google has been, trough it’s history, a very tool-like, hence easy-to-use, site. No unnecessary flourishes or clutter, straight-to-the-point, the Google-logo being the only more flashy element in the page, bringing the brand and a more “personal” touch to the service. The simplicity of the site could be one of the reasons of itÂ´s success: it’s like a blank page providing you the possibilities to access the information that you want, not trying to push itÂ´s brand too much in your face and thus distancing people who already see too much ads in their surroundings.

This design might be unintencional, brought on by the lack of able designers at the time of launching the site, or for other reasons. The reason for the design doesnÂ´t matter, at the present day the visual feel of the site is a very strong part of the brand image of google. So very special care should be taken in modifying the page – which is exactly what Google is doing.

I’d argue that the basics of the design of the site are very sound. Problems seem to arise from the new content that has been necessary to incorporate in the design as the site has been growing. I surmise that that has been the idea behind the redesign also.

In the redesign, I’d stress the following:

1) maintain the tool like, very simple aesthetic. Refrain from adding a range of “translucent” colors, gradients and shines a’la MSN (even thought the logotype is in the style). Use text based navigation indicators etc. when possible. No over-design. It should be noted that this site is in very wide international use, and should not follow to any particular styles of different countries.

2) maintain the “blank-page” feel of the site. In the redesign the search-element still fits in to the original feel, even though there could be arguments against this. If other search-engines have done that, it doesnÂ´t mean that Google has to do it – maybe a equally funcioning and evident solution more in google-style can be found.

3)I disargree with the notion that the “personal” links at the upper part of the page break the design. A tool-like navigation for logging-in etc. is a quite typical element in web pages, that at least could be thought to become a standard if it already isn’t. Situating it above the main navigation is one typical place. It could be designed better, the content could change, it could be closer to the Google logo etc. etc., but a tool-navigation is not a bad idea.

4) if claim is presented, care should be taken to find something down-to-earth and “personal” that doesn’t water down the straightforward attitude of the brand, a task that would be better left to professionals.

I think the redesign of the page that we saw was hasty, even for an example. It more or less issued the right problems, but through easy solutions with no real thinking in the brand of Goole or the feel of the site. This kind of examples are dangerous when they get too much attention and work towards homogenizing the visual thinking (I’m not talking about usabality) of net-pages even more.

The task of a designer should be finding unique, instinctive solutions to problems, not copying sure-proof solutions from other sites.

I’d be very dissapointed if Google would go towards this approach – even though success can be expected, with this or other similar design.

Osman
11 February 2006, 12:31 ( Permalink )

Although I think Google’s site is as good as it needs to be, credit to Andy for giving us an insight. Most designers are too scared/lazy to even bother.

Ian McCowan
11 February 2006, 12:40 ( Permalink )

Speaking of style:

“Most companies put the cart before the horse.”

“Substance, not style.”

“You are allowed to look like a dog if your product is the catâ€™s meow.”

“The successful businessperson will always have a hot date to the dinner party.”

“So we should stop swallowing tripe for cream.”

“As designers, itâ€™s time for some of us to see that the emperor has no clothes.”

“We shouldnâ€™t relegate ourselves to simply sailing whichever way the wind is blowing this week. When the wind smells bad, itâ€™s time to get upwind of the bullshit.”

I couldn’t care less about the swearing; it was the clichÃ©s and truisms that got to me.

Andy Ortega
11 February 2006, 17:10 ( Permalink )

I agree with most of what has been said in the article from the design point of view. But if you think about it, Google is highly usable and that is due to the lack of elements around the page. There is another reason for that kind of ugly “simplicity”, which is that they always have to think about bandwitch, especially when you have +20 millions visits. There is page is only 14kb and when you add that up taking all the visits, it comes pretty high. It would be a loss to try and make their page looking better, if for that you have to lose so much bandwitch.

Mat
12 February 2006, 15:25 ( Permalink )

Maybe the design isnt great but there are always two elements to ‘web design’, not just the aesthetic. Google is easy to use – anybody who has never used a search engine before knows what to do as soon as they hit the page – as far as Im concerned that’s good design from a usability perspective. Any extra colour, layout or icons would detract from what the service is – a SERVICE. It simply provides a means for users to search. I highly doubt that people would consider their search results more pertinent with a blue background or different buttons.

Ebay and Amazon also do what they do and well. Most people in the world are capable of searching for records or bid items and buying them, and this is mainly because these companies spend thousands on reliable people who monitor the usability of the site.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on the design of some other sites out there which, again serve their purpose, such as Flickr or Kottke.org.

Spread the bullshit like butter, man!

Jose Fruta
12 February 2006, 16:45 ( Permalink )

This is really sweet stuff, congrats!

By the way, your page doesn’t have valid CSS.

Cheers!

Mat
13 February 2006, 09:30 ( Permalink )

Google’s main purpose is a search engine. The site is simple and uncomplicated and directs people dirctly to what they’re looking at. To me this is good design.

The revamped model you showed wasn’t a lot different. There was just the odd link move and color change, but the main purpose and focus of the page (the most important part by far) is exactly the same.

I can see your overall point, but using google was a bad example in my opinion. The article was a little long winded too but sparked debate. Cheers..

Pat Hobby
13 February 2006, 19:37 ( Permalink )

WHY is it bad design?? You have to give your reader’s examples of what specifically you think is bad design.

Spewing curse words like “suckass”, “shit sandwich” “you suck” and “bullshit” make you sound like you’re 17 years old. Or maybe you are.

Do people pay you for these articulate insights?

wendy
14 February 2006, 05:28 ( Permalink )

Are you saying its crap because it isnt pretty or because its not as use-able as it could be? – I think for a medium where the main intention is to efficiently spread information google is just fine, the web isnt supposed to be an art gallery.

R-Sin
15 February 2006, 00:09 ( Permalink )

Is it a matter of design vs. style? Some people really like wood paneling in their homes even though we might agree that large expanses of white walls and clean architectural lines are “good” design. Google appeals to the masses because it’s not pretentious. Some people really don’t like OXO kitchenware—too “fussy” or “elitist” even if it’s more functional and practical. The effect of design is psychological, not just ergonomic. Some of my subjects in usability studies have said they like the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) in terms of its design—hard for me to believe, but I get what they are saying. It’s simple, straightforward, and intelligible to them, perhaps because that’s exactly how they would design the page. So what do we mean by good design and are we just encouraging our biases? I agree that design should be effective, but effective means easy-to-use, not necessarily “pretty”.

volker
15 February 2006, 07:15 ( Permalink )

Thanks Andy for your article. I read it this morning with delight. We often have to fight such argumentation when it comes to the layout of intranet UI and stuff like that. By the way, to me the visual aspect is only one – but very important – aspect of design. The process and execution is also truly important – as you stated, too.

marty
15 February 2006, 07:37 ( Permalink )

heya from germany.

you know I really think you put it down. ok some of your thoughts were a little to harsh, in my opinion but I pretty much agree on you.

well I think we shouldn’t bitch about the ebay design… it was their choise. ok, I really hate their designs and for me as a customer it is always a pain in the ass to go shopping on a page that looks like crap…

BUT it’s not our problem… or is it?
I don’t believe so. just let em do whatever the hell they wanna do.

mfg marty

halans
15 February 2006, 11:17 ( Permalink )

How does the ‘halo effect’ come to play? Research has shown that web users judge sites in the blink of an eye.
Potential readers can make snap decisions in just 50 milliseconds. That is, users were shown a screenshot in just 50 milliseconds, and then they had to rank them.
These results were then compared with the regular ranking of the sites.
http://www.guuui.com/posting.php?id=1730

Andy Rutledge
15 February 2006, 19:56 ( Permalink )

Thanks for your feedback and questions.

Regarding the last few questions/observations that have been posed here, much of what “should” be accomplished is governed by elements of fundamental artistry. These fundamentals are rooted in how humans typically perceive and find meaning in various sorts of lines, forms, colors, compositional arrangements, textures, etc…

What we as designers should begin with is the overall function of the page/interface and then appropriately apply the theme/message/mood that is to be conveyed – all tempered by demographically specific preferences and user habits and the client’s business aims.

Starting with these basics that are relevant to “humans” (fundamentals of artistry), we can then begin to tighten our effort toward those things that are relevant to a particular demographic and apply the relevant design/layout/function characteristics as we tighten the focus – in layers.

In the redesign exercises I did for Google and eBay, many of the style decisions were simply arbitrary – as I am no privy to the mountain of relevant info necessary for making informed stylistic decisions for these companies. However, the layout, design and compositional elements of those exercises were meant to be relevant to those pages. That was the whole purpose of the exercises.

Style was a non-factor – beyond that of entertainment – in what I’m talking about in the exercises and in this particular article. Style is not design and I find it interesting that I’ve been admonished of that fact here. Interesting that style was what most seem compelled to remark on. Not the point. Not even very relevant here.

alain
15 February 2006, 23:48 ( Permalink )

Andy, you’re right. Style is not design. But you seem to be equating the two in this article. For example, you write:

“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 readersâ€™ #1 enemy. Substance, not style.”

So, I think you need to clear up a few things for your readers. By ‘design’ do you mean the functionality of the site, the layout of the site, the look and feel of the site, or some sort of combination?

To me, your article appears to focus on look and feel, which is indeed style. Design in the context of the web, refers to so much more than aesthetics; it’s also closely associated with usability. To that end, it’s hard to argue that Google is poorly designed.

As for your use of crude language, I couldn’t give a shit…

Andy Rutledge
16 February 2006, 02:02 ( Permalink )

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.

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.

Jonathan
16 February 2006, 13:34 ( Permalink )

Andy, your Ebay and Google reduxes (reduxi?) are on the money. They make both sites a helluvalot more aesthetically pleasing and usable – especially Ebay which needed the most work out of the two. I certainly learned a few things from reading about your process. Keep up the good work!

Tenassian
18 February 2006, 22:02 ( Permalink )

Andy, is good design user-tested? Like this site, for example. It looks “good” aesthetically, but the font is several sizes below what has been tested on other sites and considered “readable”. I’d say the same goes for the size of text on your own website.

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.

Alanna
19 February 2006, 23:01 ( Permalink )

I know you are going through a roasting in all these comments, but I want to thank you for this article. It’s voiced a lot of my own concerns and opinions.

Tom
20 February 2006, 00:14 ( Permalink )

It’s too bad that a lot of the people who commented on this completely missed the point of the article.

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.

jesuscow
21 February 2006, 18:02 ( Permalink )

You do have a point… yeah, you do… do like your Google redesign… yeah, I do…

CB
22 February 2006, 05:33 ( Permalink )

The fact that sites like google, graigslist and others like it are popular is because they are basic. Some times, We want to get to a site only to do what we need to do. Google is a search engine and all they need to provide is a search box. That is all I am after. Not commercials, not banner ads or anything else.

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.

ech0
22 February 2006, 22:59 ( Permalink )

I think the google design is fine just how it is. Some of you want to complicate it with more colors & clutter, right now its simple and effective, it works—the site is branded very well. To change the design would most likely tick alot of users off, and send them running away, because googles simplicity & results is what attracks many people to the service. Those who want more clutter go to yahoo (not that their design is bad, their design is actually pretty good, but they are more of a portal site with much more information).

“Style for itâ€™s own sake, Alain. Style for itâ€™s own sake. Thatâ€™s what I meant when I said â€œstyle is not design.â€ 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.

ech0
22 February 2006, 23:44 ( Permalink )

It seems as though I’ve misinterpretted your meaning of style. I was reading the meaning you gave to it on your site. My point was to style in the traditional sense, in your context its the theme. So we pretty much agree. But my point still stands, to those designers that use those trends & repetitive “styles” in their work. The whole web 2.0 look-a-likes are getting ridiculous.

Geoffrey
23 February 2006, 17:23 ( Permalink )

If everything looked pretty, what would designers have to bitch about?

Ian A. Paul
1 March 2006, 02:53 ( Permalink )

Hey, just because something has the appearance of not being well-thought out, like it’s got stuff that was just stuck on, or pasted in, in what appears to be an after thought, doesn’t mean it’s poorly designed. The coolest looking vacuum cleaners out there aren’t the ones that are sleeek, with hidden compartments for their attachments; no, they’re the ones where the attchments stick off the exterior of the machine, everywhere, in all directions.

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.

Ian A. Paul
1 March 2006, 03:01 ( Permalink )

By the way, although there are some things I would change about the Google Redux, it is a vastly superior design; it’s more interesting, less distracting, and better organized.

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.

Horatio Goldstein
10 March 2006, 15:01 ( Permalink )

Not to be rude, but I’d only take criticism of the design of multi-billion dollar internet companies seriously from someone who impresses me with his own design.

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.

J. David Miles
11 March 2006, 07:04 ( Permalink )

After reading the article, or rather ‘wading’ through it, I went on to read the comments before posting. Needless to say though I will do so, I did not read every comment; though I believe I made it half way through before skipping down.

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.

Brian Griffin
11 March 2006, 07:18 ( Permalink )

Horatio,

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.

Ben
12 March 2006, 19:59 ( Permalink )

Horatio Goldstein, using your own point. Shouldn’t you show us some of your work to prove you are an accomplished designer, before we take your criticism of his portfolio?

Eoghan McCabe
18 March 2006, 20:10 ( Permalink )

J. David Miles:

”... 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.

JoshB
10 April 2006, 22:13 ( Permalink )

Andy, sorry for the anonymity, not quite ready to step from behind my screen yet.

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.

Matt
25 April 2006, 03:39 ( Permalink )

JoshB,

Using “mute” instead of “moot” instantly kills your credibility in my eyes.

-Matt

Comments closed for this article.

About the author:

Andy Rutledge

Creative Director, NetSuccess

Member of the design and development team at NetSuccess in Dallas, Texas. A CSS/Standards evangelist and who enjoys spending part of each day shoving those principles down the team's collective throat. You can read his blog here.

Also by this author The Layers of Design: the style layer

Recent Comments MSNBC visual newsreader
by: Zee M Formula 1 Video
by: Altapills Free sound effects & loops
by: rcrybmpykk Formula 1 Video
by: Gene Cho Logo Design - 5 Types of Marks
by: wxpogtj Formula 1 Video
by: pepperstix Rocking navigation for music festival
by: John McRee Logo Design - 5 Types of Marks
by: ecegjbxcsi Logo Design - 5 Types of Marks
by: ngiisjyds Modernista!
by: Dmoney